Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Entitlements: The $5 billion fund set up by ObamaCare to cover new high-risk insurance pools in each state from pre-existing conditions is already running out of money a full year before projections.
So why should anyone believe ObamaCare's overall cost projections are any more accurate?
Panicked to control mushrooming costs in its pre-existing conditions insurance plan, or PCIP, the Health and Human Services Department is having to curtail benefits to cancer patients, among others.
How long before the liberals start blaming these Obamacare cost overruns on George Bush?
What!?!?!? The put the meat on the table for the jackyls strategy didn't work? Did Dr. Ben Carson not call for personal managed accounts? Why care about the people when you can throw money to the people who supported your corruption? DUH.
From your source:
If the design of this program was bad, the implementation has been even worse. Costs have been disappointingly high, and enrollment disappointingly low. In fact, by the time 107,000 Americans had signed upthats far below the 600,000 to 700,000 that the Congressional Budget Office expectedthe programs money had run out. The Administration shouldnt be surprised that PCIP faces a budget crunch: The CBO warned that $5 billion would fall woefully short.
The PCIP is far from the only part of ObamaCare that has faced serious setbacks. The 1099 provision and the CLASS Act have been repealed. No part of the law has come in under budget.....
Now that ObamaCare is law, the Obama Administration is no longer pretending to care about the sickest Americans. Although Secretary Sebelius has the authority to move funds into this program, she hasnt, instead using her so-called Prevention and Public Health Fund (known as the Prevention Fund, or Slush Fund) to bankroll various activities without oversight.
This sends the message to the 40,000 people with pre-existing conditions who want to enroll in the program that they arent the real priority now that they are no longer politically useful. Instead, the Prevention fund has financed such apparently higher priorities such as pet neutering campaigns, bike/park signs, and gardening, and more disturbingly lobbying campaigns to advance liberal causes such as enacting fast food construction moratoriums and higher soda taxes; now it is being used for liberal activist groups to promote enrollment and pour money down the exchange rat hole.
Read more: ObamaCare?s pre-existing problems need a pragmatic fix - The Hill's Congress Blog
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
*shrugs* the RAND EMR ( elect. medical records) study said they'd be able to 'save' 81 bn a year, they will have to address the electronic records issue too, in short, Mo' $$$$$$
snip-
The basis for the president's proposal is a theoretical study published in 2005 by the RAND Corporation, funded by companies including Hewlett-Packard and Xerox that stand to financially benefit from such an electronic system.
RAND policy analysts readily admit in their report, there was no compelling evidence at the time to support their theoretical claims. Moreover, in the four years since the report, considerable data have been obtained that undermine their claims. The RAND study and the Obama proposal it spawned appear to be an elegant exercise in wishful thinking.
To be sure, there are real benefits from electronic medical records. Physicians and nurses can readily access all the information on their patients from a single site. Particularly helpful are alerts in the system that warn of potential dangers in the prescribing of a certain drug for a patient on other therapies that could result in toxicity. But do these benefits translate into $80 billion annually in cost-savings? The cost-savings from avoiding medication errors are relatively small, amounting at most to a few billion dollars yearly, as the RAND consultants admit.
more at-
Obama's $80 Billion Exaggeration - WSJ.com
and..
Study: Electronic Medical Records Not Generating Expected Savings
01/17/2013
Study: Electronic Medical Records Not Generating Expected Savings
Shocking.The basis for the president's proposal is a theoretical study published in 2005 by the RAND Corporation, funded by companies including Hewlett-Packard and Xerox that stand to financially benefit from such an electronic system.
From your source:
If the design of this program was bad, the implementation has been even worse. Costs have been disappointingly high, and enrollment disappointingly low. In fact, by the time 107,000 Americans had signed upthats far below the 600,000 to 700,000 that the Congressional Budget Office expectedthe programs money had run out. The Administration shouldnt be surprised that PCIP faces a budget crunch: The CBO warned that $5 billion would fall woefully short.
The PCIP is far from the only part of ObamaCare that has faced serious setbacks. The 1099 provision and the CLASS Act have been repealed. No part of the law has come in under budget.....
Now that ObamaCare is law, the Obama Administration is no longer pretending to care about the sickest Americans. Although Secretary Sebelius has the authority to move funds into this program, she hasnt, instead using her so-called Prevention and Public Health Fund (known as the Prevention Fund, or Slush Fund) to bankroll various activities without oversight.
This sends the message to the 40,000 people with pre-existing conditions who want to enroll in the program that they arent the real priority now that they are no longer politically useful. Instead, the Prevention fund has financed such apparently higher priorities such as pet neutering campaigns, bike/park signs, and gardening, and more disturbingly lobbying campaigns to advance liberal causes such as enacting fast food construction moratoriums and higher soda taxes; now it is being used for liberal activist groups to promote enrollment and pour money down the exchange rat hole.
