When Politicians Run Health Care

From National Review Online:

"I have compiled a series of facts about stimulus spending ... Democratic districts received one-and-a-half times as many awards as Republican ones."

So what has that to do with health care?

When unelected - and unaccountable - government bureaucrats control access to health care (not just health insurance), they get to decide who gets care.

And who doesn't.

When one registers to vote, one declares a party affiliation (or, in the case of Independents, non-affiliation). So the question arises:

How surprised will (should?) we be when "Democratic voters received one-and-a-half times as much health care as Republican ones?"

Inquiring minds want to know.

ObamaCare© and You: Late March MVNHS© Report

Now that ObamaCare© is the law of the land, what kinds of changes can we look forward to? For enlightenment, we turn our sights eastward, across the Atlantic to that leading light of nationalized health care, Britain's Much Vaunted National Health System©.

■ The Ambulance Dance

Pretty much by definition, a state-run and financed health care delivery system is going to mean rationing; one form is the controversial practice of "boarding;" that is, keeping patients outside the actual facility so that they're not counted as actual, you know, "patients." Once they hit the door, the meter starts running.

In its rush to reach the bottom of the health care barrel, the MVNHS© is now paying ambulance drivers "£38 [about $57 US] for every casualty that ambulance staff "keep out of Accident and Emergency" (A&E) departments after a 999 call has been made."

But we daren't call them "death panels."

[Hat Tip: Bob Vineyard]

■ Reconstructing Patsy

What's the difference between Pamela Anderson and Farah Fawcett? Well, one has had numerous "enhancement" procedures on a purely voluntary basis, while one suffered from cancer. A reasonable person would agree that there's no reason for health insurance, whether from an insurance carrier or the government, to pay for the former; after all, there was no pressing medical need for the former Bay Watch actress to further inflate her swimsuit.

On the other hand, few reasonable folks would begrudge a cancer survivor the funds and facilities to reconstruct what nature wrought in the wake of a devastating illness, particularly one with no known behavioral cause.

And yet, that's exactly what the MVNHS© has done:

"Mother-of-four Patsy Parsons had a large section of her left breast removed when she was diagnosed [with breast cancer] two years ago and was told she was entitled to have it rebuilt free of charge."

But it's the government, so they can change their minds, and one has precious few (if any) alternatives. In this case, the local hospital, under the control of government bureaucrats, has deemed her case "'low priority, routine' cosmetic surgery."

But of course.

Insurers Save ObamaCare© From Itself

As we recently observed, the "pass-anything-now" crowd managed to screw up one of the simpler components of ObamaCare©; that is, by failing to distinguish between those who are insured and those who are not, the effort left potentially thousands of children without access to guaranteed eligibility for insurance.

And so the "big, bad insurance industry," in the form of the AHIP (Association of Health Insurance Plans), has stepped up, and vowed to fix that loophole for the President and his minions:

"(I)nsurers will accept new regulations to dispel uncertainty over a much-publicized guarantee that children with medical problems can get coverage starting this year."

This is clearly a favor to HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious, because it saves her (and her staff) the embarrassment of trying to fix a brand spanking new initiative. While I disagree with AHIP's position (and hope that at least one or two carriers demonstrate enough spine to follow the letter of the law), I'm impressed that they're at least trying to what they (mistakenly) believe is "the right thing."

Grand Rounds - "Reform" edition

Evan Falchuk hosts this week's edition of Grand Rounds, focused primarily on health care "reform." It's a tremendous effort, with interesting and helpful links from pretty much every angle.

Passover 5770/2010

Tonight marks the first night of Passover. It's "early" this year (since our holidays are tied to a lunar calendar, it's difficult to know from year to year how close it falls to Easter). Passover is a celebration of freedom, which is in even starker contrast this year than last.

It's easy to get caught up in the politics and polity of the day, but this is a season of liberation from tyranny [ed: irony?], and of rejoicing in tradition and ritual. So to our Jewish readers: Chag Pesach Sameach!

And for all of our readers, a bit of perspective:

The REAL Costs of ObamaCare©

Submitted for your consideration:

■ "AT&T Inc. will book $1 billion in first-quarter costs related to the health-care law signed this week by President Barack Obama, the most of any U.S. company so far."

■ "Caterpillar Inc. said Wednesday it will take a $100 million charge to earnings this quarter to reflect additional taxes stemming from newly enacted U.S. health-care legislation."

■ "Farm equipment maker Deere expects after-tax expenses to rise by $150 million this year as a result of the health care reform law President Barack Obama signed this week."

Although I was told that there'd be no math, that's 1 and a quarter BILLION dollars so far, and the bill hasn't even begun to hit its "stride."

But hey, they "fixed health care."

Right?

Viva ObamaCare©!

Let me get this straight: health care "reform" means taxing women for being women, providing for public funded abortions, and cutting benefits for seniors, while providing viagra to convicted sex offenders?

What could possibly go wrong?

NB: I will not approve, and will retroactively delete, any comments characterizing this maneuver as a "Republican trick." Why? Two words: "deem and pass."

As I Was Saying: It's NOT About Health Care

In an earlier post, I opined that ObamaCare© is not, and never was, about health care, but about government control. By way of support, we heard from "noted right-wing tea-partier, Representative John Dingell (D-MI)," who explicitly stated as much.

