¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009
0 Kudos




Health-care reform proves  damaging to seniors as it approaches two-year anniversary

3,21, 2012,

By Tim Walberg

Friday marks the second anniversary of President Obama’s  health-care bill being signed into law. At the time the president claimed, “When  I sign this bill, all of the overheated rhetoric over reform will finally  confront the reality of reform." He was unfortunately correct. The reality of  the law has been painful.

The past two years have illustrated how many people  will be hurt by the law, not helped.  Many of my constituents remain angry  they will be forced to purchase health insurance or pay a fine, while businesses  have expressed fears they will not be able to sustain the extra costs associated  with the law and its mandates, further crippling our nation’s economy.  But even amongst all these concerns, it may be our seniors  who are the real victims under the president’s health-care  law.

According to the economists at the Centers for  Medicare and Medicaid Services, unless changes are made, Medicare will face  insolvency in 10 years. Yet instead of  strengthening the program which millions of seniors and disabled Americans rely  on, Obama’s law will speed up its demise by cutting $500 billion that would have  been spent on Medicare to finance new entitlement  programs.

The president’s hand-picked 15-member Independent  Payment Advisory Board is even more troubling. Its purpose is to control future  Medicare spending so that if Medicare grows beyond what is sustainable, the  board has the power to recommend cuts. Right now, efforts to repeal the power of  this group of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats are under way and  receiving strong bipartisan support.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Access to quality care for seniors is  a top priority. According to the American Medical Association, one in three  primary care doctors already limit the number of new Medicare patients they take  on due to cost. Once the law is fully enacted, CMS estimates that about 15  percent of Medicare Part A providers will become unprofitable and drop out  entirely, leaving seniors with fewer options.

On top of rationing seniors’ benefits, the government  wants to charge them more to do it.  The president’s law has already raised  Part D premiums, which provide prescription drug coverage, by 4 percent for 17  million seniors so that 400,000 low-income senior beneficiaries will have their  coverage paid in full. By 2019, the premium will be raised to 9 percent,  according to projections from the Congressional Budget  Office.

It should come as no surprise  then that almost 60 percent of our country’s seniors have an unfavorable view of  the law.  It’s clear that the law will negatively affect our nation’s older  population, but it doesn’t stop there. When signed into law, the Congressional  Budget Office projected it would cost $940 billion. Now according to a new  recent CBO projection the health care law will cost $1.76 trillion. We can only  wonder what such projections mean for the future of Medicare and our  grandchildren.

Bottom line: The president’s health care law makes it  harder for seniors to get the medical care they need while simultaneously  dumping an unsustainable debt on future generations.  Both seniors and  their grandchildren have a right to be concerned over this failed program.   That’s why I remain committed to repealing the burdensome, costly and cumbersome  law while championing common-sense and patient-centered health care reforms in  its place.

I believe health-care decisions  should be made by patients, families and their doctors, not by bureaucrats in  Washington who are burdening seniors and future generations with less choice,  fewer services and more debt.

- U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, represents the 7th  Congressional District, which includes Jackson County.

Más en Univision.com: href="http://foro.univision.com/t5/Noticias-y-Pol%C3%ADtica-en-Estados-Unidos/REPUBLICANOS-REDUCEN-D...

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Ryan's Budget Kicks the Can at Timorous  Democrats

Michael Barone 3/22/2012

As I listened to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan describe his  latest budget plan in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute this week, I  couldn't help thinking how different things will be in Britain when Chancellor  of the Exchequer George Osborne steps out of No. 11 Downing St. with a battered  red briefcase holding his budget for the forthcoming year.

Ryan's budget will almost surely be passed by the House of Representatives,  all but four of whose Republican members voted for his budget last year. But it  will not pass in the Senate, whose Democratic majority in defiance of legal  requirements did not produce a budget for the last two years and is poised to  not pass one again this year.

Britain's parliamentary system works differently. The majority coalition of  Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will pass Osborne's budget in the House of  Commons. It will be approved perfunctorily by the House of Lords, and it will  certainly not be vetoed by the Queen.

But Ryan's initiative has moved us some distance toward what is in effect a  parliamentary system and could move us much farther along that trajectory if the  elections go the Republicans' way in November.

By proposing budgets that cut tax rates, require future changes in Medicare,  maintain current defense spending rather than cutting it and rein in  discretionary domestic spending, Ryan has supposedly gone out on a dangerous  limb.

And his fellow House Republicans, elected in a year of protest against huge  increases in government spending and deficits, have been willing to go with  him.

Ryan is arguing that we are on an unsustainable course that will lead  inevitably to a debt crisis requiring far more painful adjustments than anything  he is proposing. He notes that the Congressional Budget Office cannot even model  the economy past 2027 because of looming debt. Think Greece.

