Fri, Sep 19, 2014, 8:42 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 48 mins.

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

ADVANCED CELL TECH Message Board

  • lonesome_polecatt lonesome_polecatt Sep 10, 2013 9:54 AM Flag

    Doc, you are correct about Obamacare.Let's see if elk can post an off topic cut & paste to divert & maybe make up a couple of facts

    America, we must stop ObamaCare before it becomes hazardous to our health

    By Jim DeMint
    Published September 10, 2013

    New York’s famous 42nd Street will offer natives and visitors a new sight later this week: a mammoth, six-story billboard with a striking message: “Warning—Obamacare may be hazardous to your health.”

    It’s part of The Heritage Foundation’s continuing public education campaign to inform the American people about the dangerous side-effects of this unfair, unaffordable and unworkable law, and how it can be stopped.

    How will ObamaCare—a 2,700-page law passed by a single vote over bipartisan opposition— harm Americans’ health?

    Well, here are five of its worst side effects.

    First, many Americans will lose their current health coverage. That’s what’s happening to Rod #$%$ and Florence Peace, a married couple in Indianapolis. Rod and Florence like their current plan.

    ObamaCare is not just bad for Americans’ physical health—it’s bad for America’s fiscal health as well.

    “I’d prefer to stay with our current plan because it meets our needs,” Rod says.

    Unfortunately, their current coverage fails to meet new requirements imposed under ObamaCare by federal bureaucrats. At the end of this year, that plan will no longer be available to Rod and Florence. They’ll have to find another, ObamaCare-sanctioned plan that may restrict their access to certain treatments or force them to buy coverages they neither want nor need.

    Second, many Americans will lose access to physicians they trust. The Wall Street Journal recently highlighted the case of John Nowak, who faces a dilemma when he chooses an insurance plan on ObamaCare’s Exchanges this fall. He “will be able to pick a [revised, ObamaCare-compliant] plan from his current insurer—or go for one that includes his primary-care doctor.”

    To save costs, many plans on ObamaCare’s Exchanges are limiting physician networks. So if John chooses to keep his current insurance carrier, he may not be able to keep his current doctor. At minimum, he will pay a lot more to see that physician out-of-network.

    Third, ObamaCare places bureaucrats between doctors and patients. The law imposes new penalties on doctors who do “not satisfactorily submit data” that meet Washington bureaucrats’ standards.

    It also creates a panel of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats empowered to make rulings that reduce Medicare spending.

    Little wonder that nearly three in five physicians responding to a recent Deloitte survey think the practice of medicine is in jeopardy.

    Fourth, ObamaCare dumps millions of patients onto Medicaid—a health program so bad that not even Medicaid patients call it “real insurance.” An analyst for the liberal Consumers Union once admitted that a Medicaid card is but a “hunting license”—“a chance to go try and find a doctor” that actually accepts Medicaid patients.

    Moreover, several studies have shown that people enrolled in Medicaid often have worse medical outcomes than those with no health insurance at all.

    Expanding a broken Medicaid program is just giving millions of Americans a cruel and empty promise—an insurance card with limited access to real health care.

    Fifth, ObamaCare’s reductions in Medicare spending could undermine the health system for millions of seniors.

    According to the non-partisan Medicare actuary, the law’s arbitrary spending reductions could cause 15% of hospitals to become unprofitable by 2019, and as many as 40% of hospitals to become unprofitable in the long term. These hospitals could face the choice between shutting out seniors or shutting their doors for good.

    Either outcome is unacceptable.

    ObamaCare is not just bad for Americans’ physical health—it’s bad for America’s fiscal health as well. If Congress does not act, on January 1, 2014, Washington will tap a gusher of new federal spending on ObamaCare.

    Over the next decade, the cost of the law’s new entitlements will soar more than fivefold, from $48 billion in 2014 to $250 billion in 2023.

    That will create a lot of pain in taxpayers’ wallets.

    For all these reasons and more, Congress must act, and act now, to stop ObamaCare before it takes root.

    This fall, Congress will have an opportunity to use its “power of the purse” to block ObamaCare from going forward.

    I recently traveled across the country on a town hall tour sponsored by our sister organization, Heritage Action for America.

    I met many Americans concerned about the impact of ObamaCare on their health care, who want the law stopped immediately.

    There are things we can and should do to improve America’s health care system and reduce costs, but first we must stop ObamaCare before it starts.

    The law is a dangerous prescription for America, and its side effects will damage our collective health.

