Gruber as that arrogant British economics professor and Trump as Rodney.
Gruber
Trump!
Posted on 10/10/2016 2:02:58 PM PDT by Nachum
Dumb for him to respond! Perhaps now the videos will get the attention they deserve.
Hit a nerve I see....
They created a system where they can reward their friends who are the only ones in the line at the top and receive big money from them for it. These scumbags all belong in jail
Gruber as that arrogant British economics professor and Trump as Rodney.
Gruber Trump!
I took the time and looked at this back in August 2009 to see “what was in it” and this was a post from back then.
I don’t post this as a “I told you so” because all of us here knew this intuitively. I post it because it shows how dastardly and convolutedly they wrote this to deliberately obscure and obfuscate the bill.
Intentionally. As the very last line of my post said in shouty caps: THEY DON’T WANT ANYONE TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS.
***********************************************
NOTE: DON’T LET THE LEGISLATIVE GOBBLEDY_GOOK SHOWN BELOW SCARE YOU AWAY FROM READING THIS POST: I PUT IT THERE FOR A SPECIFIC REASON)
I was trying to figure out what is going to happen with physician compensation because I heard from a physician that all specialties, brain surgeons and dermatologists, will be paid the same. So, I tried to look through it, and in the process stumbled across how they plan to reduce both payment AND availability of imaging resources (such as CT, MR, etc.)
This is pissing me off, and really, it is beginning to make me burn. Look at how this thing is written. I copied the section below right out of the document. Look further down for my explanation if you are interested.
***************************************
***************************************
SEC. 1147. PAYMENT FOR IMAGING SERVICES.
10 (a) ADJUSTMENT IN PRACTICE EXPENSE TO RE11
FLECT HIGHER PRESUMED UTILIZATION.—Section 1848
12 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w) is amend13
ed—
14 (1) in subsection (b)(4)—
15 (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘sub16
paragraph (A)’’ and inserting ‘‘this paragraph’’;
17 and
18 (B) by adding at the end the following new
19 subparagraph:
20 ‘‘(C) ADJUSTMENT IN PRACTICE EXPENSE
21 TO REFLECT HIGHER PRESUMED UTILIZA22
TION.—In computing the number of practice
23 expense relative value units under subsection
24 (c)(2)(C)(ii) with respect to advanced diagnostic
25 imaging services (as defined in section
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
274
•HR 3200 IH
1 1834(e)(1)(B)), the Secretary shall adjust such
2 number of units so it reflects a 75 percent
3 (rather than 50 percent) presumed rate of utili4
zation of imaging equipment.’’; and
5 (2) in subsection (c)(2)(B)(v)(II), by inserting
6 ‘‘AND OTHER PROVISIONS’’ after ‘‘OPD PAYMENT
7 CAP’’.
8 (b) ADJUSTMENT IN TECHNICAL COMPONENT ‘‘DIS9
COUNT’’ ON SINGLE-SESSION IMAGING TO CONSECUTIVE
10 BODY PARTS.—Section 1848(b)(4) of such Act is further
11 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara12
graph:
13 ‘‘(D) ADJUSTMENT IN TECHNICAL COMPO14
NENT DISCOUNT ON SINGLE-SESSION IMAGING
15 INVOLVING CONSECUTIVE BODY PARTS.—The
16 Secretary shall increase the reduction in ex17
penditures attributable to the multiple proce18
dure payment reduction applicable to the tech19
nical component for imaging under the final
20 rule published by the Secretary in the Federal
21 Register on November 21, 2005 (part 405 of
22 title 42, Code of Federal Regulations) from 25
23 percent to 50 percent.’’.
24 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as otherwise pro25
vided, this section, and the amendments made by this sec-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 03:06 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00274 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
275
•HR 3200 IH
1 tion, shall apply to services furnished on or after January
2 1,
***************************************
***************************************
The following two paragraphs below show what the BULL$HIT above boils down to in normal english, and what it actually MEANS. This just steams me.
“SEC. 1147. PAYMENT FOR IMAGING SERVICES.
ADJUSTMENT IN PRACTICE EXPENSE TO REFLECT HIGHER PRESUMED UTILIZATION
In computing the number of practice expense relative value units under subsection the Secretary shall adjust such number of units so it reflects a 75 percent (rather than 50 percent) presumed rate of utilization of imaging equipment.”
(I am no expert on this, but downloading a Powerpoint Presentation, and looking around at various critiques of the way practice expense is calculated, INCREASING the presumed rate of utilization drives DOWN the amount of money you get paid. I am a genius. I assumed that, but figured I better check it out...)
