Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts

Monday, March 29, 2010

Interesting Thoughts on Healthcare...

Healthcare is not your right... You cannot have a right

over someone's labor...

But we can all agree Healthcare is

too expensive.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

49% Support State Lawsuits Against Health Care Plan

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters favor their state suing the federal government to fight the requirement in the new national health care plan that every American must obtain health insurance.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds that 37% disagree and oppose their state suing to challenge that requirement. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided.

read on http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/49_support_state_lawsuits_against_health_care_plan

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

IRS to Enforce Health Reform

IRS to Enforce Health Reform
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

IRS income tax forms.(AP file photo)

(CNSNews.com) – The Internal Revenue Service will function as the government’s chief enforcer for health care reform, should President Obama sign the bill into law as expected, monitoring both businesses and individuals to certify whether they have the insurance coverage the government requires.

The tax collection agency will be responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the individual and employer insurance mandates which form the backbone of the Democrats’ hard-won reforms.

The bill states that the purpose of the mandates is to regulate “economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.”

The mandates require that all Americans carry a minimum level of health insurance or pay a separate tax for every month they are without such coverage. All employers with 50 employers or more will also be required to provide their employees with that same minimum level of coverage.

While that minimum level of coverage will be defined at a later date by the Department of Health and Human Services, it will be the responsibility of the IRS to monitor individuals and employers and to punish those who do not comply.

Under the bill, which passed despite bipartisan opposition March 21, starting in 2014 the IRS would be responsible for monitoring which employers are complying with the mandate and which ones are not. The IRS would begin such monitoring of individuals’ health insurance status in 2014 as well.

The IRS would monitor individuals and businesses’ health insurance statuses through the mandatory reporting the bill requires. Under the law, every individual and most businesses are required to report to the IRS, on their tax returns, whether they have purchased or provided the required level of coverage and disclose to the IRS which months, if any, in which they failed to do so.

Using this information, the IRS would then determine whether an employer or individual falls under the mandate, which contains exceptions for religious conscience, hardship, incarcerated persons, and members of Indian tribes.

If either an individual or a business has failed to comply with this mandate for any month out of the year, they are required to pay a separate tax to the IRS. For individuals this is a maximum of $750 per person (up to $2,250 per household) and $750 per uncovered employee for businesses.

Because these penalties would each apply on a monthly basis, individuals and employers would have to pay 1/12^th of the maximum penalties for each month they failed to comply with the mandates.

In order to carry out its new monitoring and enforcement duties, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the IRS will need $10 billion in additional funds, funds which were not made available under the health reform bill.

An analysis done by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that this $10 billion could go to fund an additional 16,500 new IRS agents and other personnel to monitor and enforce the new mandates.

“[T]he IRS could add more than 16,500 additional agents, auditors, examiners, and administrative support personnel to enforce large portions of the nation’s health insurance system,” the report said.

The IRS will also be in charge of collecting the new taxes on high cost insurance plans and on so-called unearned income from couples making over $250,000 per year and single filers making over $200,000 per year.

Both of these provisions could be modified should the Senate approve a budget reconciliation measure the House also passed March 21. Whichever final form they take, they are both direct taxes and thus will be directly administered by the IRS.

Because these new mandates and taxes are under the purview of the IRS, taxpayers and businesses could incur additional penalties normally reserved for normal income tax cheats, paying fees over and above those for not complying with Congress’ new mandates.

The IRS currently charges potentially hefty penalties for, among other things, filing false or fraudulent returns, filing late returns, and failure to pay a tax on time.

Taxpayers and businesses could be hit with these extra penalties because they are required to use their tax returns to prove to the IRS that they are complying with the mandates and because they will have to pay any tax penalties to that agency as well.

