Wednesday's theme. Obama's cuts $22 billion from Medicare. Remember when he accused the evil Romney of cutting $500 million out of Medicare. Seniors do not count, under ObamaCare. Here is proof.

<<<<  Now we know that Obama's healthcare bill is so in debt to itself,  that it cannot afford to treat seniors fairly.  Heck,  they are going to die,  anyway,  right?  

According to the AMAC:   

On January 1, 2014, ObamaCare cut nearly $22 billion from Medicare home health care over four years. That means an estimated 3.5 million poor and ill homebound senior citizens woke up on New Year's Day to discover that ObamaCare had slashed funding for their home health care program. 

Last 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. Obama's cuts $22 billion from Medicare.  Remember when he accused the evil Romney of cutting $500 million out of Medicare.  Seniors do not count,  under ObamaCare.  Here is proof.  

But wait, there's more: according to the Obama Administration's own statistics, "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. That's 5,000 home health care companies and 500,000 jobs wiped out in order to pay for ObamaCare. 

___________________

Related articles: 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/12/budget-deal-from-hell-no-to-alright/

Attention Seniors – Obamacare Forcing 14 % Cut to Medicare’s Home Health Care

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/12/obamacares-homecare-cuts-to-hit-sick-and-old-new-years-day/

Another 500,000 policies will be cancelled, replaced with policies that comply with ObamaCare's "one size fits all" model.

We see this type of news item almost on a daily  basis.  The Obama Administration defends itself against this and the lie it told the American people ("if you like your insurance,  you can keep it,  period  . . .  no matter what") by arguing that (a) the "losers" will still have insurance,  but the policies will have been rewritten and the premiums will have been increased (often double or triple) in addition to raising deductibles (1500 to 5000 dollars) and (b) these "losers" need to know that the dirty old insurance companies broke Obama's promise,  not Mr Honesty.  Never mind the undebatable facts that all pre-existing polices will be re-written to include all elements of the ObamaCare "one size fits all" insurance model, that most pre-existing policies will see increases,  and --  wait! there is more ! -- that Medicaid/Medicare monthly payments will be increased (as well).  

No one is talking about this last bit of news (the increases in Medicare payments - no it is not "free" and no,  you never stop paying for it) but my wife and I just received notice that my Medicare payments will increase by 2.5% in the single year of 2014;  her payments will increase by 5% in the same 12 month period.  If this rate of increase continues,  my Medicare payments will be almost 8% higher than they are,  presently, my wife's 15% higher  -  all just in time for the 2016 elections.  

_____________

500,000 Californians Lose Health Policies

By Wesley J. Smith

October 25, 2013 8:16 PM

Out of the National Review we have this account:  My wife, the syndicated San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra J. Saunders, has learned that at least 500,000 Californians may lose their health insurance next year — and that’s a conservative estimate. From her Token Conservative blog:

According to this link as of December 2012, there were 491,977 covered lives in individual health care plans regulated by the state Department Insurance that are not grandfathered under the Affordable Care Act. (If they bought a plan after March 2010, their coverage is not grandfathered.) . . . . . . . . .

Those canceled policies will have to be replaced with Obamacare-approved insurance:

California Association of Health Plans president Pat Johnston told me that by law providers must cancel non-grandfathered individual policies. . . . . . . . .    it may well be that ”if you’re outside that subsidy range, you’re on your own.”

So much for, “If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.” The train wreck continues.

______________________________
300,000 to Lose Health Coverage in Fla., 160,000 in Calif.  The California cancellations are in addition to those referenced above.  

Seriously, how much should be cut in terms of expense? We have the answer as we ask two questions.

 <<<  Sorry folks,  the fiscal cliff disaster has past the point of no return, regardless of whatever the headlines of this week say. 

The Democrats love to ask this question:  "If the GOP is not going to raise taxes on the rich,  how are they going to pay for the money lost in that move?"   You should know that the Bush tax cuts for the rich,  totaled a nominal $700 billion dollars over the course of ten years.

I have a better question and it is the Democrats who should be asked  (as in "hounded) this question:  "If you are not going to raise taxes on the middle class,  how are you going to pay for that 'lost' income ?"  Understand that the Bush cuts to the middle class totaled 3.8 trillion dollars. 

Point of post:  Here is the critical  fact central to effective spending cuts:  if the congress is not talking about cutting 4.5 trillion dollars over the course of the next ten years,  it are lying to the American people and setting the American citizenry up for one of the worst financial disaster in world history and, that is not hyperbole.   

That "4.5 trillion" number comes from adding the totals in tax savings for the "rich"  and Obama's version of the "middle class."  If the question is legitimate when asked about 'lost' income from the rich,  it certainly is legitimate when asked about lost income from the middle class.  While the Dems have busied themselves buying votes ad infinitum ,  their long term intentions are to wait on the necessary cuts to Social Security and Medicare until the ceiling caves in around us,  and,  in that event,  they are hoping to have positioned themselves to continue their blame game,  and turn the coming disaster into a serious electionary plus for them.   

