If Barack Obama were the CEO of a private corporation he would be:
- Fired for incompetence bordering on idiocy.
- Indicted by the SEC for fraud.
- Sent to jail for a very long time.
- Sued successfully by his investors for billions of dollars.
However, because he’s a crooked politician, he is immune to all rational consequences.
ObamaCare is a tsunami of laws that are not really laws. They are a series of random improvisations. Something happens because of ObamaCare. That something is always ghastly, and Obama, improvising an oily El Presidente of a banana republic, proclaims a new set of laws that nullify the old — but maybe not. Perhaps the old laws will still be enforced. No one knows. Not even the hilariously self-assured and solemn El Presidente.
A little history lesson. Back in the 60s, the New Left—Obama’s mentors: Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright, Derrick Bell, Bill Ayres, etc.— realized that Marxist rhetoric, “the struggle of the proletariat”, was kind of toxic, not to mention irrelevant, in a prosperous, upwardly mobile America. Thus, these American Communists skillfully performed a makeover on their language and image. The proletariat was replaced—and this was a brilliant move—by Social Justice. A cuddly label that masks the reeducation gulags to which it inevitably leads.
Just ask Duck Dynasty Christian Phil Robertson. He’s on the receiving end of the Social Justice buzz saw.
The totalitarian ideology of Communism was slyly transformed into the seemingly benign Green Movement, Global Cooling/Warming/Whatever Hysteria, war against traditional marriage juggernaut, and of course, the enabling of IslamoNazism under the banner of multiculturalism.
ObamaCare, like Communism/Socialism is a top down, one-size-fits-all scheme that denies individuality in favor of the collective.
Obama and the Democrats claim to care about the poor, the sick, the huddled middle class. But in truth, they care about government. And government is made up of bureaucrats, a universe of malignant Orwellian bureaucracies.
Governments and bureaucracies do not care about people.
Governments and bureaucracies care about rules and regulations.
The human misery that Obama and the Democrats have unleashed on the American people, in collaboration with the media lapdogs, is only just beginning.
As if ObamaCare’s botched website, coverage cancellations, and higher costs were not bad enough, the Obama Administration has quietly dealt yet another blow – this time striking millions of the nation’s most vulnerable seniors. Specifically, the Obama Administration has decided to deeply cut funding for the Medicare program’s home health benefit as a way to help pay for ObamaCare.
The Administration made this announcement very quietly, waiting to do so until the very end of the last Friday before Thanksgiving, perhaps thinking that most people would not be looking.
To be sure, the timing of the Administration’s quiet announcement did keep it out of sight – for a while. That ended on December 12th, however, when the Washington Examiner broke the story in an article headlined “ObamaCare forcing 14 percent cut in Medicare’s home health program.” FOX News and the Daily Caller have also picked up this story, so full attention is now being paid to this unprecedented cut – and the harm it will do to frail seniors across America.
As the Examiner’s Richard Pollock wrote, “An estimated 3.5 million poor and ill homebound senior citizens will wake up on New Year’s Day to discover ObamaCare has slashed funding for their home health care program.” He’s right: on January 1st, the Obama Administration will sharply cut Medicare funding for home healthcare services.
Totaling a whopping 14 percent between 2014 and 2017, this cut is the maximum allowable under the ObamaCare law. The Administration had the discretion to cut less, or even to make no cuts at all. But they decided to impose the deepest cut made possible by the Affordable Care Act (shouldn’t we be calling this the “Horrible Care Act”?) legislation. And in doing so, they will shift billions of dollars from Medicare to ObamaCare.
This cut is not only unprecedented in its magnitude – it will have a direct and devastating impact on the millions of ailing seniors who want to stay in their homes and not have to move to a facility.
This year, Medicare home health services were delivered to approximately 3.5 million Medicare beneficiaries. According to the federal government’s own data, these seniors are older, poorer and sicker than the Medicare beneficiary population as whole. Many of these seniors also reside in rural communities, where home health care is especially important because other sources of treatment are often located many miles away.
The Medicare home health benefit is also of critical importance to younger Americans. Families across America depend on home health services to help them care for their aging parents. Having a skilled nurse come to their homes to deliver needed treatment not only means that Mom and Dad don’t have to go into a nursing home – it also means their adult daughters and sons can balance caring for their parents with raising a family and earning a living.
In light of its importance to millions of seniors and their families, the Medicare home health sector has been one of the nation’s leading creators of new jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, thousands of Americans find employment every month in the home health field. Just as important, these jobs are being created by small businesses, which constitute more than 90 percent of all providers of home health services.
But all that’s about to change.
Hidden on page 117 of the regulation that the Obama Administration quietly released on that Friday evening is a stunning admission: “approximately 40 percent” of all providers of home health services face net losses as a result of this Medicare cut. Put more plainly, 4-in-10 of all the providers on whom homebound seniors depend face the threat of bankruptcy and closure as a result of ObamaCare.