Now comes another wing-nut, Sen Max Baucus (D:MT), who confirms my thesis:

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind ... This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

Still think this is about health care?

[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]

Sol-Tax, Bo-Tax and Ko-Tax

Who knew that ObamaCare© was so sexist?! Turns out, there are some pretty obnoxious new taxes built in, including:

■ A 10% tax on indoor tanning facilities. It's interesting to note that they've specified "indoor" facilities: a cynic might believe that this opens the door (so to speak) for an "outdoor" tanning tax. That's not so far-fetched, really: if they can make you buy health insurance, they can make you pay to go outside.

■ In a blatently sexist move, women will face a tax on certain monthly "necessities." Ostensibly, both men and women will also pay more for certain birth-control items. I thought the liberals' trope was "keep the government off our bodies and out of our bedrooms?" Guess not so much, anymore.

■ The "Bo-Tax" is apparently out - although you never really know with this bunch. Good news for Ms Pelosi, yes?

Under Pressure...

While I don't personally suffer from high blood pressure, I am considered a carrier. That's one reason that this video, from "Big Pharma" member Novartis Pharmaceuticals, may save some lives:



The complementary website has even more information and additional resources. Live well, be well, stay well.

[Hat Tip: BJ DeHut on behalf of Novartis Pharmaceuticals]

Cato Gets it (Way!) Wrong [UPDATED]

I am usually the Cato Institute's biggest fan, but in an email I received yesterday, they were completely off base:

"It makes intuitive sense that President Obama's health plan, which would expand health insurance coverage to an estimated 30 million currently uninsured Americans, would improve their health."

Um, no:

If they were trying to be tongue-in-cheek, then they failed utterly to accomplish their goal.

If, on the other hand, they were positing a thesis, then they were remarkably tone-deaf: there is nothing in this bill about health care - only insurance and policy. Nor was it ever designed to address either the delivery of health care or reining in the cost of that care.

Of course, for Nancy, et al, this is a feature, not a bug.

UPDATE: In the comments, FoIB Rick B takes me to task for failing to acknowledge various portions of ObamaCare© which seem to support Cato's position.

In rebuttal, I offer the testimony of that noted right-wing tea-partier, Representative John Dingell (D-MI):

"It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people."

I rest my case.

Cavalcade of Risk #101: Up Down Under

Andrew at Oz Risk presents this week's round-up of risky posts. Make like a kangaroo and hop over to it!

ObamaCare© Can't Even Screw Up Correctly

As Bob notes below, "Coverage for Kids" is one of the few "benefits" that are supposed to come into immediate effect. Of course, this will result in increased premiums for those "children" (they're old enough to vote and drink, but still on Mommy and Daddy's policy?), but at least they can't be turned down for any pre-existing conditions, right?

Um, no:

"Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem."

Those already insured will have their pre-ex problems covered shortly, but those currently uninsured are likely to stay that way for a while. Gee, who could have seen this coming?

The Face of ObamaCare©

Jumping into the pool...

Currently, some 35 states have some form of "high risk pool" for folks with significant and/or chronic health problems. They are expensive to "join," expensive to maintain, and continue to fail to address underlying issues.

But mostly, they're expensive.

And that's at the state level, where there's more direct electoral accountability.

One ObamaCare provision set to go into effect relatively quickly is a national high-risk pool. We'll have more on this and other provisions in the weeks and months ahead, but for now, here's your afternoon chuckle:

"Unlike some existing state high-risk pool programs, which can be expensive, the new program is supposed to keep rates closer to standard premiums paid by healthy people."

Uh-hunh....

National Diabetes Alert Day

Today is Diabetes Alert Day, an effort by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to promote "increased awareness of the diabetes-related preventive services covered by Medicare."

Thanks to FoIB (and trusted CMS Guy) Jack Cheevers, we're pleased to provide links to some helpful, and important, resources for those with diabetes:

■ The MLN (Medicare Learning Network) Preventive Services Educational Products Web Page

■ Quick Reference Information: Medicare Preventive Services

and

■ Diabetes-Related Services Brochure

For even more information, be sure to visit the National Diabetes Education Program, as well as our favorite diabetes blogger, Diabetes Mine.

Celebrating Women: Grand Rounds is up!

Grand Rounds is now up over at Dr Bates' place. She does a great job with a theme that could have easily gone overboard.

An open letter to the Director of the Census...

March 18, 2010:

Dear Census Director:

I trust this comment will find you in good health – both good physical health and mental health. Frankly, you have created quite a problem for me, and many others, and I don’t how how to handle it without being in violation of your instructions concerning the 2010 Census. I trust my inquiry will not interfere with your mental health, but I feel compelled to ask a question. It is based upon the following:

On March 16th I received a letter from you stating, in part (in bold type yet) “Please complete and mail back the enclosed census form today. ” Clear enough, I opened the census form, and what do I find – Question 1: “How many additional people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010.” This is creating quite a problem for me – How can I mail back the form on March 20th (as you have instructed) which says how many people are living in my house on April 1.?

I am sure there are others with similar problems, so what do I do?

Please advise.

Thank you, in advance, for your courtesy.

eGrumps

P.S. – Is it true that you are being considered for the chief operating officer for Obamacare? You seem to be well-qualified.

