Arkansas Blog

It's kinda difficult to do Chief since Beebe did not quote a House Bill number nor title. There's more than one bill floating around.

And we must "consider the source": "The House could vote as early as Saturday on the $1.2 trillion million measure, which would extend health coverage to millions of uninsured and put new restrictions on insurance companies."

The major House Bill, no. 3962, will not cost that much but given who's putting that out it could be $2 Trn by the next news release.

P.S. according to the latest insider news I have there will be no vote on Saturday. They don't have enough votes for passage.

According to this PDF file for fiscal year 2008 -

https://www.medicaid.state.ar.us/Download/general/OverviewSFY08.pdf

=========

FUNDING

Funding is shared between the federal government and the states, with the federal government matching the state share at an authorized rate between 50 and 90 percent, depending on the program.

The federal participation rate is adjusted each year to compensate for changes in the per capita income of each state relative to the nation as a whole.

Arkansas funds approximately 26.95% of Arkansas Medicaid program-related costs; the federal government funds approximately 73.05%. State funds are drawn directly from appropriated state general revenues, license fees, drug rebates, recoveries and the Medicaid Trust Fund.

Administrative Costs for Arkansas Medicaid are generally funded 50% by Arkansas and 50% by the federal government; some specialized enhancements are funded 75% or 90% by the federal government.

=========

Arrivederci...

MORE - WRT Title V - State Fiscal Relief - of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009

http://recovery.arkansas.gov/programs.php?do:ShowCategory=1&cat_id=Medicaid

- Medicaid federal match rate (FMAP - Federal Medical Assistance Percentage) is increased from its current 72.81% (FFY09) to 79.14% for nine federal fiscal quarters, dating back to October 1, 2008, with possible additional increases depending on the change in Arkansas' unemployment rates.

So, if I understand this correctly, it's nearly a 4-to-1 match now. And the less we work, the more we get. If we run it up to a 9-to-1 match rate, no problem, the feds will print more money and send it to us. Ain't America great?

Didn't we just pass a tobacco tax? How much revenue is that bringing in?

The pelosi bill increases the burden on Medicaid to the states. He is probably reacting to that. It increases the eligibility of Medicaid but doesn't increase the federal share. The states are not happy with this. Even bebee's loyalty to the party won't mitigate the reality that he faces and all Arkansans face.

Wait till Arkansans experience the new tax on medical devices. That should go over very well to the middle class that obama pledged no new taxes to them. I'm sure that when they have to shell out more money they will be hailing fearless leaders name.

Mike Ross and Blanche Lincoln did everything they could to raise costs... Only a fool would give Ross credit for crying over his own expensive spilt milk. They are two-faced liars, who once again, have assured government does not work.

This bill should not pass... in no small part because of Ross and Lincoln's success in back room costly deals.

"Beebe said . . . [the] one that concerns him the most is a House bill that would add an estimated $205 million in Medicaid costs to the state budget by 2015."

But what would the cost be to us all (by 2015) if healthcare/insurance reform is NOT enacted? Frankly, I was disappointed that the governor tossed this particular turd into the punch bowl on the eve of the House vote. Might he have been trying to give political cover to Berry, Ross, and others in our delegation who are using "cost" as their excuse to be less than supportive of reform legislation? Politics and politicians: We live and die by 'em. Literally.

"P.S. according to the latest insider news I have there will be no vote on Saturday. They don't have enough votes for passage. "

Berry said earlier this week that he thought the House bill would pass by the "slightest" of margins --- 10 votes or less. He didn't say how he'd vote, of course. Again, Beebe's 12th-hour "concern" about costs to the state could be just what Berry, Ross, and others in the Arkansas delegation need as their excuse for a "NO!" vote. Time will tell.

Our current debt is 12 TRILLION dollars. In 2019 it will be over 21 TRILLION dollars. Today the debt represents about 40% of our GDP. In 2018 it will represent over 80% of GDP. None of what I have just quoted you includes Fannie or Freddie debt. Now, do you think that we can afford this? Would any decent or sane man pass this on to his children and grandchildren regardless of his political ideology?