To my knowledge, this is the first time that any regulation has been issued by any Administration with the knowledge that it would put nearly half of the people it impacted out of business. Indeed, this ObamaCare cut to Medicare is so severe that thousands of small businesses may be forced to close, and hundreds of thousands of quality jobs could be lost – directly impacting the millions of homebound seniors who depend on them.
The impact that ObamaCare’s Medicare cut will have on seniors, families and small businesses is widely projected to be severe. What is not yet known, however, is the impact this cut will have on U.S. politics. In 2010, the revelation that ObamaCare would slash Medicare funding so angered senior voters, that they helped give Republicans control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Now that these cuts are being imposed, the Democrats who voted for the Affordable Care Act face the possibility of losing their Senate majority when senior voters return to the polls in November.
Indeed, with Medicare so negatively impacted by ObamaCare, an important question will soon be put to the millions of seniors, families, and providers who care deeply about home health: what answer will they have to ObamaCare’s New Year’s Day surprise?
Death Panel cartoon is from Director Blue Blogspot.
Very off-topic when we’re discussing such a Scrooge, but I wish all the Christians on this website a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy New Year.
Well a Merry Christmas to all! Time to reflect, draw breath and go after them again.
Gee, it just gets worse, don’t it?
I like your history lesson Robert. A friend put it together a few years ago, but I’ve never seen it writ so succintly (and to think I once thought screenwriters could only pen dialogue!). To quote the overrated Doors “They got the guns but we got the numbers, gonna win, yeah we’re taking over!”
Strange that Australia was once considered a far more left-wing nation than the US, yet even our recently departed ALP govt was more conservative than the dingbats you’ve got in the Executive.
F’rinstance, our govt healthcare, known here as Medicare, has been around since 1971 and is funded by a levy on our annual federal tax returns (no local or state taxes here) and if you’ve private health insurance you get a rebate. Medicare doesn’t cover everything, but it covers most and provides a decent level of medical care for everyone. So it aint as if Barry had to look too far to find a working model, if healthcare was what he was really concerned about.
And, given that it’s Christmas Eve here as I write, I’d like to share my alltime favourite Christmas song with the Seraphic Secret readers:
I Want A Hippopotamus For Christmas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oOzszFIBcE
My favorite Christmas carol is “It Came Upon a Midnight Clear.”
At least the intentions of Obamacare are good, right? Right?
If not, there is nothing good about this. Typical Democrat pablum.
I believe it was Medicare that was the first cause for distorting medical care prices. When it started in the mid 60s the prices the government would pay were roughly comparable to the market.
As the program grew and the government could not keep up with the existing price schedule, the Medicare prices dropped – to the point a lot of Drs today don’t want Medicare patients.
And the market has to compensate for Medicare prices that don’t cover costs, so guess who pays for that?
And with the Government now getting even more involved…..
ROBERT J. AVRECH: ObamaCare, like Communism/Socialism is a top down, one-size-fits-all scheme that denies individuality in favor of the collective.
ObamaCare has much more flexibility than Medicare, which is a single payer system. In any case, long term costs for Medicare will have to be addressed. Glad to see this blog is a big supporter of Medicare.
ObamaCare has much more flexibility than Medicare, which is a single payer system.
So you’re against single-payer. Okay. But it’s not exactly a secret that Obamacare is a first step toward instituting a single-payer system. First they break the system we have in place, make it impossible to get decent insurance at a reasonable price b/c of the ridiculous government mandates. Then they are just forced to replace it with single payer, b/c hey, surprise, millions of people are suddenly without insurance.
kishke: So you’re against single-payer.
Not necessarily. There are many paths to universal coverage. ObamaCare is a market-based solution based Republican proposals, and modeled in Romney’s plan in Massachusetts.
We were just noting that the original post seemed to support single-payer Medicare, while denigrating the market-based ObamaCare.
Market-based solution? Ha! It’s not market-based to require people to buy policies loaded with expensive items that they don’t need, or to require insurance companies to sell those policies, or to forbid companies to sell low-priced high-deductible catastrophic care policies that many people would love, or to prohibit the purchase of insurance across state lines, or to force companies to provide “insurance” to people with pre-existing conditions, and on and on. Go sell your snake oil to someone who’s buying. I know better.
So you support Medicare, what Reagan terms socialized medicine, and the increased taxes necessary to continue the program at current levels of expenditures.
You don’t? You think it should be cut to fund Obamacare?
Just wanted to make sure we understood that the original poster was expressing support for Medicare.
Yes, we support Medicare. Continuing the program will require reining in costs, as probably some increased taxes, as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/24/heres-how-obama-is-cutting-medicare/
Ah, so you don’t think it should be cut to support Obamacare. Good.
As for the article you reference, so far as I’m concerned it’s just more fine talk about how wonderful things will be under the new regime. I’ve heard enough fine talk — i.e. lies — from Obama on that score to last me some time now. We all know how this is going to end if it’s allowed to go forward, and it won’t be pretty, unlike the picture painted by the shills at the WP.