Discussion:
Good Luck Getting 'Affordable Care' With Democrats' Latest Medicare Maneuver
(too old to reply)
Let's Go Brandon!
2022-10-04 08:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Everybody say, "THANKS DEMOCRATS!" "YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES!"
Democrats insist that further tinkering with health care will
make it more accessible, but evidence suggests it will cost
people dearly.

The Biden administration announced it would again reduce
payments to Medicare physicians, this time by 8.42 percent.
According to a recent survey, 92 percent of medical group
practices report that Medicare payments do not cover the cost of
providing care.

The federal government can stay in business when it takes in
less revenue than it expends. Why? Because it can print money
and no one else can. To stay in business, physicians will have
to reject Medicare patients; access will decrease once again.
And with Democrats pushing legislation like the wrongly named
Inflation Reduction Act, things will only get worse.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) took $716 billion from Medicare to
pay for non-medical, bureaucratic spending. Before the ACA, the
average maximum wait time to see a primary care doctor was an
unacceptable 99 days. After Obamacare was implemented with its
cuts to physician payments, wait times increased to a medically
unconscionable 122 days. Patients have to wait four months to
find out if belly pain is gas, an ulcer, or cancer. With the
latest round of cuts, the wait times could stretch from months
to years.

In hearings prior to the passage of the ACA, Robert Moffit of
the Heritage Foundation warned Congress, “You can’t get more of
something by paying less for it.” Democrats disregarded this
obvious economic truism in 2010 and are doing so again in 2022.

If further cuts are made to Medicare in the pursuit of spending
“health care” dollars elsewhere, this will literally cause death
by preventing Medicare patients from getting access to care.
Accountants for the Medicare Trust have reported the trust will
be insolvent by 2026, less than four years hence. At that time,
Medicare will run out of money, there will be no accepting
physicians, and seniors will die from lack of hospital care.

Death-by-queueing refers to patients dying waiting in line for
technically possible but unavailable life-saving care. Such
avoidable deaths have been documented in Medicaid programs as
well as government-supported Tricare for veterans. Twelve-year-
old Deamonte Driver died from a dental cavity because no
pediatric dentists in his area would accept the low Medicaid
rates. In Illinois, 752 Medicaid enrollees died waiting for life-
saving care that never came. An internal VA audit reported that
“47,000 veterans may have died” waiting in line for care. The
bottom line is that as the government increases its spending on
expensive insurance policies, the public’s access to care
decreases.

The reality of “can’t get more by paying less” is ignored by
Biden’s latest health care scam built into the Inflation
Reduction Act. The bill allows Medicare to directly negotiate
drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. Through the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Washington will simply
dictate drug prices similar to how a 4-year-old negotiates with
a tyrannosaurus rex.

History shows what invariably happens when prices are pre-
determined: shortages occur of current drugs, and the
development of new drugs halts. However, despite this, market
forces work even when government distorts the market. When
prices are fixed by the government rather than market variables
and determined by millions of consumer choices, suppliers must
react or go out of business. When revenue goes down by fiat,
suppliers — manufacturers or service providers — compensate by
cutting their costs by reducing quality, lowering production, or
both.

Biden’s “negotiated” Medicare prices will cause shortages of
desperately needed drugs, and worse, the development of new
medicines will cease.

Federal price fixing in health care is neither new nor limited
to drugs. The government has been pre-determining payments to
physicians for decades. Washington decrees what Medicare and
Medicaid programs pay for physician services, and physicians can
take it or leave it. More are leaving it. One-third of U.S.
doctors already refuse to accept new Medicaid patients. The
death-by-queueing noted previously is directly due to a shortage
of physicians, and the shortage is largely due to low payment
rates along with bureaucratic burdens.

As a pediatric cardiologist, I have done several complex life-
saving catheterization procedures on babies with congenital
heart defects. When these devices are implanted, these bills can
range from $1,500 to as much as $9,000. Medicaid will pay me
$385 for every single one.

The bottom line is that when Democrats divert health care funds
or fix prices for medical goods and services, American patients
suffer.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/30/good-luck-getting-
affordable-care-with-democrats-latest-medicare-maneuver/
Ellie Kesselman
2022-10-05 18:32:28 UTC
Permalink
New arrival here. You're both totally correct.

I know this because my father was a cardiologist and stopped practicing at the age of 79 back in 2007 because the situation was already getting very bad for him as a small business owner in private practice. (He had two employees: Me and a former critical care nurse from Romania who was waiting on her Green Card. He didn't golf and he didn't have a boat. He wasn't living high on the hog, to put it mildly. This was in north Dade County Florida.) He had a few patients who were NYPD who had been hurt so badly while on duty that they were too disabled to work though under 65 years of age. Their insurance paid all of $37 for a visit plus another $15 for an EKG if needed. My father usually spent about 45 minutes to an hour with them. About half of his patients were too poor to own cars so Medicare paid him $50 to do house calls in 2005. Many were Holocaust survivors, some Jewish, some not Jewish. Contrary to popular belief, south Florida is not full of wealthy retirees. I can only imagine how much worse everything must be there now, after the financial crisis that many never fully recovered from, the eight years of Obama including Obamacare.