His Senate counterpart, Democratic Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, tends to  agree. But he's been blocked from offering a budget by Harry Reid, Charles  Schumer and others with their eyes always on the next election.

Ryan points out that his proposal to move Medicare toward a premium support  system, with market competition between private insurance firms and an option to  choose the current fee-for-service system, has been supported in various forms  by Democrats -- Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, Clinton budget director Alice Rivlin,  former Sen. John Breaux.

The raw material is there, this suggests, for bipartisan majorities for  reform -- if the president goes along.

Barack Obama, by ignoring the Simpson-Bowles commission and spiking (as a  recent Washington Post article detailed) a "grand bargain" on taxes and  entitlements last summer, has made it clear he is not such a president.

The Republican presidential candidates seem more amenable. Their fiscal and  budget proposals have been somewhat sketchy, and their numbers may not add up.  But they are also talking about Medicare reforms and changes in the tax code  that would broaden the base and cut rates.

Mitt Romney in particular seems to be deferring to Ryan. He has modified his  59-point economic program with pledges to seek tax and entitlement reform. Ryan  was scheduled to meet with him yesterday after his AEI speech.

Romney would be wise to listen. Ryan knows far more about the budget than any  of the presidential candidates. He combines deep policy knowledge with sure  political instincts -- a combination rare in politicians, especially  Republicans.

If Romney is elected and Republicans win a majority in the Senate and hold  their majority in the House, it seems possible that Ryan more than the new  president would seize the initiative on tax and entitlement policy.

He could be the effective equivalent of a chancellor of the exchequer, as  Osborne is for David Cameron and Gordon Brown was for Tony Blair, driving budget  and economic policy.

The conventional political wisdom is that Ryan's budget is politically  suicidal. But conventional wisdom also held that voters would like the stimulus  package and come to like Obamacare. Neither has happened.

Republicans' standing in generic House vote polls did not slump when Ryan's  budget passed last year. Right now, it's about the same as at this point in the  2010 election cycle.

Maybe, just maybe, voters will reward politicians who tackle looming problems  rather than those, like Obama, who keep kicking the can down the road.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


ObamaCare Still a Disaster -- No   Matter How the Supreme Court Decides

By Larry Elder



"I am a refugee," my anesthesiologist told me after  I  had awakened from my third surgery in 12 years -- one to repair a muscle  tear in  my left shoulder and two for the same disc in my lower back. "I am  part of the  British 'brain drain' of the late '60s. Doctors could not make  any money. So I  left." Britain's loss, my gain. The same  surgery 12 years ago  required a two-day stay in a hospital. Last week,  after a two-hour surgery, I  left the same day as an  outpatient.

But under ObamaCare, we  can  expect a loss of talent and a decline in quality of care. Thousands of  us, the  doctor explained, abandoned England to practice medicine in  America. "So, how's  this?" my doctor said. "I left the U.K. to get away  from the government telling  me how to practice, what to charge -- and now  we are getting the same thing.  ObamaCare stinks, and the people will  regret it. What happened to the docs there  will happen  here."

Great Britain began practicing  socialized  medicine through the taxpayer-funded National Health Services  in 1948. And  indeed, one of the first U.K. studies on the emigration of  their native-born  physicians, "British Doctors at Home and Abroad,"  published in 1964, noted that,  beginning in the 1950s, their docs were  leaving for "high-income" countries at  an alarming rate: "Many of them  stressed the wider field of work they could  undertake in general practice  abroad and criticized the limited role of the  general practitioner in  England." And nearly half a century later, Britain's  "brain drain"  continues.

Medical advances require research and development.  And  as much as government spends on health care and medical research, the  private  sector spends much more. But ObamaCare places a tax on medical  equipment  manufacturers, to raise $20 billion for the federal coffers when  it goes into  full effect in 2013. As a result, some medical device  manufacturers are already  closing up shop or downsizing to reflect lower  profits under ObamaCare.Some canceled plans for new U.S.  plants, looking to other parts of the  world. Many manufacturers have  already announced significant layoffs, and most  also look to other  alternatives, including cutting research and development, and  passing  along the tax's costs to the patients.


Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


part 2

In addition to the excise tax on  medical device manufacturers, ObamaCare imposes many more taxes, including the  following: an individual mandate excise tax for adults who don't purchase  "qualifying" health insurance; an employer mandate tax for those companies who  don't offer health coverage; and a surtax on investment income -- making the  rate as high as 43.4 percent on gross income from interest, annuities,  royalties, net rents and passive income for families making more than $250,000.  Given this, will we see the same private-sector investments in the health care  field, as ObamaCare imposes ever more regulations designed at increasing  "accessibility" and "controlling costs"?