Read more: ObamaCare?s pre-existing problems need a pragmatic fix - The Hill's Congress Blog
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
*shrugs* the RAND EMR ( elect. medical records) study said they'd be able to 'save' 81 bn a year, they will have to address the electronic records issue too, in short, Mo' $$$$$$
snip-
The basis for the president's proposal is a theoretical study published in 2005 by the RAND Corporation, funded by companies including Hewlett-Packard and Xerox that stand to financially benefit from such an electronic system.
RAND policy analysts readily admit in their report, there was no compelling evidence at the time to support their theoretical claims. Moreover, in the four years since the report, considerable data have been obtained that undermine their claims. The RAND study and the Obama proposal it spawned appear to be an elegant exercise in wishful thinking.
To be sure, there are real benefits from electronic medical records. Physicians and nurses can readily access all the information on their patients from a single site. Particularly helpful are alerts in the system that warn of potential dangers in the prescribing of a certain drug for a patient on other therapies that could result in toxicity. But do these benefits translate into $80 billion annually in cost-savings? The cost-savings from avoiding medication errors are relatively small, amounting at most to a few billion dollars yearly, as the RAND consultants admit.
more at-
Obama's $80 Billion Exaggeration - WSJ.com
and..
Study: Electronic Medical Records Not Generating Expected Savings
01/17/2013
Study: Electronic Medical Records Not Generating Expected Savings
Shocking.The basis for the president's proposal is a theoretical study published in 2005 by the RAND Corporation, funded by companies including Hewlett-Packard and Xerox that stand to financially benefit from such an electronic system.
Unicorn's will fly over DC but what they sprinkle will not be bags of gold and will smell kind of shitty.From your source:
If the design of this program was bad, the implementation has been even worse. Costs have been disappointingly high, and enrollment disappointingly low. In fact, by the time 107,000 Americans had signed upthats far below the 600,000 to 700,000 that the Congressional Budget Office expectedthe programs money had run out. The Administration shouldnt be surprised that PCIP faces a budget crunch: The CBO warned that $5 billion would fall woefully short.
The PCIP is far from the only part of ObamaCare that has faced serious setbacks. The 1099 provision and the CLASS Act have been repealed. No part of the law has come in under budget.....
Now that ObamaCare is law, the Obama Administration is no longer pretending to care about the sickest Americans. Although Secretary Sebelius has the authority to move funds into this program, she hasnt, instead using her so-called Prevention and Public Health Fund (known as the Prevention Fund, or Slush Fund) to bankroll various activities without oversight.
This sends the message to the 40,000 people with pre-existing conditions who want to enroll in the program that they arent the real priority now that they are no longer politically useful. Instead, the Prevention fund has financed such apparently higher priorities such as pet neutering campaigns, bike/park signs, and gardening, and more disturbingly lobbying campaigns to advance liberal causes such as enacting fast food construction moratoriums and higher soda taxes; now it is being used for liberal activist groups to promote enrollment and pour money down the exchange rat hole.
Read more: ObamaCare?s pre-existing problems need a pragmatic fix - The Hill's Congress Blog
Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
the CLASS act ( the long term care prgm.) was scheduled to collect big $$$$ to be used by obamacare BEFORE the prgm. kicked in, expending what it collected for that long term care, to drop the cost of obamacare overall in their 6 year window....... they had to pull the plug on it becasue, enrollment basically sucked and it became unworkable....
so, I guess a Unicorn will fly over DC and sprinkle bags of gold to make up the difference in where the $$ they forecast that prgm. generating, now gone, to make up the loss.....
*shrugs* the RAND EMR ( elect. medical records) study said they'd be able to 'save' 81 bn a year, they will have to address the electronic records issue too, in short, Mo' $$$$$$
snip-
The basis for the president's proposal is a theoretical study published in 2005 by the RAND Corporation, funded by companies including Hewlett-Packard and Xerox that stand to financially benefit from such an electronic system.
RAND policy analysts readily admit in their report, there was no compelling evidence at the time to support their theoretical claims. Moreover, in the four years since the report, considerable data have been obtained that undermine their claims. The RAND study and the Obama proposal it spawned appear to be an elegant exercise in wishful thinking.
To be sure, there are real benefits from electronic medical records. Physicians and nurses can readily access all the information on their patients from a single site. Particularly helpful are alerts in the system that warn of potential dangers in the prescribing of a certain drug for a patient on other therapies that could result in toxicity. But do these benefits translate into $80 billion annually in cost-savings? The cost-savings from avoiding medication errors are relatively small, amounting at most to a few billion dollars yearly, as the RAND consultants admit.
more at-
Obama's $80 Billion Exaggeration - WSJ.com
and..
Study: Electronic Medical Records Not Generating Expected Savings
01/17/2013
Study: Electronic Medical Records Not Generating Expected Savings
Shocking.The basis for the president's proposal is a theoretical study published in 2005 by the RAND Corporation, funded by companies including Hewlett-Packard and Xerox that stand to financially benefit from such an electronic system.
exactly, but burp up a study funded in part by BP $$ given to the UC Berkeley global warming dept. that doesn't show us all burning up or strangling on CO2 and its a bias study....