As Beebe kisses my vote goodbye, he can also kiss my ass.

What a chickenshit coward, all these bastards we have in DC ain't worth a bucket of warm shit!

There is no reason to expect costs wont soar for government and everyone else with the bills in their current and weakening forms, Durango.

When robust PO and single payor systems were being discussed ... lowering costs was likely. But we are not discussing those things anymore.

We simply had to kill private insurance as we know it or allow a real government plan with bargaining for every American who chose to participate. Then and only then would raising government costs, in order to lower overall costs of health care for everyone make any sense. We are now talking about paying with subsidies private insurance six thousand dollars a year for each and every newly insured person. When Great Briton does it with a government single payer plan for less than half that for each and every citizen.

What we have with all bills now is a guarantee of rising costs across the board.

I'm no fan of bebee but what do you expect him to do? The state can't afford more Medicaid costs. They are drowning as is. He has some responsibility as the chief executive officer of the state to act responsibly even if the Congress chooses not to. pelosi doesn't give a rat's ass if Arkansas can't afford this bill. She is rich and lives in a rich district.

To talk about lowering costs without tort reform is a farce. It represents almost $100 billion in cost when you add defensive medicine to the costs of malpractice insurance. I guess the trial lawyers still own the democratic party.

Max,

Beebe's numbers are not unrealistic. Arkansas gets about 76 cents from the federal government for every dollar spent on Medicaid.

Beebe is probably referring to an $800 million increase in state Medicaid spending with $200 of that having to be paid by the state.

Congress wants to expand Medicaid eligibility on a number of levels as part of the health care reform package. So you not only have a large expansion of who is eligible...that leads to a heavy multiplier in dollars used for services once people are eligible. It's not that hard to get to $800 million when you do the math in a state with very heavy Medicaid usage.

Governors are all running out of money for roads, schools, prisons, and medicaid...unemployment hit a 30 year high yesterday. So against that backdrop you are going to tell governors to come up with hundreds of millions of dollars in new Medicaid funding. The math isn't there. Beebe isn't alone by the way....three weeks ago six Democratic governors refused to sign a health care reform support letter.

The other thing to watch today is that Berry is probably going to be a no vote. That means of the four Arkansans in the house...three will hit the no lever....so no one will be giving Beebe heat for being a fiscal conservative regarding Medicaid at a time when the economy continues to melt.

WARNING: TOME FOLLOWS. (We have a lot of experience in this household.)

