WASHINGTON, D.C. — West Virginia native Sylvia Mathews Burwell will be nominated for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, various reports said Thursday evening, with the resignation of Kathleen Sebelius expected Friday.

News of the Sebelius resignation was called long overdue by critics who blamed her Sebelius for the roll-out problems with Obamacare.

File photo

Hinton native Sylvia Matthews Burwell believes ACA will help West Virginians.

Burwell, a native of Hinton, was appointed by the President Obama last year to lead the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. She was confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Burwell was recently one of the administration’s lead spokespersons as the deadline for open enrollment in Obamacare came to a close March 31.

She told MetroNews affiliate WKLP in Keyser the Affordable Care Act would help West Virginia.

“There are number of issues in our state and people having the kind of health care that they need and deserve I think is going to make a big difference to the health and the happiness and productivity overall in the state,” she said.

U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin applauded Burwell’s pending nomination Thursday night with a statement released by his office:

“Sylvia’s experience in both the public and private sector, matched with the bipartisan relationships she has built over the years, shows that she is a public servant ready to take on this country’s challenges. I am confident that her leadership will ensure that we enact commonsense fixes to the Affordable Care Act to help improve the lives of millions of Americans.”

bubble graphic

48

bubble graphic

Comments

  • Voter

    Sebelius should have been fired months ago along with Eric Holder.

  • Ragweed

    Here we go. Another unqualified obama shill set up to fall. She will bear the brunt of this monumental disaster.

  • 2XLPatriot

    Let's look at this.....Obama appointed her to lead the U.S.Office of Management and Budget.....We all know how well that went. Now Obama appoints her to head up the DHHS AND, Joe Manchin applaudes the decision. Not including the ACA, this whole cirlce has "Fail" written all over it! I don't care where she's from, if she's in Obamas cabinet and has the support of liberals, that's enough to tell me she has no clue. The blind leading the blind.

  • Tim C

    She was head of the White House budget office. You know....the ones who spend like drunken sailors? God help us all.....by the way, I apologize to all the drunken sailors. You don't deserve to be lumped in with the likes of them.

  • In da stickes

    This message board is proof positive that international powers are gleefully exploiting everyone's pocketbook while the American public bicker over the shell game called liberals versus conservative and Dems versus Repubs. Wake up sheep.

  • Mister G!

    Sylvia is a role model for all young West Virginians. With her in charge now, the Affordable Care Act just got cemented into America culture like Social Security ...

    • Aaron

      From a recent CBO report...

      CBO projects that under current law, the DI trust fund will be exhausted in fiscal year 2017, and the OASI trust fund will be exhausted in 2033. If a trust fund’s balance fell to zero and current revenues were insufficient to cover the benefits specified in law, the Social Security Administration would no longer have legal authority to pay full benefits when they were due.

  • Aaron

    The problem Mrs. Burwell faces is the same one Mrs. Sebelius faced and that is that the ACA is simply not a good bill. It wasn't a good bill when Richard Nixon breathed life into it in 1973, nor when Bob Dole and Republicans resurrected it in 1993 and its no better today.

    Based on the Cadillac model of health care, it does absolutely nothing to reduce the cost of health care nor does it put any onus on those receiving government subsidies to choose wisely in seeking out treatment.

    Currently, we are spending $432 billion annually on Medicaid alone with projections approaching $1 trillion annually by 2025 and thus far, the argument has been in who picks up the tab for expansion. We spend an addition ~$450 billion on Medicare with projections approaching ~$750 billion annually by 2025.

    Conservatives estimates under the ACA show the government spending on average, $200.00 per month on subsidies to those who receive healthcare through the exchanges. If 30 million Americans eventually sign up through the exchanges, for $100 per month in subsidies, we will add $36 billion annually to our spending. And that doesn't even take into consideration the subsidies for co-pays and out of pocket expenses most recipients are eligible for. The cost of ACA subsidies alone is easily projected to exceed $300 billion annually.

    In a decade, the US is projected to spend MORE oh healthcare alone than we currently receive in revenue annually.

    It is simply not a sustainable path, particularly given that we are essentially subsidizing insurance companies who PROFIT billions annually.

    • The bookman

      +1. To keep it in perspective, how do we bring down cost of delivery without price controls?

      • ViennaGuy

        liberty4all has nailed it on how to reduce healthcare costs, and I would like to add two more things.