Understand that beginning in 2009,  expenses for Social Security have exceeded collections.  In 2011,  that deficit was in excess of nearly 47 billion dollars (jds-midknightreview / remember-obama-and-dems-telling) .  In other words,  Social Security is already broke and,  apparently,  readers of this Review are the only folks on the face of God's green earth who are aware of this fact.  

As far as Medicare is concerned,  it now totals 42 trillion in unfunded liabilities.  

To illustrate just how out of control this program is,  consider this fact:   when we take all of the world's economies,  some 220 countries,  they require a collective grand total of around 68 trillion dollars per year to operate their programs and support their national needs.  Medicare totals 2/3's of all the world's economies combined.  And, still,  the self-serving, socialist grounded unions in this country and their Democat/Progressive leadership refuses to admit that there is any kind of problem at all.  

As of the 2012 election, we now have an electorate that cares not for the facts of this matter.  They don't care,  because they believe that they will be allowed to further gut the system without penalty as they follow the lead of Progressive leadership,  and continue to decimate the business community in this country. 

Sadly,  there may no cure for selfish and stupid,  when the two are combined for the purpose of gaining a political edge.  

__________________

After it is all said and one,  we cannot cut or tax our way to safety.  This article in Forbes,  gives us a clear picture why the "tax and cut" will not work,  if it stands alone and the "solution."  

Should we consider Medicare and Social Security as "entitlements?" Of course and here is why -- no Amercian even comes close to paying for these benefits.

Entitlements:  feeding off the public trough.

47 million folks receive food stamps.  For the most part, they neither pay for nor work for this benefit.

Disability enrollment now extends to more than 8.8 million Americans.  While part of the Social Security contract,  most of this coat is unearned by those who are in need of its benefit.

By presidential degree,  unemployment benefits were extended to 99 weeks for millions of Americans.  This benefit is paid for by employer "donations" and federal expense,  NOT by the recipients.

Medicare is being used to enroll the indigent poor under ObamaCare,  certain disabled youth,  and seniors who qualify for Social Security.  The program is 37 trillion dollars in arrears,  which means that it is essentially an unfunded program although there are  small payroll deductions paid on future Medicare benefits throughout the working lifetime of the citizen.    The average total donation make by potential Medicare benefactors is 30% of what they will receive.  Medicare is,  indeed,  an entitlement,  righteous indignation of the redistributionists,  not withstanding. 

Understand under ObamaCare,  as many as 30 million folks (illegals, the very poor and youth) will be added to Medicare beginning with 2013 at the same time federal funding to that program will be cut by 2%.  

Finally for the sake of this post,  we have Social Security.  The average payout for a retire couple,  with regard to this particular benefit,  will be in the neighborhood of 1 million dollars (per couple).  Obviously,  the average working couple pays nothing close to this benefit total. 

Understand that if an "entitlement" is something you receive from the feds that you have not paid for as a worker bee,  all of the above fits into this category. 
  

As of this year, new retirees will take out of Social Security less than what they put in.

Click on image to enlarge

<<<<<  This chart gives us only one feature of the problem --  revenues to annual outlays.  It does not present the pillage of both Medicare and Social Funds from the very beginning of their inventions until now.   

In a Yahoo news story, here,   we are being given the bad news;  new retirees will not recover their "investment" cash put into Social Security.

Contrast this news,  with the idiocy of this early May report:

Which federal program took in more than it spent last year, added $95 billion to its surplus and lifted 20 million Americans of all ages out of poverty?   Why, Social Security, of course, which ended 2011 with a $2.7 trillion surplus.  Refer to Reuters, here:  http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/05/04/social-security-is-not-going-broke/

Who is telling us the truth?  The Democrat Progressives who wrote the Yahoo article or the Democrat Progressives who want you to believe that a workforce that is the smallest in 30 years has turned in nearly 3 trillion in surplus payroll collections,  after Obama reduced the payroll SS deduction by 4% of the total payroll and 25% of the actual Social Security payroll deduct of nearing 16% ? 

Look,  the Reuter's  claim is nothing short of “asinine” in terms of content and deliberate in contrast to what the author must know to be true.  And what is the truth? 

That Social Security, over the decades,  has added $18.8 trillion . . . . .  in unfunded and additional obligations for current SS participants above and beyond projected revenues from their payroll and benefit taxes, certain transfers from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, and assets of the Social Security trust fund (link) and will not recover from the influx of the Boomer generation  -  78 million folks coming into this "safety net" at the rate of 10,000 per day for the next 22 years.  

Medicare is in far worse shape as it currently holds onto 39 trillion in unfunded obligations.  What is disturbing as relates to Medicare is that its deficit has accrued since 1965.  

And what has Obama done with our benefit programs?  He decided to cut half a trillion out of Medicare to help fund ObamaCare and added 30 million to its numbers all without a detailed plan;   at the same time he decided to buy re-election by reducing the Social Security payroll deduct by 25%  just when the program needs more of a contribution,  not less. 