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

With ObamaCARE now passed, containing the Cornhusker Kickback, Gator-Aid, the Lousiana Purchase, and other shady deals, Investors Business Daily gives up 20 ways that ObamaCARE will take away our freedoms. IBD’s sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill which takes out the Cornhusker Kickback and Gator-Aid as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)
2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).
3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).
4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).
5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).
6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic diseasemanagement; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).
7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))
8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).
9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).
10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).
11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))
12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))
13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).
14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)
15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).
16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medicaldevice makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).
17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)
18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).
19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).
20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

Even More Unsafe Vaccine News

FDA warns doctors about Glaxo rotavirus vaccine

By LAURAN NEERGAARD

The Associated Press
Monday, March 22, 2010; 5:00 PM

WASHINGTON -- U.S. health officials urged pediatricians Monday to temporarily stop using one of two vaccines against a leading cause of diarrhea in babies, after discovering that doses of GlaxoSmithKline's Rotarix were contaminated with bits of an apparently benign pig virus.

Glaxo's vaccine has been used in millions of children worldwide, including 1 million in the U.S., with no signs of safety problems - and the pig virus isn't known to cause any kind of illness in people or animals, said Dr. Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.

But vaccines are supposed to be sterile, and because there is a competing vaccine against diarrhea-causing rotavirus that has tested clean - Merck's RotaTeq - the FDA decided to err on the side of caution.

"We don't want to scare parents," Hamburg told reporters. "This was a difficult decision for us to make because there is no evidence at this time that there is a risk to patients who have received this vaccine, and we know there are real benefits for children to be vaccinated against rotavirus."

read on http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/22/AR2010032201897.html

Monday, March 22, 2010

16,500 more IRS agents needed to enforce Obamacare

By: J.P. Freire Associate Commentary Editor 03/18/10 4:32 PM EDT

New tax mandates and penalties included in Obamacare will cause the greatest expansion of the Internal Revenue Service since World War II, according to a release from Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas.

A new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses in the ‘reconciliation’ bill being taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives this weekend. ...

Scores of new federal mandates and fifteen different tax increases totaling $400 billion are imposed under the Democratic House bill. In addition to more complicated tax returns, families and small businesses will be forced to reveal further tax information to the IRS, provide proof of ‘government approved’ health care and submit detailed sales information to comply with new excise taxes.

Americans for Tax Reform has a good breakdown of the bill by the numbers.

Isn't it reassuring that at a time of recession, government will do what's necessary to ensure its growth?

The IRS to Confiscate Refunds

The IRS to

Confiscate Tax

Refunds in Healthcare Bill

By Vicki Needham - 03/18/10 03:22 PM ET

House Ways and Means Republicans on Thursday assailed a provision in the proposed health care reform bill under consideration this week.

Subcommittee on Oversight ranking member Charles Boustany (R-La.) said the IRS provision in the bill "dangerously expands, in an ominous way the tentacles of the IRS and it's reach into every American family," he said today during a press conference. Republicans estimate the IRS will need nearly 17,000 new employees to meet its new responsibilities under health reform.

"This is a vast expanse of power," he said.

Boustany said the bill would allow the IRS to confiscate refunds if there are penalties for not buying health care.

Lawmakers have questioned whether the IRS can handle the increased workload to oversee, administer and collect penalties for people who don't buy health insurance.

"This is increasing tax liability and tax scrutiny," said Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.).

Ranking member Dave Camp (R-Mich.) said many Americans have already rejected the call for health care reform for other reasons and an expansion of the IRS should only add to call to "kill the bill."

Taxpayers could be required to buy insurance under President Barack Obama’s reform proposal by 2014 or face penalties of roughly $325 per individual that the IRS would collect.

Assuming it becomes law, the Congressional Budget Office expects the IRS will need roughly $10 billion over the next 10 years .

"We're going to fight to the end to see that this does not pass," Boustany said.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Court Rules Mercury-Containing Immunizations are Good for You... so go back to sleep

Court Rules Against Autism-Vaccine Link

WRITTEN BY ALEX NEWMAN

MONDAY, 15 MARCH 2010 11:15

A special United States “vaccine court” dismissed three cases

Friday that were attempting to establish a link between

mercury-containing immunizations and autism, prompting

outrage among parents convinced of the connection.

Critics have accused the hearings of impropriety, citing the

fact that the Department of Health and Human Services was

a defendant in the case while producing and funding much

of the evidence purporting to exonerate the vaccines at taxpayer expense.

Mother Laura Bono, for example, one of the parents whose case was

dismissed, called the process “dysfunctional” and said that the law only

provides the illusion of having a day in court.

