May is National Disability Insurance Awareness Month. In anticipation of this annual event, we bring you startling and compelling evidence that this is must-have coverage:
Friday, April 29, 2011
Cavalcade of Risk #130: Call for submissions and CavRisk News
David Williams hosts next week's edition. Entries are due by Monday (the 2nd).
NB: We're trying out a new submission tool:
The BC WorkAround
Once there, you'll be asked to provide:
■ Your post's url and title
■ Your blog's url and name
■ Your name and email
■ A (brief) summary of the post ("Remarks")
At the bottom of the form, you'll see a drop-down menu; simply select "Cavalcade of Risk" then press "Submit" and you're good to go.
And PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like).
NB: We're trying out a new submission tool:
The BC WorkAround
Once there, you'll be asked to provide:
■ Your post's url and title
■ Your blog's url and name
■ Your name and email
■ A (brief) summary of the post ("Remarks")
At the bottom of the form, you'll see a drop-down menu; simply select "Cavalcade of Risk" then press "Submit" and you're good to go.
And PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like).
Thursday, April 28, 2011
About those "sick notes"
During the unruly protests that took place in Wisconsin in February, several health care "professionals" handed out "medical excuse notes" to participants. While any rational lay person would immediately recognize this as a major ethical breach, it's taken this long for said "professionals'" employer to weigh in:
"UW Health doctors who wrote sick notes for protesters at the Capitol in February face penalties up to a loss of pay and leadership positions, the UW School of Medicine and Public Health said Tuesday."
[ed: "UW" is "University of Wisconsin"]
Nice to see the University taking a principled stand.
"UW Health doctors who wrote sick notes for protesters at the Capitol in February face penalties up to a loss of pay and leadership positions, the UW School of Medicine and Public Health said Tuesday."
[ed: "UW" is "University of Wisconsin"]
Nice to see the University taking a principled stand.
From the Mailbag: Thursday Linkfest
Three (apparently) unrelated but interesting items from our email:
■ Regular readers know that we're big fans of transparency in both the delivery and financing of health care. To that end, we're pleased to pass along the news of a new online database called Fair Health Consumer. Eric Hendrickson tells us that the site's purpose is to "provid[e] consumers with information they need to navigate the very confusing world of health care reimbursement; one service offered deconstructs the benefit forms that insurers provide us with anytime we visit our doctor or other healthcare provider."
That's been available since the beginning of the year, and they've recently added a new "Consumer Cost Lookup function" that lets health care consumers "view charge estimates for various dental procedures within their geographic area." And come August, the site's adding "costs associated with medical procedures ... Patients will be able to conduct their searches by procedure or service, by diagnosis (in the case of medical), or by utilizing the appropriate medical or dental terminology codes."
■ Long Term Care insurance is another favorite topic here at IB, and Genworth Financial's a major player in the LTCi market. According to email we received from Clint Kaminska, the carrier's put together a new "Genworth Celebrates Caregivers program," which includes "Long Term Care resources aimed to support families and caregivers in talking to loved ones about big issues like aging, money, health and planning for end-of-life care."
It's a website with a variety of resources, including articles, advice and links.
■ Daniel Kessler, a professor of business and law at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, has an interesting piece at the WSJ that explains how ObamaCare© actually punishes the productive members of our society:
"This new entitlement ... will damage the country's long-term fiscal outlook. It also will introduce far-reaching negative effects on rewards to work and bizarre new inequities into American life ... There is also the likelihood that ... income taxes on upper-middle income families will have to be raised ... to finance the cost of the subsidy, the Medicaid expansion, and other provisions of the new law. Both of these effects exacerbate the law's negative work incentives."
It's a chilling and eye-opening look at this trainwreck.
■ Regular readers know that we're big fans of transparency in both the delivery and financing of health care. To that end, we're pleased to pass along the news of a new online database called Fair Health Consumer. Eric Hendrickson tells us that the site's purpose is to "provid[e] consumers with information they need to navigate the very confusing world of health care reimbursement; one service offered deconstructs the benefit forms that insurers provide us with anytime we visit our doctor or other healthcare provider."