ObamaCare Passes: So Now What?

Comedian Bill Bauer presciently - and sardonically - observed that "we have a winner." The victors in yesterday's historic, and pyrrhic, victory would be wise to remember that the new law of the land does nothing to curb runaway health care costs, except (perhaps) in the breach. For now, taxes and insurance premiums will rise, and essential services for our seniors will begin to evaporate. And those in dire health straits will not see a quick nor marked improvement in their care.

Had the bill(s) been about health care (not health insurance), then we would have seen consumer-centric products such as HSA's promoted, not gutted. We would have seen tort reform enacted, so that defensive medicine didn't continue to to so adversely impact health care and health insurance costs.

Time will tell, of course: the political blogs are abuzz with all the various options still open to those opposed to the destruction of the world's best health care system. We'll continue to concentrate on the insurance and health care issues for which we've become known, looking to the systems employed by our Neighbors to the North© and the MVNHS© for advanced warnings.

The Public Be Damned

"Each time the President leads a big push for his health care plan, his job approval ratings suffer."

Interesting, eh?

In school I learned this: Throughout history and around the world, whenever governments long ignore or deny the will of the people and instead invent "legal" ways to force the governments will on an unwilling people, a democracy does not exist and a republic is not present. Freedoms begin to erode.

Now Congress has invented a "legal" way to deem the unpopular health care reform bill enacted, without even voting on it. So maybe the preceding paragraph is really worth thinking about as we await this Congressional action.

The Public be damned.

Cavalcade of Risk #101: Call for submissions

Andrew at Oz Risk hosts next week's Cavalcade of Risk. Submissions are due this Monday (the 22nd). He would like to remind you to include:

■ Your blog's url
■ Your post's url
■ The post's trackback URL (if available)
■ A (brief) summary of the post

And PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like).

You can submit your post via Blog Carnival or email.

We're now scheduling for May - please drop us a line to claim your slot.

ObamaCare vs The 57

With perhaps a third of practicing physicians threatening to "Go Galt" should ObamaCare pass, it's easy to overlook another potentially devastating effect of this monstrosity:

"Nevada, Hawaii, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Georgia will see significant reductions in dollars available to fund Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Programs."

Well, unless their CongressCritters can wrangle (Rangel?) a CornHustler-type deal for themselves, as well. This dire prediction comes to us from the Pacific Research Institute (a San Francisco-based think-tank). According to an email we received recently from the PRI, "federal reform could cause more people to leave state-regulated private health insurance for either federally regulated private insurance, or government-run health plans."

The net result: “reduced revenues for states charging premium taxes on state-regulated health insurance."

The issue is that by (literally) making a federal case of health care "reform," ObamaCare is poised to (deliberately?) scuttle state-based efforts, and to directly (and negatively) affect states' revenues. The report singled out the handful of states mentioned above because of the disparate impact "reform" will have on them and its citizens.

A cynic might wonder whether ObamaCare backers would consider this a bug, or a feature.

[Hat Tip: Kelly Gorton]

In a Nutshell, Part Deux (Or: 90 Seconds to Armageddon)

Everything you need to know about ObamaCare, in a minute-and-a-half:

The Future is Now

As my better half is fond of telling me, "there are no coincidences." Her point is that everything, no matter how seemingly insignificant, happens for a reason, a purpose.

I just experienced a "no coincidence" moment.

As is my wont, I had clicked over to read the latest at PowerLine, perhaps the most thoughtfully written political blog extant. A contributor had this to say:

"[T]he care-seeking population is about to become the Baby Boomers -- i.e., the most indulged, demanding and complaining generation in a hundred years, or maybe ever. The Dems are (apparently) fixing to take over medicine at exactly the time The Giant Complaining Horde shows up at the door ... people with money will still come out ahead ... knowing I had a potential problem, I paid $4,000 out of my own pocket for an exotic annual physical exam beyond what insurance would reimburse."

This is a critical point because, as my better half has also observed, "this [ObamaCare] isn't about health care at all, it's about control" [ed: yes, I often question whether the wrong one of us actually blogs]. That is, even if it passes, it won't address the underlying problems of health care and, indeed, will most likely exacerbate them by formalizing a two- (or even three-) tiered health care system. Currently, insurers can merely deny payment for a particular med or procedure; under a gummint-run system, the bureaucracy can actually withhold treatment. And then what?

Well, then one goes outside the system to one of the practices that has chosen not to participate. Think that's far-fetched? Well, here's the other part of the coincidence. After reading the latest from the Minnesota Boys, I clicked over to another favorite site, Jewish World Review, where I found this little tidbit from Dr Peter Gott:

"[A reader writes:] My present doctor charges $3,500 a year to see me four or five times to ask how I am feeling, which is a little much. He has been my physician for the past 15 years ... He doesn't take Medicare ... What's a gal to do?"

To which the good doctor replies:

"Sadly, this is the wave of the future. Five years ago, an article appeared in The New York Times regarding such services ... The woman was tired of sitting in the waiting room for extended periods and found the idea appealing."

As would anyone who actually wanted, and needed, health care. Of course, this still leaves the problem of catastrophic claims, but I have no doubt that we'd see a spate of new cat-only plans (a natural evolution, really, of high deductible plans) to handle those. And so those who choose to essentially opt out of ObamaCare (mandates or no) will still have access to care.