    Sentiment: Sell

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • TED CRUZ IS POWERLESS IN THE FACE OF OBAMACARE

      Jamelle Bouie | Sep 11, 2013 | The Daily Beast

      Even as conservatives keep rallying to defund health-care reform, congressional Republicans have come up with a plan that effectively admits they’re powerless to kill it. Jamelle Bouie reports from a pointless Capitol Hill demonstration.

      “I want to be brutally honest with you about the fight to defund Obamacare,” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz told a Tea Party crowd gathered outside of the Capitol. “If the traditional rules of Washington apply, we can’t win. If the forum in which we have to make the case is a smoke-filled room, we’ve lost.”

      “But,” he continued, “I’m convinced the model has changed. I’m convinced that there is a new paradigm—the grassroots…No elected politician can win this fight.” “Only you,” he said, talking over the excited crowd, “can win this fight.”

      I’m not sure this is brutal honesty—though, standing in the D.C. heat, surrounded by hundreds of people, it felt like it—but it’s honest enough. After 40 repeal votes in the House and endless hours of rhetoric against it, one thing is clear: congressional Republicans are powerless to stop the Affordable Care Act. There’s no way a bill would reach Obama’s desk, and if it did, there’s no way he would sign it.

      To wit, as a new clash over federal spending approaches on the Hill, GOP leaders are working to avoid a confrontation over Obamacare with a government funding proposal that makes repeal optional for the Senate. Under the proposal floated on Tuesday, the House would pass a continuing resolution to keep the nation running at sequester levels, along with an amendment to defund the health-care law, and pass the package to the Senate. The Senate can either approve the amendment or—far more likely—vote it down. But that’s the extent of it. Either way, a resolution goes to the president, and everyone avoids a government shutdown. Absolutist conservatives are furious about this—the right-wing Senate Conservatives Fund says House leaders have “chickened out and decided to fund a program that will destroy our country”—but there’s not much they can do about it. Obamacare is here to stay.

      Which means that, for groups like the Tea Party Patriots, the Cruz demonstration—billed as the “Exempt America” rally—was mostly show: An exercise in symbolism, aimed at Congress, the White House, and the millions of Americans who voted—twice—for President Obama and support the health-care law.

      But the crowd was less enthusiastic than you’d expect, especially given the hyperbole of activists and lawmakers like Michele Bachmann, who see this effort as nothing less than a fight for the soul of America. When Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert led the crowd in a call and response of anti-Obamacare myths—“Does Obamacare prevent the free exercise of your religious beliefs? Does Obamacare fund abortions? Does Obamacare provide taxpayer-funded health care for illegals?”—the “yesses” were pro forma; more bored high school pep rally than fighters for liberty.

      In fact, of the men and women I spoke to at the rally, most were hopeful that Congress would defund Obamacare, but none were willing to hold their breath. “I’m prepared to sell my property and my business in order to protect my livelihood,” said Richie, an exterminator who came down from New Jersey to protest the law. “I can understand helping people who really need it,” he said, “but Obamacare is a huge intrusion. It’s the confiscation of people’s property.”

      “When government funds things, they end up like the schools. Not good.”
      Linda, a housekeeper from Pittsburgh, was in the same boat—she wants Congress to repeal Obamacare, but doesn’t think it’s going to happen. “Politicians on both sides are scoundrels,” she said. “I’m just here so I can tell my grandchildren I tried to do something about what’s happening.”

      Jim, an out-of-work electrical engineer from St. Louis, isn’t as hostile to politicians as a class, but he’s also down on the prospects for opposition to Obamacare. “I’m not sure it will get defunded. I mean, the leadership isn’t very supportive,” he said. As for what he thinks will happen with the Affordable Care Act? “I don’t know. I guess we’ll find out by October 1st,” he said, referring to when the health-care exchanges—where individuals can purchase insurance on a regulated market—go “online.”

      At the risk of sounding like a liberal cliché, I’m struck by the circumstances of Richie, Linda, and Jim. If anything, Obamacare was designed with them in mind, people who—because of their age or income—have a hard time finding affordable health insurance. Indeed, I mentioned as much to Richie, who doesn’t have health insurance—he’s a few years from eligibility for Medicare, a program he supports—and relies on 24-hour clinics for his health care needs. “I’d rather pay for a mortgage than health insurance,” he said, explaining his situation. When I said the law was meant for people like him, he dismissed the idea that government could help. “When government funds things, they end up like the schools,” he said. “Not good.”

