Will the U.S. become a Medicaid Nation?

From NewsMax --

America is in danger of becoming a Medicaid nation. It will bankrupt our government, make private health plans unaffordable, and rob the elderly of the care they've been counting on.

The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction — the supercommittee — should repeal the vast expansion of Medicaid enacted just 18 months ago as part of President Barack Obama's health law. That brand new entitlement, not in effect yet, threatens the nation’s future solvency.

The Obama health law converted Medicaid from a safety net to a permanent health entitlement in place of private insurance. A decade from now, when the temporary surge in Medicare demand caused by the baby boom generation subsides, Medicaid will cost more than Medicare and continue to grow.

According to actuaries from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Health Affairs, July 28), Medicaid spending will increase faster than Medicare spending even in the coming decade, and the two programs will cost about the same by 2020. That’s amazing, considering the wave of baby boomers entering Medicare.

Medicaid spending will top $900 billion in 2020 (state and federal funds) up from $343 billion in the last year of the George W. Bush administration. The Obama health law makes more people eligible and increases benefits.

The president promised to reduce the number of uninsured by making health plans more affordable. But twice as many of the uninsured will gain coverage by enrolling in Medicaid as in private health plans. The actuaries estimate that Medicaid enrollment will reach 75 million people in 2014.

In addition, the actuaries cautioned that some workers and their families will be forced into Medicaid, when large employers drop coverage and choose to pay the $2,000 penalty, a mere pittance compared with the expense of providing what the Obama health law deems “essential” coverage.

McKinsey & Co., management consultants, found that 30 to 50 percent of employers polled were considering dropping coverage in 2014; Towers Watson, another consulting firm, found 9 percent and Lockton Benefit Group reported 19 percent of its middle-market clients likely to drop coverage.

When employers stop providing insurance, workers with household incomes below 138 percent of poverty ($30,500 for a household of four) will qualify for Medicaid. The Medicaid rolls could swell beyond the actuaries’ already alarming predictions.

The more Medicaid is expanded, the more the costs are shifted onto private health plan premiums. Medicaid shortchanges hospitals and doctors, paying only about 86 cents for every dollar of care delivered. Doctors and hospitals make do by shifting the cost onto patients with private coverage, pushing up their premiums.

The 9 percent premium hike employers experienced this year is partly due to the increase in Medicaid rolls during the downturn. The cost shifting will get much worse in 2014.

To avert these unintended consequences, the Medicaid expansion should be repealed. The Supercommittee should target Medicaid, not Medicare.

Keep in mind that the Obama health law reduced future Medicare funding by over $500 billion, largely by slashing what hospitals and doctors will be paid to care for seniors. At that time, CMS Chief Actuary Richard Foster cautioned Congress that these cuts are so severe that some hospitals may be forced to stop accepting Medicare. Then the debt hike deal signed this Aug. 2 cut another 2 percent from payment rates to care for seniors.

Now the president’s deficit reduction proposal calls for a third round of reductions, this time by $248 billion, including even further reductions in what doctors and hospitals are paid to care for seniors.

The more Medicare reimbursement rates are cut, the less likely it is that doctors and hospitals can afford to provide hip replacements, bypass surgeries, cataract operations, and the other procedures that have transformed the experience of aging.

The president’s rhetoric makes him sound like a defender of the elderly. He threatened to “veto any bill that takes one dime from Medicare benefits seniors rely on without asking the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share.”

But numbers tell the truth. The president is robbing Grandma to spread the wealth by radically expanding the Medicaid entitlement.

Democrats Backdoor Elderly to provide Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants

Just like they did in the Debt Ceiling fight, the Democrats in D.C. are stooping to their usual low and are again using scare tactics on the elderly. While ignoring the truth is something they do well, the calls for no cuts in Medicaid/Medicare spending by the Democrats in D.C. -- are NOT because of their concern over the elderly.