        First, a good way of fostering competition at the provider level is to post a schedule of prices at the receptionist's desk or on a website - something like the menu board at the fast-food restaurant. People can see what it costs up front and make choices accordingly. This could also be applied to hospitals, so people could choose which hospital they want to utilize based on price. As it is, does anyone really know how much these visits and procedures cost at the time they occur? Few, if any, do, and that's a big problem. How many people commit to buying a house or car without first knowing how much it will cost? Why should health care be any different(emergency services being the exception)?

        Second, and dovetailing with liberty4all's statement that consumers should be able to shop nationwide for coverage, these individual state requirements as to "what must be covered" need to go(a controversial point to be sure, but it must be said).

        • Hop'sHip

          ViennaGuy: I think the price of a car would be the same for a college athlete or an elderly diabetic woman. Are you arguing the price of knee surgery should be the same for both? I like it! I could see ads for a Presidents' Day special offering a free prostate exam with every colonoscopy.

          • Hop'sHip

            I'll agree that greater transparency is desirable not only for comparative costs but also for quality. And we actually have made progress in this direction over the last few years, some states more than others. If fact the reason I have come to accept the role of the "Health Insurance" industry is that they are the ones best equipped to effectively use this information when setting up their provider networks. But if we go your route and require the posting of prices for all therapeutic and diagnostic services and expect providers to stand by those prices, you would be wise to remain young and healthy the rest of your life or you're likely to find that no one wants to sell you their services.

          • ViennaGuy

            In a way, yes. Prices for medical services should be publicly posted, just like prices for anything else. Doing so will foster competition, help drive down costs, and allow people to make smart decisions regarding their medical care.

            An informed consumer is the best consumer.

          • FaarOut

            I believe you will find that a prostate exam IS given during a colonoscopy. IF your doctor is not doing the prostate exam, maybe you need a different doctor? The prostate exam takes less than 1/2 minute and if not included probably does not meet community standards. There's probably no truth to the rumor that under ACA, all exams will be provided without fees in Key West.

      • Aaron

        I think the above post sums up a lot of what's wrong with healthcare in the cost of it. To me the biggest way to reduce the cost of competition.

        I saw a chart from Forbes this morning that showed that about $.12 out of every dollar goes to actual care. If were going to reduce the cost of healthcare we have to eliminate all the other garbage and pay for healthcare. Insurance is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme and why we allow this as a nation is beyond me.

        • Hop'sHip

          Insurance is a Ponzi scheme? How so? Also where can I find this Forbes' chart to which you refer?

      • liberty4all

        I would suggest taking health insurance out of the equation would help. Some of the only areas of medicine where costs have decreased are elective procedures not covered by health insurance (i.e. Lasix surgery and plastic surgery).

        If removing it completely is not feasible, than making it a true form of insurance such as auto, home, etc . . . in that it applies in a catastrophe, not everyday circumstances to be expected. At the same time opening up competition nationwide so that the consumer has many choices between insurance companies and plans versus the current system in most states (if not all) where there are few choices of insurers or plans.

        Currently, medical providers charge an inflated price, knowing that the insurance companies dictate the rates of reimbursement and there will be a substantial adjustment of the bill. The providers can either play ball or lose the ability to treat patients of insurance companies X, Y & Z. If a provider does not agree to the terms of BC/BS, PEIA, etc . . . how many patients do you think they will have?

        Do we even know the true value of a particular procedure anymore where the provider charges a higher price in an attempt to get more of a reimbursement from the insurer? And we cannot look to the amount paid by the insurer as the true value because they are using their artificial bargaining power to force the providers to accept its dictated terms. I say "artificial" because of the limits in choices of insurance companies. If 3 or 4 companies represent the interests of those privately insured, they have the ability to dictate terms to the providers.

        I have always been a proponent of health savings accounts (with a safety net for the less fortunate) as a means to curb costs and promote responsible choices by the consumer. I believe it is also a means whereby we can finally achieve fair and competitive pricing.

  • thornton

    Hmmmm....a booster seat of votes for Nicky Jo?

  • Silas Lynch

    These appointees are getting ridiculously offensive.

    Is she the most qualified? possibly in her demographic she is but not from an entire field of candidates.

    Seems the Obama Administration is more concerned with "diversity", or at least the physical appearance of diversity, then they are with job qualifications.

    • Jay

      It takes courage to state that publicly, but I agree 100%. Look no further than this appointment and President Obama's Supreme Court appointees as evidence.