And we haven't even started talking about the coming boom in Medical Tourism.

ObamaCare in a Nutshell

[9/13/12: Welcome The Blaze readers! Please take a look around the site for other interesting posts]

From FoIB Matt H:
Let me get this straight......we're trying to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,

passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,

to be signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes,

with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,

all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,

and financed by a country that's broke.

What could possibly go wrong?

That Dirty, Dirty MVNHS©

Coming soon to a hospital near us?

"A quarter of NHS Trusts are compounding the risk of hospital infections by failing to meet core standards on hygiene."

So says the Brits' Care Quality Commission, as part of its ongoing audit of hospitals' compliance with basic standards set forth by the MVNHS©. On the other hand, at least the hospitals have their priorities in order: sure, the doc's don't always wash their hands, but the staff rigidly enforces rules against visitors sitting on patient's beds or (heaven forfend!) bringing them flowers.

Gee, can't wait for that here.

Health Wonk Review: March Madness Edition

Talk about brackets to fill! Minna Jung at the Health Reform Galaxy blog presents this week's roundup of great posts on health care policy and polity. Catch the fevah!

About that flushing sound you hear...

Thus far flying under the radar is one of the most important and far-reaching implications of ObamaCare, its delivery. That is, where, exactly, are the bureaucrats who'll be running the health care show going to find providers to administer the actual care of sick and injured Americans?

With millions - perhaps tens of millions - of newly "insured" citizens (and non-citizens) demanding health care services, one would think that there would be some thought given as to whom these folks would see for care.

One would be wrong:

"Nearly one-third of all practicing physicians may leave the medical profession if President Obama signs current versions of health-care reform legislation into law."

That's not some anecdotal "well, my doctor said he'd bail" kind of thing. That's straight from the folks who should know: The New England Journal of Medicine. The NEJM is hardly known as a bastion of right-wing ideology, so this should have an impact.

We'll have to wait-and-see if it actually does.

About that sob story... [UPDATED]

What is it with the folks behind government-run health care that they keep putting up fake "victims" of our current system? Natoma Canfield joins The Frost Family in the growing pantheon of "victims" that really aren't:

"[T]he cancer-stricken woman who has become a centerpiece of President Obama's push for health care reform, will not lose her home over her medical bills and will probably qualify for financial aid."

Turns out, Ms Canfield most likely qualifies for Medicaid, and of course there are any number of other state-run programs available to assist her. Not only that, but the provider, Cleveland Clinic, had already begin working with her regarding the funding of her care at that facility.

While this of course illustrates the perfidy of those bent on destroying the world's best health care system, it also highlights the fact that so many eligible folks don't avail themselves of the gummint-run programs that already exist.

There's the scandal.

[Hat Tip: FoIB Sarah S]

UPDATE: In the comments, Bob points out something I initially missed: "she had health insurance before she developed cancer, then voluntarily dropped the coverage." But it's actually even more muddled than that: in her letter to the president, she claimed that "with a maximum deductible of $2,500 she had to pay about $10,000 for care in 2009 -- while her insurance company paid just over $900."

And just as in the Frost case cited above, the White House and the media take her at her word. On its face, this claim makes no sense: if she had a generic co-pay plan, then her maximum out-of-pocket should have been in the $3500 to $4500 range; if it was an HSA style plan, even less. Under what kind of circumstances would she have had to pony up over $10,000 to the carrier's $900?

We don't know, but it's certainly a critical piece of information.

HumanaVid: Staying Healthy and Medicare

We've long advocated personal responsibility as regards health care and health insurance; this short video underscores why keeping track of one's health can be a boon to both:

A Word about "Nomentum..."

Some time back, I was interviewed by a very nice lady from the NYT. She told me that she read IB "often," and found a lot of our information useful, but also mentioned that a lot of it seemed "inside baseball." By that she meant that we tended (still tend?) to be a bit wonky in what we choose to write about, and how we choose to write it. It's not a bad criticism, just acknowledging that we're in a fairly defined field.

One of the problems with being very "inside baseball," though, is that one tends to focus solely on the moment, at the expense of the big picture. And that's why we aren't constantly updating with the latest head count of "yea's" and "nay's" on ObamaCare. The only tabulation that counts is the one that will (might? won't?) take place on the 21st (or whenever). Until then, all the "he's switching to yes" and "she's switching to no" will drive a sane person crazy.

And we already do enough of that here.

Last, Desperate Measures?

Are we witnessing the death-throes of ObamaCare? Perhaps:

"Still seeking votes for his proposed health care overhaul, President Barack Obama appears ready to reverse his position and allow unpopular deal-sweetening measures in the hopes of finding Democratic support for legislation whose future will be decided in coming days."

"Deal-sweeteners" include "CornHustler" schemes that "could affect more than one state," the unconstitutional Individual Mandate, and premium subsidies for "poor and middle-income Americans."

None of these sound like strategies that would be understaken by folks who believe they actually have the votes to pass this monstrosity; rather, they appear to be a last-ditch effort to keep it alive.

And then there's this:

"The House Budget Committee on Sunday evening released text that will serve as the base legislation for the changes the House will seek to the Senate bill this week."

Interesting verbiage, that: "text that will serve as the base legislation."