With the Supercommittee deadline fast approaching the Democrats in D.C. are playing both sides and coyly hiding behind their calls for no cuts in Medicare/Medicaid, or any other social services for the matter. 

In fact, and truth be told -- they do not want any cuts in Medicaid/Medicare not because it will hurt the elderly, but because these cuts may negatively impact their plans for Community Health Centers that will serve illegal immigrants...

From NewsMax --

Again we see the left pulling the emotional heartstrings and victimizing the elderly by using scare  tactics to

The culture war is moving from when life begins to how it should end. Like a drum beat, supporters of the Obama agenda are protesting that the elderly are consuming too many health resources, and their care needs to be cut back.

The current target of this unrelenting campaign against the elderly is the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which is charged with devising a plan to reduce federal deficit spending by Nov. 23.

Among those calling for less care for seniors is H. Gilbert Welch of Dartmouth Medical College.

“If you were hoping to play the ‘death panel’ card, now’s your chance,” Welch says to his critics. “But don’t play it and then pretend you care about the budget.”

That brazen statement — pitting grandma's well-being against the nation's fiscal health — is a false choice. Future federal healthcare spending can be significantly reduced by repealing the expansion of Medicaid and the billions poured into medical and interpreter services for illegal immigrants under the Obama health law before these provisions go into effect.

The Obama health law, enacted 18 months ago, raided Medicare to fund new entitlements for low-income groups — in essence, robbing grandma to spread the wealth.

The law reduces future funding for Medicare by $575 billion over 10 years, and applies most of it ($410 billion) to increase Medicaid enrollment and benefits. The Obama health law transforms Medicaid from a temporary safety net to a permanent alternative to private health insurance.

Medicaid spending will top $900 billion in 2020 (state and federal funds), costing about the same as Medicare. That’s amazing considering the wave of baby boomers entering Medicare in this decade.

In addition to expanding Medicaid, and contrary to the president's promise, the new law allocates billions of dollars to expand services largely for illegal immigrants, including $11 billion for community health centers serving those ineligible for Medicaid. Why should grandma's care be cut to free up resources for lawbreakers?

This year the Department of Health and Human Services announced an Action Plan to increase spending on “promotores” or “trusted local people to serve as community health workers” and software for people with limited English to enroll in government programs.

Cuts to Medicare are not about reducing federal spending. They are about redistributing healthcare. More...

You ask what are these Community Health Centers? The Department of Health & Human Services at the future expense of Medicaid/Medicare for the elderly just funded 67 of them for an initial cost of $28.8 million...

From CNSNews -- (Emphasis Added)

Even if (when) the U.S. Supreme Court rules Obamacare to be Unconstitutional, the ruling will have a hard time defunding programs such as these. The elected elite in D.C.will just look for other ways to continue funding for these Obamacare-born Community Health Centers at the expense of the elderly in this country for the benefit of illegal immigrants.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Tuesday that it has awarded $28.8 million to 67 community health centers with funds from the Obamacare health reform law.

Of that $28.8 million, "approximately $8.5 million will be used by 25 New Access Point awardees to target services to migrant and seasonal farm workers," Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Spokeswoman Judy Andrews told CNSNews.com. HRSA is a part of HHS.

Andrews said that grant recipients will not check the immigration status of people seeking services.

“Health centers do not, as a matter of routine practice, ask about or collect data on citizenship or other matters not related to the treatment needs of the patients seeking health services at the center,” Andrews said.

Further, the grant recipients are required to serve "all residents" who walk through their doors.

“The Program’s authorizing statute does not affirmatively address immigration status,” said Andrews. “Rather, it simply states that health centers are required to provide primary health care to all residents of the health center's service area without regard for ability to pay.”

These Obamacare disbursements seem to contradict a claim President Obama famously made in a nationally televised speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009.

“The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” Obama said then. More...

Take Action: Balanced Budget Amendment

Speaker Boehner is considering which Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to bring to the floor for a vote. There are two versions. Read about them below.