Now we have Bidenomics, soaring inflation, the prospect of $7 gas prices even out here in Arizona, and Vice President Kamala saying that government assistance for victims of the Florida hurricane will be prioritized on the basis of race/skin color aka equity. (Admittedly, the head of FEMA stridently said, NO, we won't be doing that! And to think that we used to consider FEMA as the enemy....)

There's LOTS of money for Ukraine and ramping up plutonium production for nuclear warheads.
https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/weapons-grade-plutonium-secretly-sent-to-nevada-removed/article_d37626e3-a6d3-578a-92c7-fe84d22ae4b3.html

We're all out of Javelin missiles because Eastern Europe's borders are SO much more important than defending our own.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/28/the-us-and-europe-are-running-out-of-weapons-to-send-to-ukraine.html

The Dems in New Mexico don't want plutonium at Los Alamos but they are okay with spending state funds for parties. https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/governor-s-mansion-used-state-funds-for-party-costs/article_61356ef8-dab1-11ec-a7df-5b45cadd2776.html

If only some of that Ukraine money could go to Puerto Rico and Florida... nahhh Congress doesn't care about them.

Anyone who is unhappy with this state of affairs must live in fear of being deemed a domestic terrorist by Merrick Garland and the FBI guys who have had Hunter Biden's disgusting laptop in custody for nearly two years but haven't done anything about it. Anyone who reads even one of {Wall Street Journal, NY Post, reddit, Politico, The Hill} or watches Fox News or CNBC news knows about Biden Frere and Hunter's financially corrupt dealings with Ukraine AND China, but... whatever.
Everybody say, "THANKS DEMOCRATS!" "YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES!"
SNIP SNIP SNIP
The D List
2023-09-27 02:35:34 UTC
Permalink
A whore who sucked her way to every job she ever had.
The Biden administration keeps trying to give Vice President
Kamala Harris something to do, but she keeps balking at the
opportunity. She complains about being "sidelined" by the White
House and complains when they give her a job she doesn't want to
do, such as handling the border crisis. It's as if the only
thing she is really passionate about is using the power of her
office to destroy the careers of her political rivals.

Harris was not enthusiastic about being tapped to lead the
administration's response to the Supreme Court decision
overturning Roe v. Wade. The Washington Post reported Thursday
that the vice president "had initial reservations about becoming
the face of the administration's response, worried she could be
pigeonholed on the issue because of her gender, according to
people familiar with the discussions who spoke on the condition
of anonymity to disclose a sensitive dynamic."

Ultimately, Harris signed on to be in charge of the White House
push to protect abortion rights across the country. If history
is any indication, the result will be a half-assed effort that
accomplishes nothing and inevitably devolves into finger-
pointing, recrimination, and anonymous leaks to the press. That
is precisely what happened after the administration tasked her
with leading the charge on the border crisis and on voting
rights.

Harris was not thrilled when Biden in March 2021 put her in
charge of the administration's response to the ongoing
immigration crisis on the border. The vice president "was
resigned to the assignment, but she and her team wanted to make
sure her role was depicted in the narrowest possible way,"
according to the authors of This Will Not Pass.

At one point, New York Times reporters Jonathan Martin and
Alexander Burns recount in the book, Harris corrected Biden
during a meeting with leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus.
When the president said she would do "a hell of job" handling
immigration, Harris immediately chimed in to say that her role
would be limited to U.S. relations with the so-called Northern
Triangle countries in Central America. During a subsequent visit
to Guatemala, the vice president fumbled a question from NBC
anchor Lester Holt about why she hadn't visited the U.S.
southern border. "And I haven't been to Europe," she cackled.

Days later, Politico published a story headlined, "‘Not a
healthy environment': Kamala Harris' office rife with dissent,"
which detailed the dysfunction in the vice president's office
and was riddled with anonymous quotes from former Harris aides
blasting her leadership style. That was around the same time
Biden tasked Harris with leading the administration's effort to
promote so-called voting rights. A similar fiasco ensued.

Martin and Burns report that after holding a series of initial
meetings with activists, Harris failed to marshal a significant
push for voting rights on Capitol Hill. Months after taking the
assignment, they note, she had not even spoken about the issue
with Sens. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) and Lisa Murkowski (R.,
Alaska), whose votes were crucial to passing legislation in the
Senate.

Voting rights soon became "another dead end" for the vice
president, who "continued to resist the exhortation to pick some
signature issues, partly out of concern that she would be
restricted to handling subjects closely linked to her personal
identity." Harris preferred to take ownership of "broad-spectrum
issues" that wouldn't be "mainly associated with women and Black
Americans."

This attitude is echoed in her response to being asked to handle
the response to the Supreme Court's overturn of Roe v. Wade. She
doesn't want to be "pigeonholed on the issue because of her
gender." OK, then. What, exactly, does she want to be doing?
According to Martin and Burns, the vice president's staff did at
one point propose that Harris could oversee "relation with the
Nordic countries," a suggestion that was "rejected" and
"privately mocked" by White House aides.