Absent much other information, I do have to agree with Beebe's comment: "Now having said that, the best way to address the problem is not necessarily to add more costs onto our general revenue here in the state."
The onus of insuring ALL Americans -- by hook or by crook as the bills now floating around in Congress (kinda) propose to do -- is not one best shunted off to the states. It's a national issue and should be delivered, or imposed, according to some folks, on a national level. Medicare for all makes the most sense.
And having said THAT, we do need to pare costs.
A few ways to start from my own experience:
Not all peri-menopausal women need a hysterectomy to alleviate temporary inconvenience.
Not every child who has recurrent sore throats needs a tonsillectomy, nor does every child with multiple bouts with earaches need tubes. On a lesser note, not every bout of sniffles suffered by a child or an adult requires a doctor's attention. He can't do anything you can't do far more cheaply and in more comfort. And you won't have to sit in his crowded waiting room with all those folks ready to give you THEIR bug.
Not all bumps on the head require a CT scan.
Under certain conditions, the time between PAP smears and mammograms can be lengthened up to two or three years.
A 3/8 inch cut on a finger will heal fine without stitches. Use common sense wound cleaning methods and a butterfly band-aid. Keep your tetanus shots up to date.
Formal rehab following such events as a broken bone is not necessary if the patient will simply follow the doctor's recommendations about exercising the affected area.
Neither is heart rehab, I found out to my great surprise, if the patient will exercise at home, starting simply by walking from one end of the house to the other. (I flipped out when hubby's doctor's said he didn't need rehab after heart surgery. WHY NOT?!! Everyone else has it! Doc had to explain that hubby has long and diligently exercised at home and has several pieces of equipment THAT HE USES. The problem, of course, is that many people simply won't exercise unless they have a rehab specialist ever so gently cracking a whip.)
Ongoing daily surgical wound care by a home health nurse is not always necessary if the patient or caregiver is diligent, and many, if not most, are.
On a similar note, for some (many?) patients recovering from lung surgery, after the first few days, having a home health care nurse ON CALL, but supplying the patient and/or caregiver with a pulse ox unit to monitor blood oxygen can be adequate care and is far more cost effective. The unit will be paid for in a few days if you can avoid the daily 15 minute visits that very rarely catch anything. (That's about a 1% time coverage in terms of nursing and I promise you, if anything scary happens, it won't happen while the nurse is there.)
The last suggestion is, of course, dependent on whether or not the patient or family is capable of providing needed care. Incidentally, care for the elderly patient in a hospital step down unit can be an incredible waste of resources and money. But again, whether or not that care is needed is largely dependent on the ability and availability of potential caregivers at home.
I'll bet you folks can come up with many more suggestions from your experiences.

I hear y'all, but I'd STILL like an answer to my question:

What will the cost (by 2015) be to us personally, to the state of Arkansas, and to the other states if health insurance reform (including expansion of Medicaid) is NOT enacted?

noregardfortruth - you're a knowledgeable about the issues as we have come to expect from Fox/Limbaugh drones.

"...the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that tort reform could save $54 billion over the next decade." http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/ (I know John Boehner says $100 billion, but he's a lying sack of shit.)

That sounds like a lot of money but $54 billion / 10 years = $5.4 billion a year. Still a pretty pile.

But when you look at the total spending on heathcare in this country - roughly $2.5 TRILLION PER YEAR http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Now, let's do some math noregard, it's big numbers but it's simple long division. 5,400,000,000 / 2,500,000,000,000 = .00216 * 100 = 0.2%

That's right, your numbnuts conservative pet idea will save us a grand total of 0.2% on our health care bill.

Eureka is right, the only way to lower our health care spending and keep the quality up is to kill the health insurance industry. Unfortunately, the cowards we have elected to congress don't have the guts to do that - and I'm looking straight at you St. Vic. You've lost my vote forever. You ain't worth a bucket of warm shit, either.

The cost of the pelosi bill is $1.2 trillion dollars. Fannie has just notified the government that they need another bailout. Our debt is going to over $21 TRILLION in 2018. Unfunded liabilities for medicare, medicaid and social security are about $63 TRILLION (does not include Freddie and Fannie). What is there about these numbers that you don't understand? Do you think that the interest on the national debt is sustainable? Do you have ANY regard for our children and grandchildren? They will be saddled with debt that they CAN NOT pay. Could you live with a personal debt like that? Where is your mind? This reality has no political ideology.

50 million is about 20.00 per AR citizen. It's less than a hiccup in increased taxes on the very rich.

Don't let the shiny little objects get in the way.

Kill these bills now.

You want government to replace the private sector in providing health care? Just like the efficient delivery of the swine flu vaccine? We have about 23% of what was promised. However, we do have a lot of excuses which is what the government is good at. Yea, good old federal government. They always deliver----inefficiency, fraud and waste.

"You want government to replace the private sector in providing health care?" I damn sure do, noregard, I damn sure do.

Typically, your 'sources' don't mention that the gov't outsourced the manufacture of that flu vaccine, you know outsourcing? It's the rubric scum sucking conservatives use to steal money from the rest of us.

I'd also like to point to the mess halls and barracks that Halliburton delivered to the troops, you know the ones that cost $125 per meal and electrocute soldiers in the shower. Thats the kind of program you conservatives like to support.