What about costs?

Obama promised that ObamaCare would "bend the cost curve"  down. The Congressional Budget Office just released new figures on the 10-year  cost of ObamaCare. Starting in 2010, government began taxing for ObamaCare to  build up revenues. So for the first four years, ObamaCare takes in tax money but  does not start spending in any significant amount until 2014. This was a tactic  designed to make ObamaCare seem more "affordable."

But even with this gimmick, the CBO just doubled its original  projections for the cost of ObamaCare. Now, the  CBO pegs the cost to taxpayers at $1.76 trillion over the next decade. And,  critics point out, this price tag is only for the cost of insurance subsidies,  Medicaid and CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program). It doesn't include  implementation or other costs, which will likely send the taxpayers' bill  soaring past $2 trillion.

Obama said his plan would save American families  $2,500 a year on their insurance premiums. The new CBO report says premiums will  rise 10 to 13 percent, and that up to 20 million people could lose their  employer-provided health insurance every year from 2019 to 2022, a sharp revisal  of its previous estimate of up to 3 million.

Oh, it all seems so lovely on paper, doesn't it?

Sen. Obama said that if he were "starting from scratch," he'd  have a single-payer system. This is what they have  in Canada. But when a high-ranking member of the Canadian government -- and  proponent of the Canadian health care system -- needed surgery, he did not stay  home. After having his 2010 heart surgery performed in Miami, Canadian Premier  Danny Williams told reporters: "This was my heart, my choice, and my health. I  did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when  I entered politics."

Consider what the then-incoming president of the  Canadian Medical Association said about their single-payer health care system:  "(Our) system is imploding." Consider what the outgoing president said:  "Competition should be welcomed, not feared."

My doctor remains cheerful. "I retire  in a few years," he said. "Then it's your problem."


Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Is There An Imposter In The White House? An Excerpt from "Hope Is Not A Strategy"


Forbes 3/24/2012

Cover of "The Manchurian Candidate"

Cover of The Manchurian Candidate

There is something very wrong when the sitting president refuses to divulge huge pieces of information about his background. What is he hiding? Maybe the “birthers” were a little extreme, but is there something wrong with this “manufactured candidate,” whose history remains sealed from public view? What is he hiding?

Could the “Hawaii birth certificate” be a forgery? Is there something much worse—like “sponsorship” by an unnamed special interest? I don’t know. I do know that the man in the White House now is an imposter. The only question is which kind of an imposter: an incompetent “pretender” or a genuine phony, a “Manchurian candidate,” who is a liberal, ½ black and ½ white, and an obvious Muslim sympathizer (despite claims of being a Christian—in clear conflict with his non-Christian behavior).

Will this campaign expose him as the imposter, and the pretender his behavior has revealed? Will it expose his hidden history and murky background. We know about his failures and mistakes.

For those who don’t, here is another in this series of revealing excerpts from HOPE IS NOT A STRATEGY: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency. The book is now available in paperback and Kindle versions. Other in e-book versions are available at www.smashwords.com.

Excerpt from the chapter: Beware the Pretender:
…”No matter how many times President Obama refers to the “problems he inherited,” he has now been in office three years. Certainly many of the current problems can be traced back to events that happened during the eight years that Bush held the top office, and some can be traced back to even earlier presidencies—but far from all of them.
Many of the problems are newly created (or made worse), and Barack Obama owns them. Candidate Obama stepped up and essentially said, “I want the job, and everything that comes with it” by running for president.



Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009



After three years in office, the problems now belong to him and his presidency. He caused them, made them worse, or didn’t solve them. Either way, they are his now.
…In leadership, you cannot “pretend” to be a leader. You either are—or you aren’t—a leader. One or the other will become apparent very quickly.
If you want the leadership job, you must step up and take full ownership of it. A “pretender” or “poser” is like an actor who has learned all the right lines, but has no idea what they mean. Once the script has been followed (or deviated from), the actor is clueless about what to do next. This is the job of the leader. Unfortunately, in this government, the “directors” often seem clueless, having learned in academia where results and wins/losses are theoretical, or in politics where success (at getting elected) is more a matter of rhetoric than results.
If you are not ready for a pposition, or do not believe that you have what it takes to rise to the challenge (or clean up the mess even if you believe it is not your mess), then do not take the job. This was Barack Obama’s fundamental mistake. He grossly underestimated the difficulty of the pposition he was running for, and overestimated his preparedness to actually do the job. Just because he could “talk a good game” (thanks to a phalanx of speech writers and the omnipresent teleprompters) does not mean he actually knew what to do or how to do it. The presidency of the United States of America is not a place for heavy OJT (On-the Job-Training)….”