It is perhaps no wonder that Democrats are already panicking at
the thought of Harris being the party's presidential nominee in
2024. Even her former staffers are terrified at the prospect of
Harris becoming president.

WATCH: Veep Thoughts with Kamala Harris (Vol. 1)
<https://freebeacon.com/democrats/kamala-harris-deep-thoughts/>

WATCH: Veep Thoughts with Kamala Harris (Vol. 2)
<https://freebeacon.com/democrats/veep-thoughts-kamala-harris/>

Published under: Democratic Party, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Roe
v. Wade

https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/kamala-harris-
leadership-fail/
The D List
2023-09-27 07:07:08 UTC
Permalink
An idiot and a whore who sucked her way to every job she ever had.
Democratic candidates across the country are increasingly
reluctant to associate themselves with President Joe Biden and
Vice President Kamala Harris. Despite asking voters to send them
to Washington so they can vote in support of the Biden-Harris
agenda, Democrats in swing states want nothing to do with the
historically unpopular leaders of their party.

Cheri Beasley, the Democrat running for Senate in North
Carolina, is the latest candidate to give a mealy mouthed
response when asked about the prospect of inviting Biden or
Harris to join her on the campaign trail. "You know, I'm not
aware of what their schedules are," Beasley said on Wednesday.
"We are 62 days away from Election Day. And so we're going to
continue to run our race here in North Carolina."

The candidate's lack of enthusiasm echoes that of several other
Democrats running in close races. A spokeswoman for Rep. Tim
Ryan (D., Ohio), who is running for Senate against Republican
J.D. Vance, told the Washington Post that Ryan "wants to be the
face of this campaign" and does not plan to invite Biden or
Harris to campaign on his behalf. Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.)
deflected by suggesting "anyone" is welcome to "come to Arizona
and let me, you know, show them around the state." Sen. Michael
Bennet's (D., Colo.) campaign had "no comment."

Biden has an approval rating of roughly 42 percent, according to
FiveThirtyEight, while just 38 percent of Americans approve of
Harris's job performance. Democrats are unlikely to retain power
in the House next year but are hoping to keep control of the
Senate, which would ensure that Biden can continue to appoint
judges to the federal bench.

The Democratic incumbents in Arizona and Colorado are favored to
win in those states, whereas the Ohio and North Carolina races
are firmly in the "toss up" category. Vance leads Ryan by
several percentage points, according to the RealClearPolitics
polling average. In the Tar Heel State, Beasley and Republican
candidate Ted Budd are statistically tied.

Beasley's success in the Democratic primary marks the first time
that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) has allowed
a black woman to run for Senate in North Carolina. In 2020, for
example, Schumer backed white man Cal Cunningham's bid to face
Sen. Thom Tillis (R., N.C.), stomping all over the hopes and
dreams of primary candidate Erica Smith, who complained that
"Sen. Schumer, for whatever reason, did not want an African
American running for Senate in North Carolina." Cunningham was
on track to beat Tillis until a Washington Free Beacon alum
exposed him for having an extramarital affair.

SICKENING: Democrats Are Waging War on Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion

Published under: Democratic Party, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris,
North Carolina

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/biden-harris-cheri-beasley/
The D List
2023-09-28 02:59:18 UTC
Permalink
A whore who sucked her way to every job she ever had.
Vice President Kamala Harris touted her pro-labor stripes this
weekend when she claimed in an interview that she did not eat a
grape until she was in her 20s because of union boycotts on
grape growers. But according to an analysis by the New York
Post, Harris's story of union solidarity is inconsistent with
the timeline of the grape boycotts.

"This sounds quaint, and so I'm reluctant to say it, but, you
know, I didn't eat a grape until I was in my 20s. Like,
literally, had never had a grape," Harris told the Nation. "It
was absolutely ingrained so deeply in me: Never cross a picket
line."

But Harris would have crossed a picket line if she ate non-union
grapes in her 20s. For all of her 20s, the United Farm Workers
union imposed a boycott on grape growers. And Harris would have
had ample opportunity to eat grapes during her childhood, when
the UFW negotiated settlements and ended its earlier boycotts.

The first UFW grape boycott took place from 1965, when Harris
was less than a year old, to 1970, when she was five years old,
the Post noted. The second boycott started in 1973, when Harris
was eight years old, and ended when she was 13 in 1978. Harris
could have eaten any grapes under a clean pro-labor conscience
from when she was 13 until she was 19, when the UFW started its
third and final grape boycott.

That boycott, which ran from 1984 to 2000, took place for all of
Harris's 20s. That means if the vice president was forgoing
grapes through her teenage years until she was in her 20s, as
her comments in the Nation imply, she would have gone from
needlessly avoiding grapes when there was no boycott to crossing
a picket line and disregarding the UFW's strike.

The Post linked Harris's grape story to another seemingly
anachronistic tale from her youth that she told during an
interview in 2019. When asked which artists she listened to when
she smoked marijuana in college, Harris said she listened to
Tupac and Snoop Dogg, both of whom did not release albums until
at least five years after she graduated from Howard University.

Published under: Kamala Harris, Unions

https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/harris-gets-caught-
in-bizarre-lie-about-never-eating-grapes/

Loading...