And I honestly don't know why; you aren't getting one thin dime while Dickhead Cheney is rolling in the dough. It must be some kind of genetic defect that makes people like you immune to outrage when you're getting shafted by the oligarchs.

There is quite a show on C-Span if you can get it.
Republicans yelling about tyranny!!!! freedom killer!!!! job killer!!!!....what a bunch of nuts.

OOOHHH!!!! I can't wait to tune into C-Span and see what that loon Virgina Fox is saying! I can just hear her now: "This health care reform will result in Nazi concentration camps" or some other crazy bullshit.

"You want government to replace the private sector in providing health care? Just like the efficient delivery of the swine flu vaccine?" -- Beau

Well, yeah, I do.
Please, PLEASE read about the process employed by the British Health Service -- at clicky.

Incidentally, for all the talk of the sometimes deadly effects of H1N1 on children, I have read that the effects on the elderly WHO ARE HOSPITALIZED WITH THE FLU are statistically much more deadly than children similarly affected.
I think I want hubby vaccinated first, while my neighbor and her kiddies can shift for themselves. Well, on second thought, maybe we better wait a while and hope for the best. Ya never know about new stuff and any risks that might not show up until a while after a larger group of guinea pigs has rolled up their sleeves.
Ma'am, you and the kiddies go right ahead.

"Just like the efficient delivery of the swine flu vaccine?" -- Beau"

sigh.
You do realize that the delivery of the vaccine depends on private industry that produces the vaccines, right?
The gov't can only get it out as fast as it is made.
It is made by growing, it does not grow as fast as the "private sector" thought it would, hence the wait.
The gov't depended on the estimation from the private sector, the private sector was wrong.
Please get your information correct before you start to spew.

The private sector DID NOT make the promise that the vaccine would be out by October. It was the GOVERNMENT that guaranteed the delivery of 100% of the vaccine by October. You need to get your facts straight.

Do you want the kind of heath care system that the veteran's hospitals deliver? Do you want the waste and fraud that medicare and medicaid have experienced since 1965? Do you want the cost overruns that medicare, medicaid and the prescription drug program have delivered since they began? Just call f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t!!!!

While I believe Mike Ross needs to be retired to Prescott, I'm not sure replacing him would have any beneficial effect. We need to consider a MAJOR political house cleaning with our national office holders in Arkansas.

You seem to forget a major factor. The majority of Arkansas voters are not sympathetic to the leftist political leanings of the majority of members of this blog. Arkansas is not Massachusetts.

IMWTK,

(Inquiring Minds Want To Know)

Can hearing voices in your head be a good thing?

"Psychologists have launched a study to find out why some people who hear voices in their head consider it a positive experience while others find it distressing"

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/can-hearing-voices-in-your-head-be-a-good-thing-11488.html

Help is on the way...dragaruaeb
"Paradise waits
on the crest of a wave
her angels in flame
She has no pain
Like a child, she is pure
She is not to blame

Poised for flight
Wings spread bright
Spring from night
into the sun
Don't stop to run
She can fly like a lie
She cannot be outdone..."

DNFTT

However, from the letters to the Editor in the demozette

"Public option desired

Dismiss everything you hear, whether its from Blanche Lincoln-or Gilbert Baker, for that matter. Arkansans want a public option.
A Daily Kos Research 2000 poll released in mid-September essentially echoes the more recent Progressive Campaign Committee and Democracy for Change's poll, released Oct. 30, stating that the majority of Arkansans-56 percent-favor a public option against 37 percent who do not.
The Daily Kos poll was remarkable similar in its findings, showing that 55 percent of Arkansans favor a public option against 38 percent who do not.
Tucked in the middle of these two polls was one of our very own that Talk Business poll conducted. It showed that a remarkable 68 percent of Arkansans favor private insurance over a public option. Now you have two polls conducted that show that 56 percent and 55 percent favor a public option and another poll that shows that 68 percent do not.
I'll let you decide which one of these polls appears funny, considering that 1 in 5 Arkansans lives in poverty and can't afford health care.