      It’s tempting to pull a What’s the Matter with Kansas? and say that Richie is voting against his interests. But he’s not. He wants a country that leaves people to their own devices, and only intervenes for the most vulnerable. Regardless of whether the Affordable Care Act is in his material interests, it doesn’t fit his picture of America.

      But, as most professional observers can tell you, Obamacare isn’t going to confiscate anyone’s property, and it isn’t going to lead to a dystopia of poor care and high costs. In states where implementing the law is priority, it’s working to lower costs on the individual market, and—with subsidies and the Medicaid expansion—is poised to help millions of uninsured Americans, including a good number of Republicans.

      What happens when these people discover the law isn’t going to ruin their lives? What happens when it helps them? Will the GOP shift gears, and become a defender of the Obamacare status quo (“Get your government hands off of my Medicare,” and such)? Or will it be stuck in limbo, unable to attack the law—for fear of alienating voters—but forced to call for its repeal, to satisfy a still-active minority of anti-government zealots?

      We have three years before the next presidential election, and depending on the dynamics of the Republican primary—which will almost certainly include Ted Cruz, and others like him—it’s then we’ll see an answer, or something that looks like one.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • lonesome -

      Mr. DeMint is no doubt not confused with regard to the PPACA.

      Mr. DeMint is no doubt confusing you with regard to the PPACA.

      Read carefully Mr. DeMint's essay. Focus on the adverbs and adjectives he uses. Also, note the his use of conditional qualifies, which are followed by language that appears to draw unequivocal conclusions based upon said conditional qualifiers, which (important bit here) are unsatisfied/unresolved.

      Mr. DeMint would receive high marks from Dr. Goebbels.

      Also, (for extra credit) can you tell where Mr. DeMint confuses the regulatory scheme of the PPACA with economic functions, which are not part of the PPACA, and presents the PPACA as though it encompasses/regulates economic function?

      And, (for extra extra credit) can you identify elections employers can make, have made, will make that directly effect employee benefits, with or without the PPACA, but which Mr. DeMint attributes as the exclusive function of the PPACA?

      Cheers,

      • 1 Reply to jus_bellum
      • Re: "... Read carefully Mr. DeMint's essay. Focus on the adverbs and adjectives he uses. Also, note the his use of conditional qualifies, which are followed by language that appears to draw unequivocal conclusions based upon said conditional qualifiers, which (important bit here) are unsatisfied/unresolved. .."

        jus, you have hit, here, precisely why DeMint was brought in as President of The Heritage Foundation, to move it from being something of a real think tank and research organization to being a true organ of propaganda. A sad development.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • REPUBLICANS WILL CLOBBER OBAMACARE UNTIL THEY HUG IT

