No, Repealing the "Medical Devices Tax" is Not a Good Idea

Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, industry lobbyists, Republicans, and Conservative Democrats have taken aim at the "Medical Devices Tax" in the bill, used to help finance the legislation. They say it's a job killer. It turns out that it's not.

he CRS report reaffirms what we’ve said repeatedly:  the tax, which will raise $26 billionover the next decade to help pay for health reform, has only a very limited economic impact, contrary to industry lobbyists’ dire predictions.

• “The effect on the price of health care,” CRS says, “will most likely be negligible because of the small size of the tax and small share of health care spending attributable to medical devices.”
• “The drop in U.S. output and jobs for medical device producers due to the tax is relatively small, probably no more than 0.2%.”
• “[I]t is unlikely that there will be significant consequences for innovation and for small and mid-sized firms.”
• “The tax should have no effect on production location decisions, since both domestically manufactured and imported medical devices are subject to the excise tax.”

In other words, the tax is not harmful, and those who want to get rid of it should explain how they plan to make up for the $26 billion in lost revenue. This tax isn't costing jobs or productivity, but repealing it just hurts the effectiveness of the Affordable Care Act.  

Read More

The Difference Between Insurance Companies and "Obamacare" is Important

Republican Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis suffered a horrible loss in late October, when her husband died of a massive heart-attack in his sleep. Her husband, former Democratic Wyoming State House member Alvin Wiederspahn, was apparently also having issues with his health insurance enrollment on the Affordable Care Act exchanges in Washington, D.C. Rep. Lummis decided to take this issue up in a Congressional hearing this past week though, and completely seems to have confused the issue:

Alvin Wiederspahn, a former Democratic member of the Wyoming state House, died in October of a heart attack in his sleep. He was 65. Lummis recounted the experience to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Administrator Marilyn B. Tavenner, who was called to testify before the House Oversight Committee on transparency issues regarding the Affordable Care Act. 

The Wyoming Republican said that even though her husband was enrolled for insurance in the D.C. health insurance exchange, "when we filed claims, we were told we were not enrolled in Obamacare." The couple filed claims once more, Lummis said, and once again they were told they were not enrolled.

"My husband was having chest pains at the time that he was told we were not enrolled in Obamacare, and come to find out, he didn't have all of the tests that he was advised by his physician to have," said Lummis. "So on October 24, a week before the election, my husband went to sleep and never woke up."

Lummis said that her husband had chosen to forgo a test prescribed by his doctor -- a decision, she said, that was partly due to the confusion over his enrollment status.

"I'm not telling you that my husband died because of Obamacare," she said. "He died because he had a massive heart attack in his sleep. But I am telling you that during the course of time that he was having tests by a physician and was told we were not covered by Obamacare, that he then decided not to have the last test the doctor asked him to have."

First off, it's a really sad story. Second off though, bad health outcomes have been a part of our system for a long time, so this is not a new thing to "Obamacare." Third though, and maybe most crucial here, there is no product called "Obamacare," you are buying a private-market product from a health insurance company.

I'll take a bit of a leap of faith and presume that Wiederspahn and Lummis went on the exchanges, picked a plan out, and paid their premiums each month, because they probably did. At that point, they became enrolled in a plan offered by a private company. At that point, basically the reforms of the Affordable Care Act were no longer relevant. At that point, it was old fashion health insurance bureaucracy, where you are subject to their "glitches" in administration. It sounds like the company they picked did a tragically bad job tracking who their paying customers are. That is awful, and you have to feel for this family to have to suffer through this. It is something that happened before "Obamacare," and will happen after, as long as companies administer health care how they do.

It's important though that we don't accept this as a substantive attack on the Affordable Care Act. The Department of Health and Human Services does not administer the insurance of people buying plans on the exchanges, the companies selling insurance on the exchange do. HHS is not the responsible party for the insurer (quite literally they are not, if you were to sue over an event like this). This has a lot less to do with "Obamacare," and a lot to do with poor client services.

Read More

Ben Carson is Confused, Believes He's in Nazi Germany

Ben Carson is a fool, and continues to prove it:

In elaborating on those comments Wednesday, he again suggested that the U.S. "government is using instruments of government, like the IRS, to punish its opponents."

Pressed by Blitzer on whether the comparison was appropriate, Carson argued his focus on the specific words was "part of the problem."

"What you were doing is allowing words to affect you more than listening to what was actually being said. And that's part of the problem," he said.

"You are just focusing on the words 'Nazi Germany' and completely missing the point of what is being said," he added.

He was also asked about comments that Obamacare was the "worst thing" that's happened in the U.S. "since slavery." Carson said whether the health care reform law was worse than other crises that have gripped the nation, like the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 or the Great Depression, is "not the point."

Carson: Race relations have gotten worse under Obama

"The point of what I'm saying...is a major fundamental shift of power has occurred," from the people to the government, and "if we continue down that road the United States of America becomes something very different than it was intended to be."

No, Ben, you don't get to say "America is like Nazi Germany," then act like people are crazy to call you on the carpet for that. No, America is not running death camps to systematically kill any group of Americans, nor are we on the road to that. No, enforcing actual IRS law is NOT at all like Nazi Germany, nor is it a slippery slope towards there. No, you don't get to say "Obamacare" is the worst thing since slavery in this country, therefore worse than 9/11, and not have to defend that comment for what it is. And no, finally, my buying an insurance plan on the exchange did not make the government more controlling over me, at all, so there was no shift "away from the people."