END RESULT: LESS MONEY FOR IMAGING, FEWER SERVICES OFFERED.
“Section 1848
ADJUSTMENT IN TECHNICAL COMPONENT DISCOUNT ON SINGLE-SESSION IMAGING INVOLVING CONSECUTIVE BODY PARTS.
The Secretary shall increase the reduction in expenditures attributable to the multiple procedure payment reduction applicable to the technical component for imaging from 25 percent to 50 percent.”
(What this means is that from now on, if you do a CT of the Abdomen AND a CT of the pelvis without moving the patient, you now get paid 50% less rather than 25% less. This is huge, and just one example of how they are going to cut billions of dollars a year in costs. The scumbags will say with a straight face that they aren’t rationing, but if you don’t get paid for the service, you either don’t do the service, or you go broke)
END RESULT: LESS MONEY FOR IMAGING, FEWER SERVICES OFFERED.
According to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (at this link: http://www.aapsonline.org/ this is an organization that advocates for physicians, not like the AMA which is advocating for liberalism) these sections above up to a reduction of 4.3 billion dollars a year in money to be paid for imaging. If someone interprets that some different way, please let me know...but if you bring in 45 million more people and reduce the money you pay...gee whiz, what is the end result?
Now, I wasn’t born yesterday, and I know why they are doing this, but this is our healthcare we are talking about, and they have deliberately tried to bury as much of it in incomprehensible legalese as they can get it. It made me madder and madder as I tried to go through it.
THEY DON’T WANT ANYONE TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS.
Trump is good at smokin out the reprobates ...
That mit has the gall to employ this degenerate, preening loser speaks volumes about how far that institution has fallen. This guy is a condescending loser of the first class.
The leftist freaks spent several weeks telling us JGroober had almost nothing to do with the Fraud’s “health” care.
Noting that I will gladly Vote Trump, please consider the following information concerning Obamacare.
Constitution-savvy patriots need to get constitutionally low-information Trump up to speed on the following material so that Trump can get constitutionally low-Information Gruber up to speed on it.
Regardless what lawless Obama’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of Obamacare, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constituton, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes. This is evidenced by the excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions below.
Regarding the constitutionality of the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fourth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. In that case, justices had clarified that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]" - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass." -Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphasis added] of indemnity against loss." - Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
"Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress." - Linder v. United States, 1925.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. ...” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
So what the corrupt Supreme Court’s green light for unconstitutional Obamacare actually did was to show how corrupt all three branches of the unconstitutionally big federal government are, the feds wrongly not securing the required consent of the Constitution’s Article V state supermajority before establishing Obamacare.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson had wisely suggested that the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers should be interpreted narrowly to compel the states to amend the Constitution for new federal powers if necessary.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Remember in November !
Patriots need to support Trump / Pence by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trump’s vision for making America great again for everybody, but will also put a stop to unconstitutonal federal taxes and likewise unconstitutional inteference in state affairs as evidenced by unconstitutional Obamacare.
Note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
Good god, Hussein has CLOWN lips
Oh Johnny boy. How would you know? You are exempt. You just needed a way to craft the POS so us stupid people would like it. Will Bruner pay my 13,000 deductible?
Gruber crafted the Affordable Care Act, and pointed out that the law was passed partly because of a lack of transparency and due to the "stupidity" of the American voter.
What is strong and coherent about that? Obamacare is NOT affordable by the people, and is being crushed by increasing premiums, increaslng deductibles, with fewer and fewer providers.
It is hardly affordable! Billions of dollars have been wasted propping up the declining number of insurers. Gruber created a garbage salad himself!
The use of substitutions in previous laws is a pet peeve. You have to follow the trail back through previous legislation to find what the change really does. They should be made to repeal the previous legislation so that one can see exactly what the legislation is as changed.
This process would get rid of unnecessary legislation and make them do their job.
This self-important pu$$ie purposely designed O-care to be a lie, then laughed at how stupid the American people are, and we should give a diseased rat’s ass what he says?
Not me. In fact, if he’s upset about something, then that something must be good.
Trump’s Healthcare solution was articulate and simple.
Block grants to the states.
The states would then be able to experiment with different solutions. Diversity in searching solutions is deplorable.
What if solution in some states turns out to be better than the solution in other states? What if some decide more money should be spent on education than on Healthcare?
(Currently, many states spend more money on Healthcare than on education. Is that the proper allocation?)
Gruber should be hanged, set on fire, and shot.
He deliberately endangered the lives of a quarter billion people.
Bury the bastard.
The “thoroughly discredited” Jonathan Gruber...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.