      Ezra Klein - Apr 24, 2013 - Bloomberg

      After John Boehner was elected leader of the House Republicans in 2006, Fox News host Chris Wallace asked him what was, at the time, an obvious question: “Medicare prescription drug benefit,” Wallace said. “How do you think it’s working?”
      This might have been a moment for Boehner to brag about one of the Republican Party’s most significant legislative achievements. Or, if politics didn’t permit patting himself on the back, perhaps he could have tried some elegant spin. But Boehner didn’t mince words: “The implementation of the Medicare plan has been horrendous,” he replied.
      This wasn’t news. In 2003, Republicans had passed, and President George W. Bush had signed, the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act. The process itself was notorious: Republicans intimidated Medicare’s actuary into withholding cost projections and, after the bill looked to be failing in the House, held the vote open for hours past the deadline as Republican leaders twisted arms and promised payoffs. In 2004, the House Ethics Committee issued a “public admonishment” to Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay for essentially bribing a fellow Republican for his vote.
      In 2006, the bill went into effect. It was a disaster. Computer systems didn’t communicate with one another. Seniors were confused. Some of the poorest and sickest enrollees -- “dual eligibles” who qualify for aid under both Medicare and Medicaid -- weren’t able to get their drugs. It was so bad that in his 2006 State of the Union address, Bush “said nothing about the new Medicare prescription drug program, an initiative Republicans once hoped to trumpet but has angered many seniors in its implementation,” reported the Washington Post.
      BLAME GAME
      Washington was so consumed by the blame game that even non-politicians felt moved to defend themselves. “I was offended by a Jan. 14 front-page story that said that one problem with the Medicare Part D prescription drug program is poorly trained pharmacists,” wrote one Washington Post reader. “As a pharmacist, I want to say that we were dealt a lemon with this program.”
      A 2006 hearing before the Senate Special Committee on Aging could’ve been a moment for Democrats to hammer the prescription drug bill. Instead, Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, then the top Democrat on the panel, said it was important “to put aside any partisan thoughts to work together to get this program running.” Hillary Clinton, then a senator from New York pushing an alternative prescription drug plan, was similarly constructive. “I voted against it, but once it passed I certainly determined that I would try to do everything I could to make sure that New Yorkers understood it, could access it, and make the best of it,” she said. She went on, in true Clinton fashion, to recommend an informational brochure her staff had put together.
      THE KINKS IN THE PROGRAM WERE EVENTUALLY WORKED OUT. TODAY MEDICARE PART D IS WIDELY CONSIDERED A SUCCESS. COSTS HAVE COME IN BELOW EXPECTATIONS -- THOUGH IN LARGE PART BECAUSE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES HAVE INVENTED FEWER EXPENSIVE NEW DRUGS THAN EXPECTED. SENIORS ARE HAPPY WITH THE PROGRAM. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CONSIDERS IT A HUGE ACHIEVEMENT -- EVEN A MODEL FOR FUTURE POLICIES. “OUR REFORMS DRAW UPON THE LESSONS OF MEDICARE’S PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM,” PROMISED REPRESENTATIVE PAUL RYAN. DEMOCRATS, RATHER THAN ATTEMPTING TO REPEAL OR OVERHAUL PART D, USED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT TO EXPAND IT.
      There are lessons here about the difficulty of implementing large programs, the dangers of extrapolating from a program’s first months to gauge its long-term success and what it means to be a loyal opposition. The Republican Party isn’t learning them.
      ‘TRAIN WRECK’
      Republicans have done everything possible to keep Obamacare from getting up and running smoothly. They’ve refused to sign off on any budget that includes the necessary money for implementation. At a hearing last week where Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana warned of a “train wreck” if the rollout wasn’t effectively managed, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican on the committee, attacked Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for implementing the law with existing funds.
      “A quick review of the HHS budget in brief seems to suggest that you are diverting funds from other areas of the department to put toward implementation,” Hatch said. “Would you describe the authority under which you believe you have the ability to conduct such transfers and whether or not you believe the Congress should be notified when these transfers occur?”
      Consider the implicit argument there. THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND, AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS LEGALLY BOUND TO IMPLEMENT IT. HAVING DENIED THE NECESSARY FUNDING TO DO SO, REPUBLICANS NOW WANT TO HINDER THE ADMINISTRATION’S ABILITY TO TRANSFER OTHER FUNDING, TO ENSURE THAT OBAMACARE BECOMES THE DISASTER REPUBLICANS HAVE PROMISED.
      THE MORE HORRENDOUS THE ROLLOUT, THE MORE EFFECTIVELY REPUBLICANS CAN RUN AGAINST OBAMACARE IN 2014. THAT MIGHT WORK: I WOULDN’T BE SURPRISED TO SEE OBAMACARE END UP AS A NET NEGATIVE FOR DEMOCRATS IN THE 2014 ELECTION -- MUCH AS MEDICARE PART D WAS FOR REPUBLICANS IN 2006. BUT BY THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, IT’S LIKELY TO BE A LAW THAT DEMOCRATS BRAG ABOUT AND REPUBLICANS SCAMPER TO GET BEHIND. AND THE FINAL ACT OF THIS DEPRESSING LITTLE POLITICAL PLAY WILL BE REPUBLICANS EMBRACING THIS POLICY THAT THEY DID EVERYTHING TO DESTROY, AND TRYING TO BUILD ON IT.
      Don’t believe it? Some Republicans are already arguing that Ryan’s Medicare premium support plan simply brings Obamacare to Medicare. “The great irony of Obama’s triumph, however, is that it can pave the way for Republicans to adopt a comprehensive, market-oriented healthcare agenda,” wrote Avik Roy and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, two influential Republican policy advisers. They argue that “both Representative Paul Ryan’s ‘premium support’ proposal for Medicare and Obamacare’s exchanges are modeled on the Swiss system,” and that Republicans should push to have Medicare beneficiaries “gradually migrate into the exchanges’ premium-support systems.”
      SEE? REPUBLICANS CAN GO FROM ARGUING THAT OBAMACARE SHOULD BE REPEALED TO ARGUING THAT IT NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED IN A FLASH. BUT NOT UNTIL THEY’VE SQUEEZED EVERY POLITICAL BENEFIT FROM MAKING ITS IMPLEMENTATION DISASTROUS.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • I can't believe elk didn't change the subject. Maybe he is in detention hall.

      Sentiment: Sell

 
ACTC
0.08150.0000(0.00%)Aug 27 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.