Point of post:  to let the reader know that (1)  in a time when Social Security is a critical aspect of American retirement planning,  whether it was intended to be such or not,  the plan is already broken and may be lost to the coming generations.  And (2), when we role Medicare into ObamaCare,  our national healthcare system is so far in arrears as to be little more than a very disturbing joke on the American people.   

Question:  why would a political party refuse to deal with the deficit issues of these two monster social policies and expect to be re-elected? 

Time for a change and time to demand that these issues be effectively dealt with.    

Obama used Medicare to cover 30 million Americans and claimed the results for his ObamaCare Tax Act !!

 Ben Armbruster / ThinkProgress: 
McConnell Can't Answer How GOP Will Insure Americans After Repealing ObamaCare: ‘That Is Not The Issue’

Since the Supreme Court last week upheld the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have been scrambling for a response. Without much to say now that the law has been ruled constitutional, the GOP has fallen back on its pledge to repeal ObamaCare. However, the new health care law provides 30 million Americans with access to health insurance. So how do Republicans plan to replace this key feature if they repeal?  . . . . . . .

Of course, the foreigners at Think Progress care nothing for the truth  -  only that the means they use, justify the end results “progressives” have in mind for this country and that is national membership into the One World stage.    In this case,  they ignore the fact that Mitch McConnell made it clear that the insurance of the “30 million” mentioned by Chris Wallace is,  by all rights,  a states issue. 

In the Think Progressive/Commie One World article,  the author misses the point that coverage of the 30 million is accomplished as these folks are moved into Medicare and Medicare/Medicaid is managed [in part] by the individual states!!!.

Understand that we did not need the ObamaCare Tax Act to insure these 30 million,  we only needed an order for coverage sent to the Medicare folks,  which is exactly what Obama did.  We did not need to add 160 new federal agencies or write 100,000 regulations or install a panel of non-medical overseers.   

Never mind that the 30 million were/are covered already as they flood ER facilities throughout the nation.  Nothing has changed in that regard,  by the way.  Our ER facilities will continue to be inundated with the poor and illegal’s.

In the end,  this notion that ObamaCare was needed IN ADDITION TO MEDICARE, is an outright lie.  We have been played, folks, and, 

You heard this first at Midknight Review

Can we impeach the Democrat congress for criminal misrepresentation regarding ObamaCare?

Editor's notes: what is most rewarding in The Hill report, below, is the fact that "repeal and replace" as regards ObamaCare is still on the table. Support for the law has dwindled to even more of a minority status than when the law was passed. And the news coming out of expanding reviews of this poorly written monstrosity is all bad.

A full 50 % of all Americans will NOT be able to keep their current doctor as Obama promised. The immediate inclusion - as promised - of children up to the age of 26, will NOT happen until 2014. Costs to corporations will be extreme - AT&T telling us that ObamaCare will cost the company 1 billion dollars; some $40 billion in increased costs were reported in the first quarter of this year, due to accounting laws that required corporations to report the passage of laws effecting the "bottom line" to their share holders - a law requiring corporations to report in the same quarter as the passage of the law. These reports came as a complete surprise to Democrat law makers --- some threatening to take these corporations to task for making these reports public. Since issuing these threats, these law makers have found that the corporate reports were required by Federal law to be public and the threats have been subsequently abandoned. Increases in the Medicare population were given a funding allocation of $5 billion, in the new law. It is now being reported that this allocation will cover no more than 250, 000 citizens when, in fact, millions will be added to Medicare roles. The funding was kept at a low level in order to make the bill appear to be cost effective. It was all a lie and a huge lie. These Democrat clowns may have cost the American taxpayer a trillion dollars in this particular lie, alone. And we are just beginning to find out what is in this bill -- jds


The Hill reports : The top two House Republicans signed onto two petitions to force votes to repeal Democrats' healthcare reform law in its entirety.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said they had signed onto discharge petitions set to be offered by members of their conference, one of which would seek to repeal health reform in its entirety.

Boehner and Cantor said they'd back discharge petitions by Reps. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Wally Herger (R-Calif.), a method to force a vote in the House. A majority of the House — 218 members — must sign onto a discharge petition, though, to force a vote, meaning that a vote on repeal in the House would be a steep climb.

"The American people asked Congress and President Obama not to pass the massive healthcare overhaul, and they were ignored," Boehner and Cantor said in a statement. "Three months later, they remain opposed to it, worried about the consequences it is having for job creation, the national debt, and the cost and quality of their healthcare.

"The House should immediately vote on and pass legislation that would implement the will of the American people with respect to the president’s healthcare law," the pair added.

While the Republican leaders' support for the petition may well end up being symbolic, it's squarely a part of the GOP's election-year messaging against the healthcare reform. Boehner has called repealing health reform the top priority for Republicans if they should retake control of Congress this fall. . . . READ THE FULL REPORT >>>
.