So, technically, it's not "a bill" at all, but a roadmap. As we've seen from this excercise in futility, er, "transparency," it appears (although it's far from certain) that they've given up on the "Slaughter House Rule."

This is obviously meant as comic relief:

"The House is expected to approve the Senate's healthcare bill along with the package of changes. The Senate would then be expected to approve the package of changes under budget reconciliation rules."

Um, no they won't.

What's next?

The Case of the 12 Percent Solution

Last summer, Bob made the excellent point that your health insurance may be making you sick. He noted that, because folks spend so little of their own money on actual health care (as opposed to health insurance), they were much more likely to avail themselves of medical services.

Now along comes Dr David Gratzer (senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute), who underscores Bob's thesis with some statistics:

"(F)or every dollar spent on health care in the United States, just 12 cents comes out of the individuals' pockets."

That's so important that it bears repeating:

"(F)or every dollar spent on health care in the United States, just 12 cents comes out of the individuals' pockets."

In short, almost 90% of our health care is paid for by someone else (or by ourselves, funneled through premiums and taxes).

Part of the problem is that so many of us rely on our employers for health insurance coverage. As Dr Dave points out, "(i)magine what food costs might be if your employer paid 88% of your grocery bill or what a trip to Saks might be like if your company covered the vast majority of the costs of the shopping spree."

Indeed.

Under ObamaCare, of course, it gets worse, since we wouldn't even have the choice of high deductible (or other alternative benefits) plans. And since Washington isn't exactly known as a model of efficient stewardship of taxpayer funds, well, imagine how lovely that 12% might sound a year down the road.

[Hat Tip: Lyndsi Thomas]

Is March 18 Really *The* Day? [UPDATED]

As we've seen, those intent on destroying the world's best health care system keep moving the goalposts, date-wise. First it was last August, then it was Christmas, now it's March 18.

So, how likely do you think it is that we'll have the vote on the 18th?


UPDATE: Just wanted to note that our last poll about whether or not "accident only" plans should pay out if one dies of complications from a surgery. And the results are:

Yes (by a margin of 53% to 47%).

Preference Cascades and Obamacare

Preference cascade: "in which people who have been obliged to conceal their true beliefs by social pressure or sheer force suddenly discover that a lot of other people feel the same way." For example: "everyone knows that x is our only real choice," until one learns that other folks have expressed a preference for "y.' It's really an extension of group-think or peer-pressure; we don't want to be "different" because we believe that everyone else thinks a certain way. Sometimes, though, other folks do agree with us, but we don't realize it.

What happens when that assumption is challenged? Debunked?

Well, then, we are liberated from this misconception and feel free to express our own, real opinion. When we begin to understand that we are not alone in our beliefs, and feel free to speak our minds without fear that we're the lone voice:

"At least 25 House Democrats will reject the healthcare reform legislation, according to a survey by The Hill, a review of other media reports and interviews with lawmakers, aides and lobbyists."

Is this "the end" of ObamaCare?

Hardly.

But it is probably the beginning of the end.

Told Ya So?

Again, I'm still not convinced that the beast is dead, but as we noted previously, the Reconciliation Route appears to be a dead end. That theory received some major evidentiary assistance today:

"The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package ..."

This is significant because, if true, it would appear to represent an insurmountable problem for House members who might have relied on the Senate's word that reconciliation would, in fact, occur.

For those gullible CongressCritters, I've got a bridge to sell you, too.

Piling on ObamaCare v?.0

Although I'm loathe to pronounce it dead, ObamaCare seems to be in the same position as its projected "recipients:" the operation was a success, but the patient died. The problem is that, as each special interest group demands its pound of flesh, the likelihood of any bill actually passing diminishes.

Case in point:

"A group of Hispanic lawmakers on Thursday will tell President Barack Obama that they may not vote for healthcare reform unless changes are made to the bill’s immigration provisions."

Ooops.

As readers may recall, the PelosiCare version of "reform" would bar illegals from receiving taxpayer subsidies to buy a policy from the new Insurance Exchanges. ReidCare goes even further, prohibiting illegals from purchasing through the Exchanges at all. The Hispanic Caucus, however, is threatening to hold ObamaCare hostage unless illegals are able to both buy from the Exchanges and to take money from those who are actual, you know, legal, taxpaying citizens.

Hasta la vista, baby.

[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]

Oy Canada! PLUS MVNHS© Losing Steam?

Even as we rush headlong into the abyss that is ObamaCare, it would be wise to consider the (tragic) fates of those who already suffer under such a system.

First up, our Neighbors to the North©:

"Kent Pankow lives in Edmonton, in a province and a country that is trying to either kill him or bankrupt him ... Suffering from brain cancer, Kent Pankow was literally forced to go to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. for lifesaving surgery."

Such is the nature of "free" health care: if the government provides it, the government can deny it. And by the way, that argument does not apply to insurance companies, which can, at worst, withhold only payment; they cannot withhold actual treatment.

In the event, Mr Pankow suffered from a fast-growing tumor which, had it been elsewhere in his body, would have been covered. He was doubly unfortunate, though, because the government-run health care system deemed him ineligible for treatment. Which doesn't mean they refused to pay for it (although that's exactly what happened), but that the unaccountable bureaucrats explicitly refused to grant him access to care. Death Panels, anyone?