COURTNEY SHEETS
Sherwood

Personally, I go along with Courtney the trolls are wrong, both those resident here and proposing dilution amendments for their corporate masters in D.C.

"The caller asked the governor why he didn't speak for the proposal before the House voted and Beebe said he did not get involved in the internal rule making of the House or Senate."!!!!!!

Wait- wait, I need oxygen, can't stop laughing............

Bo-regard, I honestly dont know what medical devices you were talking about (Wait till Arkansans experience the new tax on medical devices). I can't stand to watch the news much any more. Can you explain that? I am asking you sincerely.

because I am uninsurable, I get help from the drug companies on 2 of my (most expensive) medicines.

I get the name-brand stuff, which in one of these cases works much better than the generic med.

So even if they gave me some form of Medicaid, I might not be better off (except of course for coverage of doctor visits and maybe even hospitalizations, Im not sure, to tell you the truth) than I am now.

One of the medicines I am given by a generous drug company costs $575 a month for the name-brand.

If you put me on Medicaid tomorrow, they would immediately refuse to cover even the generic equivalent of that, because its still expensive,and that's just what they do. All insurance companies do it. Unless Johnson & Johnson would consider that just because I now had Medicaid didnt mean they were gonna pay for this particular medicine, I might have to go without it entirely.

I had blue cross until the year my mother died. I lost so much work/income that I had to drop that for a while, figuring to pick it back up, along with a few other things I'd had to cut out of the budget.

Instead I got a horrendomatous disease and am now officially uninsurable.

I could get coverage with the state CHIPS program. Around $550 a month for a $1000 deductible plan, WITHOUT coverage of my preexisting conditions, which are all that ail me, for six months.

the only way I could possibly pay for that is to quit taking my medicine, all of it, for six months. This would accomplish the true favorite goal of all insurance companies -- i would go away and die. ;)

And of course with pool insurance, they review it every six months and the cost can either go up or, ha ha, down. what if I've paid 550 a month for six months waiting for coverage of all my evil preexisting ailments, and then they up my premiums to 650? Or worse?

They did say that possibly I could pay an extra 10-20% to have my preexisting conditions covered immediately, MAYBE. With my impressive collection, unfortunately, of such conditions, I'm guessing we'd get to NO real quick.

So, other than covering hospitalization and doctor visits for new conditions for six months, I honestly don't know if I would be better off with whatever they come up with in a new form of Medicaid or not. and I avoid hospitalization at almost any cost to my health because I can't afford time off from work. if I dont work, i don't get paid.

I have tried every private insurer I could think of and been turned down. It seems that when BCBS declared me uninsurable, that was a permanent label. Right now, because my income is greater than $103 a month, I'm not eligible for Medicaid.

Im not eligible for SSDI, either, because I still work seven days a week, but I could surely use some help with that. If I could just cut back to five days a week, it would make a vast difference in my health. But I can't afford to do that, if I want to buy all my medicine, and I do. well, no I dont want to but I have to, same result. Also maybe food, rent, you know, those pesky things.

So Im a little scared of what it would do to me if they did put me on some medicaid-type of insurance or Medicaid. I've fallen thru every crack there was ever since I was so horribly sick, and Im afraid I still will.

Dott, I saw a news report that elderly people were actually less likely to get sick with the H1N1 virus, simply because they'd lived long enough to build up immunities to more than a child has. but if they do, of course, someone like your husband with several other serious medical conditions, then you have problems. Since I rarely go out in crowds of people & am allergic to all manner of things, I dont think I want to be a guinea pig either, but I would say my kid who is still in college and working in the food industry probably does need the h1n1 vaccine.