  • larryoldboy

    2014 is set to be a testy election year and that means it's high-time we all be more solicitous of the female perspective. In 2008 Barack Obama was the biggest sensation since the Beatles landed on Plymouth Rock. Females have a unique way of showing mass affection, fawning, fainting, falling all over themselves. This election season is a great opportunity to uncork that magic again - appointing Ms Burwell to head up the HHS and be the pretty face of Obamacare is going to soften its image and bring legions of younger women voters into the political mix. A good time for Wal-Mart to stock up on smelling salts!

    • David Kennedy

      For the Democraps to have a chance at all in the next election, Obama must put up a horde of 'new faces...so America can forget the old ones who have done so much damage to the country.
      This is all engineered...
      I wonder if Walmart will field an ambassador or two before 2016?

  • Another Unqualified Selection

    Omg, what the hell!! How does working for Wal-Mart as a retail executive and working as a charity foundation (Bill Gates Foundation) executive qualify her as the HHS secretary position? Unbelievable. That is why almost every SES position that is politically appointed if filled with unqualified idiots who who don't have a clue how to manage or direct those type federal agencies. Simply unbelievable.

    • David Kennedy

      I spent some time researching Ms. Burwell. She is a 'light weight...nothing more.
      I'm glad she's from WV...but surely these appointee's should have some experience in these multi-billion dollars agencies. She has a nice educational background, but I'm reminded of Jack Kennedy would scoured the ranks of business and our university's to find qualified people to serve in government.
      Do we have any of these left in America?

  • Just the Truth

    She is not qualified! Just another political supporter filling another SES position for Barry.

  • Big Deal

    Congratulations Mrs. Burwell! Always proud to see West Virginians do well.

    • Geez Not Again

      Oh yes, another political appointment in DC under Obimbo who is not qualified. I guess Target wasn't hiring.

      • P B and J

        Target has more sense.

        • jeco

          The Executive VP and Chief Marketing Officer for Target is a graduate of Parkersburg Catholic HS, Parkersburg WV.

  • ignorant bystander

    West Virginian or not....she's still a liberal hack!

    • TeeBird

      At least she's not a Conservative Hack... taking food out of the mouths of widows and orphans!

      • P B and J

        Maybe those "widows an orphans" should get off their a** and work like everyone else. Its time to get off the govt teet and be a big boy/girl.

        • James Lane

          Yeah! That's what we need to do with all the orphans! Put them to work! We should go ahead and add any child from a family receiving any kind of government benefits. Maybe we could use them to get into the nooks and crannies of coal mines where an adult can't fit. It's time these children start to pull their weight! Don't get me started on widows. They can talk about how they are elderly all they want. They can't talk about all of their physical ailments. They can even talk about how they have paid into the system their whole lives on the promise they would get these benefits. They can bring all that up, but we all know they are just lazy and don't want to work. I say if granny can't get out of her lift chair and work for a living then she should just be allowed to starve to death in the street. Of course, that might be inconvenient for others, so maybe we need to concentrate them all into some kind of camp. We can call them "high capacity elder living facilities" or something like that. Once they are in there we can death panel the crap out of them. I really don't care just as long as I don't have to pay taxes for anything but tanks and bombs to kill brown people with and corporate subsidies.

      • Jason

        Why don't you two get a room. The system loves it when we bicker back and forth between republican and democrat, my team vs. your team stuff. The reality is, there isn't much difference between the two at this point in history. If you want real change, forget the party affiliation and vote for the person. Politicians these days to not really represent the traditional values of the parties anyway. Both parties are about control in one way or another, both options are not good unfortunately. Time for something different.

  • The bookman

    Burwell states:

    “There are number of issues in our state and people having the kind of health care that they need and deserve I think is going to make a big difference to the health and the happiness and productivity overall in the state,” she said.

    Well there you have it. I think we should all be encouraged that with this new leadership, clarity will be achieved where the ACA is concerned.

    I hope that wasn't the best statement from her appearance on metronews affiliate WKLP.

    • Hop'sHip

      Bookie: Would you prefer she respond like this: "I plan on advising the President that we cannot afford to do what every advanced country does and provide basis healthcare services to all of its citizens. This would jeopardize are ability to spend ten times what any other country spends on cluster bombs and tanks we cannot use. We need to remove government from the equation and allow the free market to decide what services should be provided and who should get them. If that means that healthcare dollars migrate to offering more cosmetic procedures to the deserving class, so be it."

      • The bookman

        No, HH, but as a cabinet member and Secretary of HHS I would hope she could speak in a coherent sentence.

    • RogerD

      Bookman is correct. We can all sleep well tonight. Wait, what did she say? Anyway, she's perfect for the job. Joe Manchin said so.