That's been available since the beginning of the year, and they've recently added a new "Consumer Cost Lookup function" that lets health care consumers "view charge estimates for various dental procedures within their geographic area." And come August, the site's adding "costs associated with medical procedures ... Patients will be able to conduct their searches by procedure or service, by diagnosis (in the case of medical), or by utilizing the appropriate medical or dental terminology codes."
■ Long Term Care insurance is another favorite topic here at IB, and Genworth Financial's a major player in the LTCi market. According to email we received from Clint Kaminska, the carrier's put together a new "Genworth Celebrates Caregivers program," which includes "Long Term Care resources aimed to support families and caregivers in talking to loved ones about big issues like aging, money, health and planning for end-of-life care."
It's a website with a variety of resources, including articles, advice and links.
■ Daniel Kessler, a professor of business and law at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, has an interesting piece at the WSJ that explains how ObamaCare© actually punishes the productive members of our society:
"This new entitlement ... will damage the country's long-term fiscal outlook. It also will introduce far-reaching negative effects on rewards to work and bizarre new inequities into American life ... There is also the likelihood that ... income taxes on upper-middle income families will have to be raised ... to finance the cost of the subsidy, the Medicaid expansion, and other provisions of the new law. Both of these effects exacerbate the law's negative work incentives."
It's a chilling and eye-opening look at this trainwreck.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Is there an app for this? (Stupid Government Trick)
Recently, "smart" phones have been in the news for surreptitiously tracing users' whereabouts. That might actually be a good problem to have, though, if you're the beneficiary of a life insurance policy:
"State regulators in California and Florida say they will be looking to see how well life insurers are doing at determining when the life insurance policy insureds have died."
There are, in fact, several issues here, and it's not necessarily as "open and shut" as the authorities may wish it to appear.
The first problem is that, contrary to what the state bureauweenies may wishcast, it's not the insurance company's responsibility to keep tabs on its insureds: it's the insured's responsibility to keep the carrier apprised of his (or her) location. In fact, I daresay that privacy hawks would be mightily put out if an insurer was proactive in this regard.
And I call BS on this one:
"John Chiang, the California controller, says his office has been auditing 21 insurers to evaluate compliance with state unclaimed property claims.
The audit has found widespread problems with efforts to locate beneficiaries of life policies and annuity contract death benefits."
So. What?
If you care enough about your loved ones to buy a life insurance policy, then you darned well ought to make sure that they have a clue as to:
a) It's existence,
and
b) It's location.
Sheesh!
"State regulators in California and Florida say they will be looking to see how well life insurers are doing at determining when the life insurance policy insureds have died."
There are, in fact, several issues here, and it's not necessarily as "open and shut" as the authorities may wish it to appear.
The first problem is that, contrary to what the state bureauweenies may wishcast, it's not the insurance company's responsibility to keep tabs on its insureds: it's the insured's responsibility to keep the carrier apprised of his (or her) location. In fact, I daresay that privacy hawks would be mightily put out if an insurer was proactive in this regard.
And I call BS on this one:
"John Chiang, the California controller, says his office has been auditing 21 insurers to evaluate compliance with state unclaimed property claims.
The audit has found widespread problems with efforts to locate beneficiaries of life policies and annuity contract death benefits."
So. What?
If you care enough about your loved ones to buy a life insurance policy, then you darned well ought to make sure that they have a clue as to:
a) It's existence,
and
b) It's location.
Sheesh!
Worksite Woes
Many years ago, working class folks bought life insurance from companies specializing in "industrial" policies. No, this didn't mean that plans were forged from raw steel; rather, these policies had relatively modest death benefits, usually meant to cover final expenses. Rather than check-o-matic, premiums were collected (often weekly) by "the insurance man" working his debit (route).
Those days are long gone, but the need for these kinds of plans still exists, and that market is now served by so-called "worksite marketing" programs. Some are well-known (Aflac); many aren't. The basic idea, though, remains the same: small face amounts, simplified underwriting and easily-budgeted premiums (the agent collecting his debit has been supplanted by payroll deduction of premiums).
Unfortunately, even that affordable market is now facing a major challenge:
"U.S. sales of voluntary group insurance products and individual products sold at the worksite fell 2.9% in 2010 ... The drop between 2009 and 2010 “is the first decrease that we have seen in the industry since we began tracking sales in 1997."