If I had the money, and a prescription, I'd store up some Tamiflu just in case one of my kids gets the disease, or I do. I think you can probably order that stuff online from canada, but i dont know how much it costs or if that's legal. On account of, i dont know anyone who has ever done it, just hear about it. I mean the Tamiflu, not the vaccine.

The 4-doctor medical clinic where I get my medical care isn't going to get into the H1N1 vaccine business. Leave that to the health dept. I am not really sure why. I got the regular flu shot at the clinic. made me sick, too, i dont care if its a live virus or not. Maybe I just caught the flu in the waiting room, is more likely.

This here national healthcare bidness is too much for me to figure out. unfortunately I think maybe mike ross is in the same boat with me on that.

I know he isnt sick now/yet, because I sent him a check last week to see if he was still alive, and he is. He cashed it. This is a much more reliable method for checking on your kid's basic welfare than leaving messages. He says he doesnt have email but I think he just doesnt want ME to have his email address. the very idea!
its been a long time, but when I was doing insurance billing, Medicaid was much, much more efficient and much easier to deal with than Medicare. At least in arkansas, they were. Dont know why. may not be so now, but it was about 10 years ago. of course, medicaid's claim volume was nowhere near as high as medicare's. still, you'd think they would've, you know, accounted for that. As far as I know, Medicaid at least didn't have health-care delivery problems like the VA hospitals sometimes do, but thats because medicaid is an insurance program and the VA system is everything.

I think they need people like dott, trying to take care of a sick husband, and me, just trying to hang in there, on their committees. Except she's busy with her husband and no help to care for him, and Im still working as much as possible, and we all know what committees can do to slow down and f** up a project of any sort.

Dott, I qualify for the swine flu vaccine but am afraid of it, allergies. I wish I could send you my dose, if you're having trouble getting it for your husband.

Tina,

I think perhaps you're still having some adjustment problems with your new bifocals. Dottholliday, me, is male and currently single. I don't know who you meant the post for, but it wasn't me.

The only people I saw with a post on H1N1 vaccines were Doigotta and Any*Mouse.

tina, I really don't understand you. You imply that you are well read and knowledgeable about issues but then you say something like I don't know what you mean by medical devices. Are you for real? Pacemakers, hip replacements, wheel chairs, blood pressure machines, blood sugar meters, etc. This is pretty basic stuff. I tell you what. Just don't worry your pretty little head about these heavy things and let the men worry about them.

dott, you know what? You are EXACTLY right. I can't see a blasted thing that small with these new bifocals. You hit the nail right on the head. ;)

sorry. thanks for the correction; I certainly would never have noticed. I think I done meant Doigotta. Oh well, no harm done I suppose. thanks. I dont know which I would prefer -- that I could read the name and forgot it, or that i couldnt read the name.

Yep, that was me complaining, Tina. Again. Hubby does qualify at some point in the process and he'll probably get the vaccine, either from his family doc here or at the VA when they get supplies in later this month. But no way am I gonna take him to one of the public cattle calls I've heard about. It would be counterproductive to subject him to that. Fact is, I'm inclined to think it's counterproductive for anyone to stand in line like that.

Beau dear, I believe Tina was asking you to be specific about your "new taxes on medical devices" comment. Who, what, when, where, that sort of thing? Surely you've heard of that drill.
Me? I figure Tina has forgotten more about "medical devices" than you ever have hopes of learning. So pray tell now, and in plain English, dear -- specifically, please. Exactly what entity is going to impose additional taxes on those devices? (That'll take care of the who and what.) When is this going to happen? And last but not least, where did you hear or see this nugget? (That's called attribution and is a vital part of imparting information -- in part, so that the reader can judge the accuracy of the account.)
You see, all us pretty heads want to know . . .

>>Our current debt is 12 TRILLION dollars. In 2019 it will be over 21 TRILLION dollars.<<

That's true until all the tax loopholes, offshore havens and other tricks are closed and rates taken to the level which existed under Reagan.

When the richest man in America can look at the camera and say that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary something's wrong with that picture.