Now, $106,000 later, the poor man gets hit again:

"[T]he province will now not fund the expensive drug, Avastin, that the Mayo prescribed to keep him alive and keep the remaining tumour from increasing in size."

Again, had the tumor appeared in, for example, his lungs or colon, the government would have provided this life-saving medication. In effect, they've condemned him to a slow and painful death.

Quick, let's do that here!

[Hat Tip: FoIB Peter Krieger]

Meanwhile, across the pond, the MVNHS© faces its own Death Panel:

"Hundreds of NHS wards to be shut in secret plans"

Turns out, the folks who run that other scheme of socialized medicine haven't figured out how to rein in the cost of health care, either. So they'll do what any other service provider would in the face of increasing red ink: cut back on the delivery of said services. Again, this is the heavy hand of a government-run system: they have the gold, they make (and enforce) the rules. Such a system is inherently unsustainable, as the headline above demonstrates.

So what do sick Brits do when their government shuts them out? Well, they turn to their own health insurance plans.

What, you didn't know that our Cousins Across the Pond have figured out the shortfalls of their public health system? They're not stupid:

"[O]ne of the main reasons for the current great value of Health Insurance Policies for UK citizens [both at home and abroad] is that British providers of health insurance are being pressed by their consumers [both current and potential] to make every saving possible."

Told ya so.

On the Record with Joe Wilson (Again)

Late this afternoon, I had the privilege of speaking (again) with Rep Joe "You Lie!" Wilson (R-SC) about a number of issues, most prominently ObamaCare v?.0. Rep Wilson began by mentioning his new site, Joe Means Jobs, Rep Kucinich's "Retreat from Afghanistan" resolution, and the recent vote in Iraq (interestingly, they had a 62% turnout; we're thrilled to see 55%).

I was joined on the call by Jeff Dunetz of Yid With Lid and Richard Zuendt of Conservatives With Attitude. Both of these fine sites belong primarily in the political sector of the blogosphere (as opposed to IB, which is considered a MedBlog).

Both Jeff and I asked Rep Wilson about the late-breaking Slaughter "Rule" in the House [ed: the SlaughterHouse Rules?]. This is a desperate, almost laughable, attempt to bypass a formal vote on ReidCare (more here for those who are interested). Rep Wilson was unfamiliar with the details of this latest gambit by those bent on the destruction of the world's best health care system, but quickly came up to speed.

I asked the congressman about the dozen or so states taking pre-emptive action to opt out of a gummint-run system, and he replied that not only is he quite pleased, but that it is, in fact, an organized and concerted effort, led by the ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council). ALEC is a group of state-level legislators working together on a national level.

The congressman also pointed out that the current version(s) of "reform" have been compared to both TennCare and MassCare, both failed systems. In fact, it's his contention (and one with which I agree) that MassCare is the overarching reason that Scott Brown was elected to the Senate.

Mr Zuendt (of Conservatives With Attitude) asked about the impact of "reform" on states' budgets, and Rep Wilson replied that these are classic examples of "unfunded Federal mandates."

I then asked him how firm he felt the vote on the 18th really was, and he answered that, much to his own surprise, he agreed with Rep Waxman that "there's not a date." Looks like I might have to reset (or delete) the countdown timer on our sidebar.

Following up, I asked about reconciliation; his response was to point me to a new report by Representatives Kyl and Cantor which effectively confirms our view on the matter. TThe Kyl/Cantor document can be found here.

Our own Mike Feehan had wondered about whether or not legislators would be bribed with stimulus funds, and Bob had wondered the same about other "favors;" Rep Wilson answered both of them by characterizing the current process as "The Chicago Way." That is, a combination of carrot and stick, regardless of legality or propriety, and felt it would backfire.

He was also quick to point out the value of blogs and social media for breaking through the wall of silence thrown up by the Main Stream Media. I'm sure we all blushed.

All in all, a very interesting call, and I appreciate the Congressman's time.

A very special IB Thank You to Lyndsi Thomas for setting this up.

Outstanding Carrier Trick: UHC Reads IB

According to an email I just received, the head honcho of United HealthCare (along with four other industry titans) recently met with HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious, as well as some folks from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, to discuss health care costs.

Mr Hemsley (the aforementioned CEO of UHC) tried to explain to Secretary Shecantbeserious, the NAIC folks and President Obama (who attended for a short time before heading out, presumably for a smoke break) that, in order to continue providing increased access to the quality care to which we've become accustomed, something must be done to rein in the costs of that care.

Or, as he put it (obviously quoting InsureBlog):

"The cost of insurance is driven by the underlying cost pressures we see throughout the health care system."

Couldn't have said it better ourselves.

Props to CMS Guy

Received an email yesterday from Jack Cheevers, Public Information Officer for the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). In it, he updated the Fox Insurance story, confirming that CMS has now "terminated its contract" with the carrier.

The headline of the actual press release says "Members Will Be Provided Access to Drugs While Transitioning to New Plans;" I questioned the choice of words "access to drugs." Although this was mostly tongue-in-cheek, kudos to Mr Cheevers for replying thoughtfully:

"As to your second point, I think the overall context of the release makes it clear that we’re talking about prescription drugs."

Quite so, and I appreciate both his honesty and how promptly he replied to a late-in-the-day email.