Although life sales in general seem to have picked up, sales of these plans have plummeted: "The top carrier experienced a 5% drop in sales."
So what's behind this precipitous decrease? Well, if real unemployment stands at almost 16% (and it does), and folks are somewhat soured on the economy (and they are), and gas is approaching (or over) $4 a gallon (and it is), then something's got to give. And it doesn't seem a stretch to conclude that at least part of that something is more life insurance.
Those days are long gone, but the need for these kinds of plans still exists, and that market is now served by so-called "worksite marketing" programs. Some are well-known (Aflac); many aren't. The basic idea, though, remains the same: small face amounts, simplified underwriting and easily-budgeted premiums (the agent collecting his debit has been supplanted by payroll deduction of premiums).
Unfortunately, even that affordable market is now facing a major challenge:
"U.S. sales of voluntary group insurance products and individual products sold at the worksite fell 2.9% in 2010 ... The drop between 2009 and 2010 “is the first decrease that we have seen in the industry since we began tracking sales in 1997."
Although life sales in general seem to have picked up, sales of these plans have plummeted: "The top carrier experienced a 5% drop in sales."
So what's behind this precipitous decrease? Well, if real unemployment stands at almost 16% (and it does), and folks are somewhat soured on the economy (and they are), and gas is approaching (or over) $4 a gallon (and it is), then something's got to give. And it doesn't seem a stretch to conclude that at least part of that something is more life insurance.
Dumbing down the biz...
Way back in the day (when I first started in this industry), there was a particularly pernicious group of agents we called "termites:" their sole mission in life, as directed by the home office of now defunct A L Williams, was to dupe unwitting victims into cashing out perfectly good permanent life insurance policies in favor of a long-discredited concept known as "BTID" (buy term and invest the difference). We'll leave the particulars for another day, but the main problem these folks ran into was that, once they ran through their list of "soft targets" (usually family and friends), they were gone.
ALW was eventually supplanted by Primerica, which carried on the former's ignoble tradition. Both models depended upon one thing: new warm bodies, which must be licensed. The failure rate for these agents was enormous (in fairness, it's never been all that terrific for the industry as a whole: contrary to popular belief, being a successful agent is often quite difficult and requires years of persistence).
Now it appears that the folks at Primerica are facing an even greater challenge: getting those warm bodies licensed in the first place:
"About 80% of Primerica recruits don't actually become insurance agents, often because they flunk state licensing exams ... That's a problem for the company, which, more than any other insurer of its size, depends on agents to sell policies."
No kidding.
And their solution?
Oh, you're gonna love this:
"Make the tests easier. [Primerica] asserted to state regulators that the exams aren't only too hard in some places, but might also be racially biased, putting African-Americans and other minorities at a disadvantage."
Whoa!
Did they just play the race card ?!
I believe that they did.
So the insurer with the "country's largest life-insurance sales force" just said that black people are too stupid (and/or uneducated) to pass a licensing exam. That must come as a shock to the many talented, bright, hard-working and successful black (and women) agents I've met in my almost 30 years "in the biz." This is more commonly known as "the soft bigotry of low expectations," and it is no less offensive when applied to minorities in the insurance industry than in any other context.
The reality, though, is much uglier; this isn't about "fairness," but greed:
"Some regulators worry that simplifying the tests could open the door for unqualified people to sell complicated policies. They say the problem isn't necessarily the tests ... but Primerica's own recruiting program. While some companies require candidates to have college degrees ... Primerica is different. It lets almost anyone sign up, so long as they don't have a criminal record and can pay a $99 fee to cover training and licensing costs, among other minimum standards."
So a pulse and a c-note gets you in the Primerica door. And there's the real story: according to the company itself, Primerica has "processed" over 900,000 wannabes over the past five years. That comes to over $89,100,000, or roughly $17,820,000 a year in "fees" from folks who may - or may not - actually pass muster. That's a lot of incentive to make it even easier, no?