The taxes on medical devices is immediate upon enactment of the bill. Of course you would know that if you had studied the bill. The benefits don't really start until 2013 (conveniently after the 2012 election). Of course you would know that also if you had studied the bill. Of course, madam pelosi promised in September that the bill would be posted a full 72 hours before voting. Of course, madam pelosi lied but you knew that.

Tina,

I have a suggestion. I wear bifocal hard contacts and sometimes the protein builds up and I have trouble reading the print. However, I can hold down the Ctrl key and rotate my mouse wheel until the font size gets larger. . . as large as I want.

Try it.

P.S. 218 Yea 39 nay. It passes, yes I didn't count the Republican nays since they were reather meanlingless. The GOP representatives made them that way.

Tina,

I have a suggestion. I wear bifocal hard contacts and sometimes the protein builds up and I have trouble reading the print. However, I can hold down the Ctrl key and rotate my mouse wheel until the font size gets larger. . . as large as I want.

Try it.

P.S. 218 Yea 39 nay. It passes, yes I didn't count the Republican nays since they were reather meanlingless. The GOP representatives made them that way.

Oh my Heavens! a Republican voted yea??????

Well, since Beau wasn't particularly forthcoming in answering my questions, here's the appropriate clicky.

Seems manufacturers of medical devices enjoy a secretive, very remunerative -- and highly variable for the same product -- price list with profit margins over 20%. That's with NO device to device comparison to figure out which works best, functions the longest, is the safest or most appropriate for a specific patient, yada, yada, yada.
Now as to cost effectiveness? Don't even think about it, because your hospital must agree not to divulge how much they paid for the devices. Think about it. You like your neighbor's new car, but he is precluded by contract from telling you how much it cost. If the dealer figures you can or will pay more, you'll pay more.
So lawmakers will "claw back" some of the device makers' unconscionably high profits in an effort to save money. Will it work? Who knows? But as you will note when you read the article, not one thing is being proposed to compare the effectiveness and appropriate use of the devices. Or costs.
Danged if Beau doesn't have about half a point, anyway.

In other words---yes, there is a tax increase on medical devices. Yes, the tax will be passed on to the consumers in higher prices. I love the way you go around the mountain and over the hill rather than admitting the obvious. Do you have anymore spin for us common folk?

One more thing, Beau -- wheel chairs, blood pressure machines and blood sugar meters are NOT the type of medical equipment involved here. The affected devices DO include such things as heart stents and other heart devices like replacement valves, artificial knees and hips, spinal implants, pain treatment devices and diagnostic equipment. You know, those little items that start in the thousands of dollars per and go up, up, up from there. In other words, all the stuff you'd have a little trouble finding at your local Wal-Mart when you pop over for a gallon of milk.
So. Did you expand -- just a bit -- on something you heard, or is your source a blowhard through and through?

No, you are wrong. Medical devices include all that I mentioned and what you added. Obviously, I did not give a complete list. This disinformation by the demos and pelosi will continue until the public is impacted by the reality of this bill should it pass the senate. Then people like you will continue to deny the obvious and continue to look foolish. The impact on this economy and on business will be beyond description. It will kill jobs and have a tremendous negative impact on small business and the average citizen who will end up paying for this monstrosity. If you think that 10.2% unemployment is bad-----well, you ain't seen nothing yet. Personally, I doubt if it will pass the Senate but the odds are in its favor. pelosi can flex her muscles and feel like she has shown the boys who has the biggest ones. When the s___t hits the fan it will be interesting if I still hear such bravura from each one of you.

One of the issues they are wanting to address with medical devices, as far as I can tell, is the renting of the devices instead of purchase, which leads to many more dollars for the providers of the devices. It makes no sense to rent something that will obviously be used for many years by a person. That has been pointed out many times, and it would seem that conservatives would think that was a good thing, but nooooo, Dems actually want to do something about it so conservatives think it's horrible!