Which begs the question: given his candor and thoughtfulness, can we swap him for HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious?

Cavalcade of Risk: 100th Edition!

Russell Hutchinson presents this week's collection of risk-related posts. Take a chance and check it out!

S/He Said What?! Again?!

Regular readers may recall the sage words of WH Senior Advisor David Axelrod regarding the importance of passing "a bill, any bill:"

"[P]eople will never know what’s in that bill until we pass it..." [ed: emphasis added]

If ObamaCare weren't so (literally) deadly serious, this would be funny. But the former is, and the latter most assuredly isn't. Which hasn't stopped erstwhile Speaker of the House, San Fran Nan, from pronouncing (parroting?):

"[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." [emphasis added]

This has just gone so far over the pale that it's really hard to characterize it as anything but political satire. And yet, these folks actually mean it. Their intention to destroy the world's best health care, without regard to how devastating the result will be to those who will actually have to live under it (because they certainly won't have to), is mind-boggling.

Have you called your Representative today?

Your Healthcare is in the mail (Part 2)

Another 1,000 words:

[Hat Tip: Power Line]

Grand Rounds at Health Business Blog

FoIB David Williams hosts this week's collection of insightful medblog posts, focusing on an unpleasant subject: pain and suffering. To avoid both, though, you should click on over and check it out.

Pick Any Two...

There's an old maxim that goes "you can have it fast, you can have it good, you can have it cheap. Pick any two."

Reason I bring this up is this quote from Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) regarding her (probable) "no" vote on ReidCare:

"(W)e should hold insurance companies accountable by preventing them from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, by eliminating life-time caps on coverage, and by taking steps to lower premiums."

As we've pointed out, ad nauseum, immediately covering pre-existing conditions and removing the life-time caps on benefits has the immediate and direct result of increasing premiums. This is just simple economics: increasing the demand for something (health care) without increasing the supply always increases the cost.

Why am I not surprised that a CongressCritter fails Econ 101?

[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]

Medical School: MVNHS© Style

Thanks to Bob, we can no longer have to imagine the horrible deaths inflicted upon those who are forced to rely on the government for their health care:

"A man of 22 died in agony of dehydration after three days in a leading teaching hospital."

One wonders exactly what they're teaching.

It's certainly not compassion.

About "Reconciliation" and The Ides of March (+3)

Not. Gonna. Happen.

I'll make this quick [ed: Thank You!]:

On March 18th, the House is scheduled to vote on the Senate's verion of ObamaCare. If that vote passes, then it will go to President Obama for signing, and become the law of the land.

All of the posturing, all of the "oh, we'll fix it in reconciliation" are moot points: once ReidCare is passed in the House, it's "game over, man."

That's why, if you care about the destruction of the world's best health care system, you ought to be making your voice heard now.

Loudly.

Cavalcade of Risk #100 (Yay!): Call for submissions

Russell Hutchinson hosts next week's Cavalcade of Risk. Submissions are due this Monday (the 8th). Russell would like to remind you to include:

■ Your blog's url
■ Your post's url
■ The post's trackback URL (if available)
■ A (brief) summary of the post

And PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like).

You can submit your post via Blog Carnival or email.

We still have April 21st open - would really love a volunteer.

Your Healthcare is in the mail...

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

Let's play a word game:

"The [Federal Healthcare Service] is inching closer to doing something it's discussed for years -- ending Saturday [health care] delivery."

The Post Office is a quasi-government service tasked with delivering the mail, and "[n]either snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds." Except, of course, if it means going even further into the red. Thus, the current discussion about cutting its actual delivery service by 16%.

[ed: This represents 1/6 of their promised delivery service, just as health care represents 1/6 of the economy. Coincidence?]

What does this have to do with ObamaCare© v?.0? Well, what happens when the shiny new gummint-run health care system isn't so shiny or new anymore, and demand begins to outstrip supply? Simple: just cut out 1/6 of its promised delivery service.

On the one hand, I'm not sure I'd miss the bills and junk mail on my weekends, but that's really not the issue. The real problem is that, by law, only the USPS is allowed to offer daily mail delivery (FedEx, et al can only deliver "packages"). So if I wanted to have mail delivered on Saturday, I couldn't contract with another carrier for that service. I'm just outta luck.

Now, substitute "Marcus Welby" for "Cliff Clavin" and you begin to understand the real problem.

Judging Transparency

Here at IB, we think of the term "transparency" as one of personal empowerment: knowing ahead of time how much a medical treatment or procedure will cost. For the Advocate-in-Chief of ObamaCare© v?.0 however, being transparent is about political empowerment, as in:

"The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit."

And who, you may be wondering, is the antecedent Matheson? Well, that would be Rep Jim Matheson (D-UT), whose previous votes against a government takeover of the world's best health care system President Obama seeks to change. At least Senators Nelson and Landrieu got swag for their states; this is a far more personal form of bribery.

But no less transparent.

That was then, this is...Shut Up! They explained

Back in the day, say 4 or 5 years ago, then-Senator Obama had this to say about the so-called "Reconciliation" track:


[Video courtesy Naked Emporer News]

Fast forward, say 4 or 5 years, and President Obama is singing a different tune:

"White House officials ... suggest that if it is necessary, Democrats will use the controversial "reconciliation" rules requiring only 51 Senate votes to pass the "fix" to the Senate bill, as opposed to the 60 votes to stop a filibuster and proceed to a vote on a bill."