The “Clean” Version

• Does not cap spending as a percentage of GDP
• Does not require a super majority to raise taxes
• Will undoubtedly lead to tax increases & bigger & bigger government

The Strong Versions

• Cap spending as a percentage of GDP
• Some require a super majority to raise taxes, some do not
• Due to the cap, will prioritize cutting spending before ever raising taxes

More details about the variations of the BBA are below this call to action.

The bottom line is this: The clean version will get more votes, making it more “bipartisan.” The strong version will get fewer votes because it takes a more principled, fiscally responsible stand, but we are talking about amending our Constitution! We should never amend our Constitution out of expediency!

There has been some serious concern expressed about amending our Constitution in our discussions of a BBA, but you have overwhelmingly said that that if there is a vote on a BBA, you want Congress to vote for something that is meaningful and is not just a tactical move leading into an election year to get votes.

Congressman Paul Ryan told some of our National Support Team yesterday that he is committed to a strong version; he is on record as only supporting a strong Balanced Budget Amendment. The top 3 in GOP Leadership are not so committed to a strong version.

With all this in mind, here is what you need to do today:

1. If you can only make one call, call Congressman Paul Ryan and thank him for his commitment to principle on the seriousness of amending the Constitution and sticking to a "strong" Balanced Budget Amendment. We must support people who stand strong!
   Paul Ryan: (202) 225-3031
    
2. Call Speaker Boehner, Congressmen Cantor and McCarthy and tell them that if they are bringing a BBA to the floor for a vote, it needs to be the “strong” version with spending caps.
   Speaker Boehner: (202) 225-6205
   Eric Cantor: (202) 225-2815
   Kevin McCarthy: (202) 225-2915

For more information on the Balanced Budget Amendment (Click Here)

Support Transparency in Government

From Open Secrets --

Transparency lovers, take note: now you can fight to make the campaign finance system more  open and publicly accessible right from OpenSecrets.org.

The Center for Responsive Politics has integrated a new, user-friendly tool that allows constituents to write and urge their members of Congress to support the issues and legislation that matter most to them. The tool, called POPVOX, is now available in the Action Center on OpenSecrets.org.

With this feature, you can write to lawmakers in support of three pieces of transparency-oriented legislation:

• S. 219, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act: This bill would require all U.S. senators and candidates for the Upper Chamber to electronically file their fund-raising reports. The Center supports this measure because it would expedite public disclosure of senators' fund-raising records. (Senators are currently the only lawmakers not required by law to file their reports electronically.)
• H.R. 1974, the Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports Act: This legislation would collect all congressionally mandated reports and make them available to the public online. The bill would make available all fact-seeking reports Congress requires federal agencies to produce by putting them all on one publicly accessible website.
• H.R. 2571, the Transparency in Government Act: This broad legislative effort is intended to make the work of Congress and the executive branch more transparent through laws and regulations that would bring information online in a timely manner. H.R. 2571 is an amalgamation of different bills, and it would create historic changes in the way the two of our branches of government provide information to the public.

In the OpenSecrets.org Action Center, you will now be prompted with this feature, which allows you to write to your elected representatives.

 

h

Stimulus Funds Used to Employ Foreign Workers Instead of Unemployed Americans

President Obama is bouncing around the U.S. spouting how we need jobs in this country and that he can no longer wait for the Republicans in Congress to pass his jobs bill.... so he must do it through an Executive Order.

Let's take a look at some of President Obama's previous attempts at putting unemployed Americans back to work...

From ALIPAC --

Rep. Peter DeFazio demanded Tuesday that the federal Department of Labor add muscular - and clear - new provisions to a guest-worker program that was used to hire foreign workers for forest jobs in Oregon intended for unemployed U.S. citizens.

"Over the past year it has come to light that several contractors exploited loopholes in the H-2B visa process to intentionally hire foreign workers, rather than available Americans, for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-funded jobs on Forest Service lands in Oregon. This is unacceptable," DeFazio said in a letter sent Tuesday to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.