This is not about America being "too politically correct," or "pc" as this imbecile calls it- it's about Ben Carson being an absolute idiot who is unfit for public office. While a neurosurgeon is not usually classified as stupid, in the case of Carson, his political view are stupid, not well thought out, and those of a person who really doesn't know a lot about the government. His presence being discussed as a candidate for President is utter nonsense and shows what a disgusting mess conservative political thought has become.

Read More

Schumer's Criticisms Hit a Little Too Close to Home

So Chuck Schumer is saying Democrats were foolish to blow all their political capital on the Affordable Care Act:

Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) remarks Tuesday that Democrats erred by passing Obamacare in 2010 before the economy was fixed did not sit well with Obamaworld.

"Unfortunately, Democrats lost the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem — health care reform," the No. 3 Senate Democrat said at the National Press Club, arguing that his party should have focused on middle class woes at the time instead. He added: "It has been reported that only a third of the uninsured are even registered to vote."

Of course, former Obama aides went ape-$hit over this on the internet criticizing Schumer. I mean, how could the good Senator propose that Democrats not do health care? To be totally fair, I support the ACA and think it's the best law we've passed in my lifetime- but it's increasingly isolated among three major legislative achievements- Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and the Stimulus- in six full years in office. Sure, there were others, but none quite measure up all the way. George W. Bush certainly had a more consequential presidency, legislatively speaking.

After the ACA passed in 2010, essentially the Presidency ended, in terms of passing good laws. It took all the remaining capital the President had on the Hill, and killed all other initiatives. Yes, the administration of President Obama continued, but he's had no major legislative wins since the end of 2010.

The other thing, right or wrong, is that we're now buried in legislative minorities, not just in Washington, but nationally. Is it worth giving up potentially years of achievements for one big one? Is the fact that no climate change legislation passed, because of the ACA basically, okay? I mean, climate change doesn't just effect millions of people, it effects everyone. Is the fact that the GOP looks poised to dominate Congress for a generation worth it? Schumer is saying no.

I think Schumer is arguing a moot point in the sense that a.) we did pass the ACA, and b.) by the time it was clear the law was going to kill Democrats at the ballot box in 2010, they were way too deep to pull out. I think the premise that health care was the most important issue, no matter what, from day one, was the mistake. You can't go back and change partisan priorities four years later.

Read More

Amen, Governor McAuliffe

Terry McAuliffe just became my favorite Governor in America for doing this:

Phillip Puckett had resigned abruptly in June amid private talks with Virginia Republicans about a state job, swinging control of the closely divided chamber to the GOP, which was fighting the expansion for some 400,000 residents.

"Hey, Phil? Terry McAuliffe," the governor said in what the Post described as a "seething voice message" to Puckett. "I want you to know we just lost the vote, 20 to 19, in the Senate. Medicaid is done. I hope you sleep easy tonight, buddy."

Amen. Phil Puckett's legacy in public life is denying 400,000 people access to health care. I hope he can sleep easy tonight. 

Read More

More Evidence the Affordable Care Act Works

Because we have to get used to this kinda talk in the primaries.

Iowa accepted the Medicaid expansion money from the federal government, sort of. They have a hybrid plan, which isn't as good as traditional Medicaid expansion. Even that was forced upon the Governor, politically.

Here's the good news- things are better than they were because of it. Take these stats:

The number of hospitalized Iowans lacking health insurance dropped by nearly half in the first six months of the year, mainly because the state decided to expand its Medicaid program, hospital leaders said Wednesday.

The Iowa Hospital Association said about 4,445 patients lacking health insurance were hospitalized in Iowa from January through June of 2014. That was a 46 percent decline from the 8,181 uninsured patients hospitalized during the same period in 2013.

What that means in real terms is that the hospital collected more payments than they were a year ago by 46%. So the hospital is better off. It has an even bigger meaning for you the consumer. When those uninsured consumers come into that hospital and receive care, then don't pay the bill afterwards, the hospital does not take a loss on that money. They can't, they still have an operating budget to keep, and that doctor needs to be paid for his work, as do the nurses, janitors, billing agents, and everyone else at work then. So guess who pays for that unpaid bill? Other consumers at the hospital. So by them paying through Medicaid, you're paying a little bit less for other people.

Obamacare works. 

Read More

STFU You Imbecile

I know that it has no meaning in the merits of the law, but can this guy just shut his stupid elitist mouth and let his law work?

Obamacare is working on the ground, and larger electorates like it. This guy shooting off his mouth and showing himself to be an elitist prick is going to sidetrack us for the next week, through the second enrollment opening, debating whether or not it's a shady deal. Look, the Affordable Care Act is a piece of legislation, and it was passed through a process called legislating. What he's saying, that the American voter didn't understand the process, can be debated on it's merits, but the reality is that the bill was passed without any laws being broken. It would be nice if we didn't have to debate that fact because of this guy, or if we didn't have to debate the integrity of the imbecile that wrote the law, but we can't do that now. How can such a smart wonk be so stupid to talk about this law this way.

Read More