Other parents were equally disappointed by the ruling. "The deck is stacked

against families in vaccine court,” charged mother Rebecca Estepp of the

Coalition for Vaccine Safety. “Government attorneys defend a government

program, using government-funded science, before government judges.

Where's the justice in that?" After the rulings, an attorney for the group also

said it would seek congressional intervention and that several government

experts had provided fraudulent testimony.

Other organizations are also calling the proceedings into question. "Find

me another industry where the U.S. government defends their product in

court and funds the science that exonerates them," said Generation Rescue

founder J.B. Handley, also the father of an autistic child. "The average

citizen has no hope."

Analysts said the decision dealt a severe blow to the more than 5,300

similar cases pending before the special court, part of the U.S. Court

of Federal Claims. In 1986, the federal government created the courts

and established a tax-funded “National Vaccine Injury Compensation

Program” to pay victims and protect drug companies from liability.

In the court decisions, the judge-like Special Masters ruled that the

science did not support the mercury-autism link. "The Meads believe

that [mercury-based preservative] thimerosal-containing vaccines

caused William's regressive autism,” wrote Special Master George

Hastings, a former tax expert with the Department of Justice, in his

ruling. “The undersigned finds that the Meads have not presented a

scientifically sound theory." The other two cases were thrown out using

similar arguments.

For years, countless parents of children with autism have blamed

mercury in vaccines for the illness. Mercury is, after all, a known

neurotoxin with devastating effects on the human body. But the

movement was dealt another blow earlier this year when a respected

medical journal retracted a prominent study claiming a link existed.

However, the pro-mercury camp also came under fire recently. Dr. Poul

Thorsen, a scientist working for the U.S. government who published

one of the most important studies used to debunk the mercury-autism

link, is now being investigated for embezzling millions of taxpayer

dollars. The study in question has also attracted widespread criticism

for its methodology.

Despite the angered parents, however, some groups saw the court ruling

as a positive step in putting the issue to rest. "It's time to move forward

and look for the real causes of autism," explained Autism Science

Foundation President Alison Singer. "There is not a bottomless pit of

money with which to fund autism science. We have to use our scarce

resources wisely."

But the battle is still far from over, according to anti-mercury campaigners.

Appeals to the vaccine court ruling are considered very likely. And last

week, the Supreme Court agreed to review the law exempting vaccine

makers from liability.

The case against pharmaceutical giant Wyeth is expect to begin in the

fall. After receiving the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine, a six-month-old

girl began suffering a series of complications including seizures. An appeals

court in Pennsylvania ruled that the parents could not sue the drug maker

because of the 1986 law creating the vaccine courts that specifically

shielded manufacturers from liability. But a conflicting ruling in Georgia

said some lawsuits could be brought under state law, so the Supreme Court

is now expected to resolve the matter.

The battle over whether mercury in vaccines is linked to the epidemic of

autism will continue to rage for a long time to come. Polls suggest at least

one in four parents still believe there is a connection. But regardless of

what the truth regarding this issue is, federal laws purporting to exempt

manufacturers from liability in the event of adverse reactions are not only

unconstitutional, they are ridiculous. Why should tax payers assume the

risk while drug companies rake in billions? The special courts and the law

which created them should be dismantled so that evidence can be heard

in a proper venue.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/3127-court-rules-against-autism-vaccine-link

Saturday, March 6, 2010

connecticut senate gop debate:schiff, mcmahon, simmons

Friday, March 5, 2010

One in four Germans wants microchip under skin: poll

One in four Germans wants microchip under skin: poll

By Agence France-Presse
Monday, March 1st, 2010 -- 10:58 am
Stumble This!
814
Share

HANOVER, Germany -- It sounds like something from a sci-fi film, but one in four Germans would be happy to have a microchip implanted in their body if they derived concrete benefits from it, a poll Monday showed.

The survey, by German IT industry lobby group BITKOM, was intended to show how the division between real life and the virtual world is increasingly coming down, one of the main themes of the CeBIT trade fair that kicks off Tuesday.

In all, 23 percent of around 1,000 respondents in the survey said they would be prepared to have a chip inserted under their skin "for certain benefits."

Around one in six (16 percent) said they would wear an implant to allow emergency services to rescue them more quickly in the event of a fire or accident.