The letter came less than a week after the department's inspector general released a report about the contracts and the fact that 254 foreign workers were hired to perform work that most believed should have been filled by unemployed Americans.

"Taxpayer money was spent to hire foreign workers while unemployed Oregonians were denied these jobs. The Department of Labor owes it to the American taxpayer and the over 13 million unemployed Americans to make sure this can never occur again," the letter says. More...

In light of his continued failures, one must wonder who exactly does President Obama want to create jobs for -- illegal immigrants or unemployed Americans?

U.S. to spend $20 Million on Pakistani Sesame Street

Bert & Ernie, Oscar the Grouch and Big Bird need not apply!

As part of an overall commitment to spend $7.5 Billion over the next 5 years for civilian aid in Pakistan, the U.S. will also fund a new Pakistani version of Sesame Street in attempts to increase tolerance....

From Fox News --

Sesame Street is coming to Pakistan but not as generations of Americans know it.

The U.S. is bankrolling the initiative with $20 million, hoping it will improve education in a country where one-third of primary school-age children are not in class. Washington also hopes the program will increase tolerance at a time when the influence of radical views is growing.

"One of the key goals of the show in Pakistan is to increase tolerance toward groups like women and ethnic minorities," said Larry Dolan, who was the head education officer for the U.S. Agency for International Development in Pakistan until very recently. More...

So we raised the debt ceiling for a Pakistani Muppet show?!? Any bets on how long this show is declared as blasphemy by the Islamikaze's in Pakistan and Elmo is sentenced to death by stoning?

What do the Top 1% Really Pay in Taxes?

From The Tax Foundation --

The income earned by the top 1% of Americans has declined for the second year in a row while their average tax rate has increased, according to a new Tax Foundation study. The average federal tax rate for those reporting at least $343,927 in income has increased from 22.5% in 2007 to 24.0% in 2009, while the average income for the top 1% has declined from $1.4 million to $1 million over the same period.

The Tax Foundation's analysis is based on new data from the Internal Revenue Service on individual income taxes, reporting on calendar year 2009.  The amount of individual income tax paid steeply declined by $166 billion, twice the decline from 2007 to 2008.  Nationally, average effective income tax rates were at their lowest levels since the IRS began tracking them in 1986. The average tax rate for returns with a positive liability went from 12.2% in 2008 to 11.1% in 2009.

"During a time of economic downturn, we expect to see significant changes in both total income reported and the share of taxes paid by those with the highest incomes," said Logan. "Unlike middle-income wage-earners whose incomes and tax liabilities are fairly steady, high-income people tend to realize significant capital gains that fluctuate wildly with the economy, causing their income tax liabilities to fluctuate as well."

In 2009, the top 1% of tax returns earned 16.9% of adjusted gross income and paid 36.7% of all federal individual income taxes. In 2008 those figures were 20.0% and 38.0%, respectively. Each year from 2005 to 2007, the top 1 percent's constantly growing share of income earned and taxes paid set a record. The 2008 reversal of this trend continued in 2009.

The study also takes a look at the very highest earners, the top 0.1 percent of tax returns, which the IRS only began singling out in recent years. In 2009, those 138,000 tax returns accounted for nearly 7.8% of adjusted gross income earned (down from almost 10% in 2008), and they paid around 17% of the nation's federal individual income taxes (down from 18.5% percent in 2008).

"The very highest income group—the top one-tenth of one percent—actually has a lower average effective income tax rate than the rest of the top 1 percent of returns because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends, which are typically taxed at lower rates," said Logan. "It's worth pointing out that in the case of capital gains and dividends, however, income derived from these sources has already been taxed once by the corporate income tax, which is not included in the current study, meaning the average effective tax rate numbers can be somewhat misleading."

Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 285, "Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data," by economist David S. Logan is available online..