ACA provides new tools to fight fraud and abuse
Every recent administration has gone after waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid and Medicare. The passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 simply gave HHS new tools to use. For example, HHS no longer has to follow the "pay and chase" model, but can take steps to screen out and prevent / stop abuse in the first place. These tools would not exist without ACA. The following year, a record $4.1 Billion was recovered.
[URL]http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=72[/URL]
[QUOTE]
In fiscal year 2011 the combined efforts by CMS, the Department of Justice, and HHS's Office of Inspector General resulted in criminal health care fraud charges against 1,430 defendants; 743 criminal convictions; 977 new investigations of civil health care fraud; and the recovery of $4.1 billion, the highest annual amount recovered in a single year, though still woefully short of the estimated annual loss. CMS officials said that during the same period, the agency revoked the Medicare billing privileges of 4,850 providers and suppliers and deactivated an additional 56,733 billing numbers.
[/QUOTE]Of course, we would not expect a Serial Obama Denigrator to be familiar with the many good things this administration has been doing.
Nelson Mandela, what we can take from him.
Bravery, Honesty, Humility Compassion, Forgiveness, Unity. Just choose any one of these to strive for in your daily encounters, and you will be a better man.
For me, I am a coward at heart, but the rest, I think can I work on them.
I can't believe I 'm biting on this bait
Jonathan Turley cannot be characterized simply as a "liberal." He has a strong libertarian streak. For example, he takes the libertarian position on the Second Amendment. He tends to enjoy controversy, and he has been extremely critical of all recent presidents, regardless of party.
Investors Business Daily, like some of the commentators on Fox, loves to cite the New York Times and other "liberal" organizations and individuals when they say something critical of Obama. Of course, IBD ridicules the same sources if they say something good about Obama. The difference between responsible media and IBD is that responsible media are very critical of the President at times whereas IBD will tirelessly work to throw dirt on Obama regardless of what Obama does. In other words, responsible media are still able to see pros and cons. They can accept the idea that there might be an alternative way to look at something. They have not become the hate media like the IBD. Furthermore, they don't put editorials on the front page masquerading as news articles.
Case in point: Prior to the deadline for the sequester, IBD daily attacked Obama on the front page for his responsibility in legislating an automatic sequester if the two parties could not come to a budget deal. According to IBD, the sequester was all Obama's idea. But then, after the sequester kicked in and Republicans started saying, heh, this is good not bad, IBD changed its stance 180 degrees on the sequester and the responsibility for the sequester. Look it up. But you won't find anyone who wrote in IBD about the radical change. Nor do they publish truly critical letters to the editor. It is just one example of how IBD will attack the President no matter what he does. Objectivism must have something to do with being objective, no?
The other front-page tactic of IBD is to take a fact and bend it every which way it can to make an anti-Obama statement. IBD is very worried that the bill it detests won't be implemented on schedule. How's that? It might make some sense for a Jonathan Turley, who likes the ACA, to complain about a delay in implementation. However, no one on the right seems to see that it is a bit of a paradox to be upset about a delay in something bad. "Captain, I hereby object that this ship is sinking so slowly.
The fact is that Presidents of both parties for the last 250 years have sometimes delayed the implementation of legislation. G. W. Bush took it a step beyond that by making an unprecedented number of signing ceremonies in which he said he simply wasn't going to implement parts of the legislation at all. Not a delay, a total refusal. This is a matter of record.
Let's go back to definitions. A lie involves purposeful deception. IBD loves to throw around the word lie. The President made a serious error. There is no evidence that he lied. George Bush didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction. But it was a vastly larger error. Of course, libertarians are going to say that they hate Bush too (now, not then). That is because they advocate an Ayn Rand utopia that never existed and that could not exist, given human nature.
The ACA will be implemented. Insurance companies in the future will not be able to deny coverage to people without preexisting conditions even though there might be glitches now. Small employers will ultimately save money through pools that were not previously available. People will no longer be able to freeload off expensive and free emergency room care without paying their fair share. Many millions of people who have no coverage now will have coverage. This will be a boon to hard-pressed hospitals and will lead to decreases in costs. Over time a public option will be implemented to see if a Medicare-type system could me more efficient than what is offered by insurers. It will be implemented if we really believe in competition and data. And Investors Business Daily will be writing editorials about the lying dictator who is weak and inexperienced but dangerous as Hitler but now helplessly pathetic, regardless of what Obama does or what happens in the future. That is not consistency. It is compulsive hate.
Let me just for a moment play by IBD's own rules of smear: IBD might possibly be just a front-running investment cheat whose data crunchers take stock positions and then tell their readers what to buy, to push the price up. Even if not, the IBD style of investment is oriented only to short-term speculations, with quick trading out. It's legal, but it is not a way to build an economy.
Let me follow my own rule and find something good about IBD. They are putting good at identifying market conditions.
[QUOTE=Punter127;437007][B]Obama Is The Danger Constitution Was Designed To Avoid[/B]
"President Obama "extended the employer mandate for a year, even though the law says 'shall commence in each month after December of 2013.' He extended the individual mandate, stretched that out and now the small-package plans. There's at least three times that he's violated the Constitution with ObamaCare.
When confronted with his lies that under ObamaCare you could keep your plan and doctor if you like them, and millions were losing the coverage they liked, the president held a press conference where he decreed that insurance companies could violate the "law of the land" and reissue policies that did not contain Obama-Care's 10 essential mandates, if only for a year.
This prompted Jonathan Turley, [HIGHLIGHT]a liberal law professor at George Washington University and supporter of the Affordable Care Act,[/HIGHLIGHT] to tell the House Judiciary Committee at a Dec. 3 hearing, titled "The President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws," that Obama's abuse of executive power has grown to the point that "he's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid."
Turley cited the "radical expansion of presidential powers" and the rise of what he termed the "fourth branch" of government — massive federal departments and agencies that can write regulations that have the effect of law written by unelected bureaucrats often contrary to the will of Congress and the American people."
[URL]http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/120613-682144-obama-danger-constitution-designed-to-avoid.htm#ixzz2 mpiCQEKj.[/URL]
Time for America and the folks on the left to wake up. It's really unbelievable how many lies Obama has told us.
[B]Another ObamaCare Lie: Protecting Those With Pre-Existing Conditions[/B]
[URL]http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/120613-682150-if-youre-already-sick-obamacare-clobbers-you.htm[/URL][/QUOTE]
Just read the Times and the Post and you will see
The Times and almost all the other liberal media have harshly and repeatedly criticized the Obama Administration for NSA surveillance. Also many liberal publications have criticized Obama in the strongest terms for expanding the war in Afghanistan. The reason Obama's popularity is down is that many people on the left have given up on him for taking a militaristic stance on the world and for overemphasis on national security. I have written several letters to the editors of the Times that they have lost the big picture in being overly critical of this president.
IBD itself has frequently cited Times' editorials that were critical of the President. So has Hannity. Facts continue to be pesky to minds that are not closed.
Is the repetition of haha and ROTFLMAO really that good of a strategy for discourse?. A puerile attempt to humiliate someone with an opposing point of view.. Or maybe just the end-of-day remark of a drowsy emperor who would know better in the morning.
[QUOTE=Jackson;437034]Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
ROTFLMAO!
The funniest part is that, from your seat, you really believe that the lamestream media actually is "very critical" of Obama.
ROTFLMAO!
Please stop it. You're killing me.
Jax.[/QUOTE]
