Tag Archives: political parties

An Obamacare Outcome

Posted on by
Reply

Dr Peter Weiss, a practicing physician, describes one.

I have now posted a notice in my office and each exam room stating exactly what Obamacare will cover for those yearly visits.  Remember Obama promised this as a free exam—no co-pay, no deductible, no charge.  That’s fine and dandy if you are healthy and have no complaints.  However, we are obligated by law to code specifically for the reason of the visit.  An annual exam is one specific code; you can not mix this with another code, say, for rectal bleeding.  This annual visit covers the exam and “discussion about the status of previously diagnosed stable conditions.” That’s the exact wording under that code—insurance will not cover any new ailment under that code.

What this means:

If you are here for that annual exam, you will not be covered if you want to discuss any new ailment or unstable condition.  I cannot bait and switch to another code—that’s illegal.  We, the physicians, are audited all the time and can lose our license for insurance fraud.

Yeah.  A separate appointment, separately scheduled for your new ailment.  Further, during your scheduled annual, note that bit above: “discussion about the status of previously diagnosed stable conditions.” That’s the exact wording under that code….  Your doctor’s discussion concerning your annual’s results are largely scripted by Uncle Sugar.  Talk about snake oil.

Oh, and good luck scheduling that separate appointment.  Keep in mind that your doctor, if you get to keep him at all, is part of a shrinking collection of doctors, and their work loads are exploding from all the new patients Obamacare is foisting off on them.  There are only so many hours in a day.

 

RTWT

Tax “Negotiation”

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another example of the Progressive view of negotiations.

In public statements, [Treasury Secretary Timothy, who has joined the negotiations] Geithner has suggested he will hold the line on the core White House demand to raise tax rates on wealthier Americans.  If “people look at this and look at it carefully, they’ll come to the judgment we reached,” he said at a Wall Street Journal conference earlier this month, adding that this meant “higher rates” and limits on tax deductions.

Because, of course, they’re right; anyone with any sense will agree with them, so that question is closed.

This is consistent with the new Obama position of being willing to discuss only tax raises, with spending cuts and entitlement reform completely off the table.  Progressives will talk about them later.  They promise.

Republicans and Talking to Folks

Posted on by
Reply

Neil King and Victoria McGrane have some thoughts.  They cite various conservatives, for instance:

[A]ctivists—including tea-party activists but also some mainline Republicans—say the party should adopt a more populist tone, one that places more emphasis on ways Republican policies would help the middle class.

And

The critique from these Republicans suggests that the party should change some policies—such as adopting a more skeptical posture toward big banks—as well as the way it talks about economic issues.

And

Mr. Romney’s lopsided loss among the country’s expanding universe of minority voters has fanned fears within the party that its main challenge is demographic, though others dismiss that worry as secondary.

But these are short-sighted and outright wrong.  The “others” are right; the problem is Republicans’ and conservatives’ general failure to talk to all Americans, regardless of ethnicity.  Republicans and conservative need to get out and talk to people in the neighborhoods in which they live—all of those neighborhoods—as I pointed out here and here.

Ex-Mississippi Governor and erstwhile GOP Chairman Haley Barbour has the right of it.  He understands that conservative policies aren’t the problem.

We do very well when our policies for economic growth and job creation are put in place.  But we often don’t talk about those policies in ways that the middle class and working class see as in their interest.

And they don’t talk at all about those policies where Americans physically live.

The other critiquers, though (the ones who are concerned with the content of the message as well as where it’s delivered), also have a point—apart from attempts to change those policies.

The Republicans’ approach to dealing with the nation’s largest financial firms illustrates the tension.  GOP leaders oppose the Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law as regulatory overreach and want it scrapped, partly because they say it codifies certain institutions as being too big to fail.  But so far, they haven’t rallied around an alternative means to reining in the big banks.

Or establishing the need for government to “rein in” the big banks.  Which points up another aspect of message content.  In addition to their failure clearly to articulate what they would do differently vis-à-vis Dodd-Frank, their mantra concerning Obamacare is woefully inadequate:  “Repeal and replace.”  Replace with what?

Governor Bobby Jindal and the GOP

Posted on by
Reply

Governor Jindal (R, LA) had some blunt words for his fellow Republicans.  Among other things, he had this [emphasis added]:

It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments—enough of that.  It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party.  We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism.  We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.

He added:

[S]top reducing everything to mindless slogans, tag lines, 30-second ads that all begin to sound the same.

Part of that “trust the intelligence.”

He made a number of other points; RTWT.

Osama bin Laden

Posted on by
Reply

…is in the Federal Witness Protection Program, and not dead, after all?

Or so Rumor Control thinks.

Aaron Klein, of WND, has this on the matter.

Using a Pakistani Internet Protocol and proxy server, a disposable credit card and a fake address, “Osama bin Laden” has successfully donated twice to Barack Obama’s presidential re-election campaign.

The donations were quite up front; bin Laden made no effort to disguise his identity.  He freely listed his occupation as “deceased terror chief” and his employer as “al-Qaida.”

There’s more: in response to the donations,

“Bin Laden’s” email address has received several solicitations from Obama’s campaign asking for more donations.

One response, sent last weekend, offered this good deal:

Thanks so much for your donation of $5.00.  Please take 10% off your next purchase of $10 or more at our online store.

Another, sent by none other than the First Lady herself, Michelle Obama—only recently come into some pride in America—requested an even larger donation after some pro forma blandishments:

You’re one of the campaign’s most committed supporters.

Please make a donation of $19 or whatever you can today.

Oh, wait.  It turns out that the donations, and so the recipients of the follow-ups, were WND staffers running a demonstration of Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s campaign fund-raising techniques.  But Obama and his support didn’t know that.  What were they doing, accepting donations from this terrorist, and then soliciting more—and in complimentary terms?

Is that incompetent, or what?  Frankly, I’m unsure about “incompetent;” I don’t agree that these people are that grindlingly stupid.