After the first three plus years of the presidency, it is painfully clear that Barack Obama was a “pretty face,” and “glib speaker” and a lightweight liberal politician with a community organizer/radical background. The American people should be outraged at this man’s behavior and even his candidacy. Why are they not? Because of the misinformation delivered by sympathetic liberal/mainstream media who loves his nonsensical form of governing.



Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009



…”Obama’s perceived preparedness for the presidency is a terrible delusion, from which it is difficult to escape. Mistakes build upon each other and result in even more complex problems. Difficult problems that are mishandled become even more difficult to fix. When you have too little experience, lack substance (other than the words of your latest speech), then leading, managing and problem solving simply don’t happen. And that is what has occurred. When you compound the problem by surrounding your self with like-minded theorists, lacking in real-world experience, things become worse yet. The theoretical solutions to problems often don’t work due to the messiness of the real world—and the reasons are almost unfathomable to these rookie executive/politicians. …”

What should Americans think about this “imposter?” Will he divulge his true background so we can all see who he is and where he came from—really? If not, is this just a man who should never have been sworn into the office of President in the first place, and who has crippled Americans miserably during his term?

Will we continue to believe his misstatements (the politically correct term for lies)? Can he simply use the media to “erase and forget the past three years of misery and missteps?” Or will we learn from his imperialistic behavior and terrible results and throw him out in November?

That is what why we wrote HOPE IS NOT A STRATEGY: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency. To learn more go to: www.hopeisnotastrategybook.com and sign up—and go to buy the book—and see for yourself! There are thirty chapters that reveal what was behind Barack Obama’s mistakes, failures and lack of leadership.

John Mariotti is an internationally known executive and an award-winning author. His newest book, co-authored with D. M. Lukas, Hope is NOT a Strategy: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency

Mariotti’s 2008 book, The Complexity Crisis was named one of 2008’s Best Business Books. His critically acclaimed 2010 novel, The Chinese Conspiracy, merges an exciting fictional thriller with the reality of America’s risk from Cyber-Attacks. Mariotti does keynote speeches, serves on corporate boards and is a consultant/advisor to companies. He can be reached at www.mariotti.net .


Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them. This quote came from a friend in the Czech Republic . We have a lot of work to do.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America .


Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama,who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."


Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Yesterday, Every Senate Democrat voted AGAINST Obama's Budget!!!
3-29-12 | Arcy


How embarrassing it must have been for Barak Obama to learn yesterday that his budget was voted down by every Democrat in the Senate. It was unanimous! Yes, everyone expect the Republicans to vote against it, but Democrats? They saw it as an utter failure also!

Today, the Congressional House passed a budget, which will go on to the Senate to be voted on. If the Democrats don't vote for it, then it will be a public testimony of their desire to do absolutely nothing about the situation that our country is in.

Let's hope the same miracle that occurred yesterday, with Democrats actually using logic and reason in considering Obama's failed budget, will be utilized to actually pass the Congressional budget.

Is it too much to ask for two miracles in a row?

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005



Contra viento y marea seguiremos denunciando la corrupción  y  los ataques a la libertad por el régimen marxista de Obama y con la  misma  intensidad y constancia como traemos a estos foros día, a día,   la verdad  sobre la tragedia que sufre el pueblo esclavizado y cautivo en  la isla prisión  de Cuba.

Es nuestra potestad y deber como exiliados cubanos y  fieles  ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos, alertar al pueblo americano la  disyuntiva que  confrontarán en las elecciones de Noviembre, cuando se  decidirá si Estados  Unidos seguirá iluminando al mundo llevando en alto la  antorcha de  la  libertad, o optará por seguir la ruta de Cuba y  Venezuela escogida   por  Barack Hussein Obama.

La semana pasada, con el silencio cómplice de una prensa   prostituida y al servicio del régimen, Obama se abrogó poderes  extraordinarios  que le confieren declarar la “ley marcial” en tiempos de  paz, algo similar a los  que hizo Hitler al tomar el poder democráticamente  en Alemania para de inmediato  pasar en el parlamento alemán “the Enabling  Act” que le confería poderes  extraordinarios por 4 años sin posibilidad de  cambios en la ley.



Como dijo el   filósofo Jorge Santayana: "Quienes ignoran la historia estan  condenados  a repetir sus errores"

Los ataques a la Iglesia y a la libertad religiosa, el   incitamiento a revueltas raciales para provocar el caos, y el ataque de Obama  a  la Suprema Corte de Justicia, presagian disturbios y caos que Obama  aprovechará  para consolidar los poderes dictatoriales que ya se ha  abrogado a-priori  y  mantenerse en el poder pisoteando la  Constitución y la leyes de Estados Unidos.