And five percent of people said they would be prepared to have an implant to make their shopping go more smoothly.

Story continues below...

But 72 percent said they would not "under any circumstances" allow electronics in their body.

The results appeared to surprise even the high-tech sector.

"This is of course an extreme example of how far people can imagine networks going," said BITKOM chief August-Wilhelm Scheer.

The CeBIT, the world's biggest high-tech fair, throws its doors open to the public on Tuesday, with Spain, the current EU president, this year's guest of honour.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero were due to speak later Monday in an official opening ceremony before touring the exhibition early Tuesday.

A total of 4,157 firms from 68 countries are to unveil their latest gadgets, a decline of three percent on last year as many high-tech firms stay away amid strong competition from other events.

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

Bayer Exposed (HIV Contaminated Vaccine)

TAINTED EXPORTS

2 Paths of Bayer Drug in 80's: Riskier Type Went Overseas

By WALT BOGDANICH and ERIC KOLI

Published: May 22, 2003

Adivision of the pharmaceutical company Bayer sold millions of dollars of blood-clotting medicine for hemophiliacs — medicine that carried a high risk of transmitting AIDS — to Asia and Latin America in the mid-1980's while selling a new, safer product in the West, according to documents obtained by The New York Times .

The Bayer unit, Cutter Biological, introduced its safer medicine in late February 1984 as evidence mounted that the earlier version was infecting hemophiliacs with H.I.V. Yet for over a year, the company continued to sell the old medicine overseas, prompting a United States regulator to accuse Cutter of breaking its promise to stop selling the product.

By continuing to sell the old version of the life-saving medicine, the records show, Cutter officials were trying to avoid being stuck with large stores of a product that was proving increasingly unmarketable in the United States and Europe.

Yet even after it began selling the new product, the company kept making the old medicine for several months more. A telex from Cutter to a distributor suggests one reason behind that decision, too: the company had several fixed-price contracts and believed that the old product would be cheaper to produce.

Nearly two decades later, the precise human toll of these marketing decisions is difficult, if not impossible, to document. Many patient records are now unavailable, and because an AIDS test was not developed until later in the epidemic, it is difficult to pinpoint when foreign hemophiliacs were infected with H.I.V. — before Cutter began selling its safer medicine or afterward.

But in Hong Kong and Taiwan alone, more than 100 hemophiliacs got H.I.V. after using Cutter's old medicine, according to records and interviews. Many have since died. Cutter also continued to sell the older product after February 1984 in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Japan and Argentina, records show. The Cutter documents, which were produced in connection with lawsuits filed by American hemophiliacs, went largely unnoticed until The Times began asking about them.

"These are the most incriminating internal pharmaceutical industry documents I have ever seen," said Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe, who as director of the Public Citizen Health Research Group has been investigating the industry's practices for three decades.

Bayer officials, responding on behalf of Cutter and its president at the time, Jack Ryan, declined to be interviewed but did answer written questions. In a statement, Bayer said that Cutter had "behaved responsibly, ethically and humanely" in selling the old product overseas.

Cutter had continued to sell the old medicine, the statement said, because some customers doubted the new drug's effectiveness, and because some countries were slow to approve its sale. The company also said that a shortage of plasma, used to make the medicine, had kept Cutter from manufacturing more of the new product.

"Decisions made nearly two decades ago were based on the best scientific information of the time and were consistent with the regulations in place," the statement said.

The medicine, called Factor VIII concentrate, essentially provides the missing ingredient without which hemophiliacs' blood cannot clot. By injecting themselves with it, hemophiliacs can stop bleeding or prevent bleeds from starting; some use it as many as three times a week. It has helped hemophiliacs lead normal lives.

But in the early years of the AIDS epidemic, it became a killer. The medicine was made using pools of plasma from 10,000 or more donors, and since there was still no screening test for the AIDS virus, it carried a high risk of passing along the disease; even a tiny number of H.I.V.-positive donors could contaminate an entire pool.

In the United States, AIDS was passed on to thousands of hemophiliacs, many of whom died, in one of the worst drug-related medical disasters in history. While admitting no wrongdoing, Bayer and three other companies that made the concentrate have paid hemophiliacs about $600 million to settle more than 15 years of lawsuits accusing them of making a dangerous product.