Thanks for clearing that up.

And an Old Dominion Mandate Update, As Well

It seems that the folks in Virginia are embracing "the tech:"

"By a unanimous vote, the Virginia State Legislature yesterday approved SB 675 mandating that health insurers pay for telemedicine services."

Currently, health insurance plans aren't required to cover these kinds of services, even though they may well reduce the cost of health care delivery. It's also a convenience for consumers, since it means one less trip to the doc (and perhaps one less co-pay). While I'm generally not a fan of benefits mandates, this one seems pretty benign and, unlike most (all?) others, could actually reduce health care costs.

This brings to an even dozen the number of states which have adopted this kind of coverage mandate.

Kind of adds a whole new dimension to "take two aspirin and call me in the morning."

[Hat Tip: Alice Watland]

Buckeye Updates: COBRA and CE

Good news for folks on "mini-COBRA" plans: Gov Strickland has signed a bill extending coverage eligibility for an additional 3 months (from 12 to 15).

Meanwhile, licensed agents got some welcome news: our mandatory CE requirements have increased only 17% (to 24 hours every 2 years). And, we now have an Ethics Requirement (previously, Ohio agents were considered so above reproach that this was deemed unncessary). The new regs require three hours of ethics education; there's also a new, mandatory federal background check for new licensees.

[Hat Tip: FoIB Nelson C]

Something Different: Job Opportunity (Wonks Only?)

FoIB Julie Ferguson dropped us a note the other day that may be helpful to (at least) one IB reader:

"[W]e’ve been notified of a promising job opening that sounds perfect for one of our health wonks – or for someone you may know in the health policy wonkosphere – check it out:

The University of Pennsylvania’s Leonard Davis Institute for Health Economics (LDI) is seeking an individual who can combine an enthusiasm for the internet’s ability to convey information and guide national discourse with a demonstrated understanding of the nation’s trillion dollar health care system to create and guide a new issues-oriented, web-based environment reflecting the relevance, rigor, and vitality of LDI and its faculty.

The successful candidate will work closely with LDI’s Executive Director and senior members of its faculty to design, implement and develop its web-based product that will attract and inform LDI’s many constituencies including policymakers, thought leaders, the media, health care economists, and other stakeholders. In addition to developing content based on his or her original ideas, this individual will draw upon the work and shape the voices of LDI’s interdisciplinary faculty, as well as include experts outside the University of Pennsylvania to create a lively, informative, and highly-valued web-based periodical.

Bachelor’s degree required and 5+ years experience as a healthcare/health policy communications/marketing with a proven ability to develop and execute web-based projects. The successful candidate will have superior writing, editing, and verbal communication skills, as well as teamwork and project management experience.

For more information, see [CLICK HERE FOR APP] or contact Daniel Polsky."

Grand Rounds is up!

Fellow Buckeye Dr Anonymous presents this week's roundup of great medblog posts. And he's doing it from the home of co-blogger Bob Vineyard (well, not his actual house).

HSA = Hoosier Savings Account?

One of the fundamental problems with the current crop of health care "reform" (including the Wyden-Bennett "Healthy Americans Act") is that they do little or nothing to stem the cost of health care. This is something that's often overlooked as CongressCritters jockey for position (and headlines), and explicitly underscored by Rep Ryan at last week's Noh Theatre Production...er "Summit."

We've chronicled how consumer-centric (aka High Deductible, HSA-compliant) plans can actually reduce the cost of health care, while helping to rein in rising health insurance rates. In a Wall Street Journal article, Indiana Governor (and 2012 dark horse) Mitch Daniels reports on his own state's experience with these plans:

"When I was elected governor of Indiana five years ago, I asked that a consumer-directed health insurance option, or Health Savings Account (HSA), be added to the conventional plans then available to state employees ... What we ... have found is that individually owned and directed health-care coverage has a startlingly positive effect on costs for both employees and the state."

For one thing, there's been an immediate savings of some $8 million for employees who opted for the HSA (into which, by the way, the state plops almost $3000 per participating employee!); as Gov Daniels points out (and as we've noted here at IB), even folks with large claims see a net savings versus "phantom" plans.

Perhaps more importantly, because participants have "skin in the game," they're more likely to take better care of themselves, which is perhaps why "Indiana will save at least $20 million in 2010 because of our high HSA enrollment." The folks at Mercer Consulting (an independent health care and financial services research firm) confirm these tremendous savings, and the positive impact they've had on the cost of both health care and health insurance.

It's gratifying to see yet another example of how these lower cost, higher value health insurance plans may hold the key to solving at least part of the health care equation. Which leaves us wondering why ObamaCare© v?.0 seeks to do away with them.

As FoIB Brian D points out, there's a bigger issue here: if one indeed has a "right" to health care, then one has a corresponding responsibility to pay for it. What's happened with health care "reform" is that the first part of that equation has become a "right to have health care paid for by someone else." That's one of the primary appeals of products like HSA's: one is empowered both financially and morally to pay for one's own care.

Imagine that.

Carnival of Personal Finance is up!

Dan Ray presents this week's roundup of helpful and interesting finance-related posts.