[Hat Tip: Doris F]
ALW was eventually supplanted by Primerica, which carried on the former's ignoble tradition. Both models depended upon one thing: new warm bodies, which must be licensed. The failure rate for these agents was enormous (in fairness, it's never been all that terrific for the industry as a whole: contrary to popular belief, being a successful agent is often quite difficult and requires years of persistence).
Now it appears that the folks at Primerica are facing an even greater challenge: getting those warm bodies licensed in the first place:
"About 80% of Primerica recruits don't actually become insurance agents, often because they flunk state licensing exams ... That's a problem for the company, which, more than any other insurer of its size, depends on agents to sell policies."
No kidding.
And their solution?
Oh, you're gonna love this:
"Make the tests easier. [Primerica] asserted to state regulators that the exams aren't only too hard in some places, but might also be racially biased, putting African-Americans and other minorities at a disadvantage."
Whoa!
Did they just play the race card ?!
I believe that they did.
So the insurer with the "country's largest life-insurance sales force" just said that black people are too stupid (and/or uneducated) to pass a licensing exam. That must come as a shock to the many talented, bright, hard-working and successful black (and women) agents I've met in my almost 30 years "in the biz." This is more commonly known as "the soft bigotry of low expectations," and it is no less offensive when applied to minorities in the insurance industry than in any other context.
The reality, though, is much uglier; this isn't about "fairness," but greed:
"Some regulators worry that simplifying the tests could open the door for unqualified people to sell complicated policies. They say the problem isn't necessarily the tests ... but Primerica's own recruiting program. While some companies require candidates to have college degrees ... Primerica is different. It lets almost anyone sign up, so long as they don't have a criminal record and can pay a $99 fee to cover training and licensing costs, among other minimum standards."
So a pulse and a c-note gets you in the Primerica door. And there's the real story: according to the company itself, Primerica has "processed" over 900,000 wannabes over the past five years. That comes to over $89,100,000, or roughly $17,820,000 a year in "fees" from folks who may - or may not - actually pass muster. That's a lot of incentive to make it even easier, no?
[Hat Tip: Doris F]
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Quick: Duck!
After erstwhile Aflac spoke(something) Gilbert Gottfired was cut loose due to his remarkable insensitivity (much less business acumen), the call went out for a set of replacement vocal chords.
After auditioning well over 12,000 would-be duckmeisters, the worksite insurance behemoth has given the nod to a Minnesota radio sales manager and father of three, 36 year old Daniel McKeague:
"McKeague recorded a 30-second clip at radio station KQRS in Minneapolis, where he works, uploaded it to Aflac's website and later did a more formal video audition.
After learning early Tuesday that he was selected for the gig, McKeague said he's known for doing silly voices."
Gotta love a happy ending.
After auditioning well over 12,000 would-be duckmeisters, the worksite insurance behemoth has given the nod to a Minnesota radio sales manager and father of three, 36 year old Daniel McKeague:
"McKeague recorded a 30-second clip at radio station KQRS in Minneapolis, where he works, uploaded it to Aflac's website and later did a more formal video audition.
After learning early Tuesday that he was selected for the gig, McKeague said he's known for doing silly voices."
Gotta love a happy ending.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Say, is that a policy in your pouch?
While we've blogged on the general topic of pet insurance before, this item really jumped out:
"An anonymous donor has purchased a $50,000 insurance policy to help an Oklahoma woman keep her pet kangaroo as a therapy pet. "
It's not really "pet insurance" per se: rather, it's a liability policy required by a yet-to-be-enacted local ordinance pertaining to the keeping of "exotic pets." It's similar to those required by landlords concerned about (for example) pit bulls and the like. The idea is that these animals may pose a more existential threat to others than the family goldfish or poodle.
The article's a little sensational: I doubt very much that the $50,000 referred to the premium; more likely, that's the policy limits, and the premium is a small fraction of that. We'd appreciate any input from our P&C-type readers on that score.
Regardless, it's still a generous and thoughtful gesture, and a great example of insurance as risk management tool.
"An anonymous donor has purchased a $50,000 insurance policy to help an Oklahoma woman keep her pet kangaroo as a therapy pet. "
It's not really "pet insurance" per se: rather, it's a liability policy required by a yet-to-be-enacted local ordinance pertaining to the keeping of "exotic pets." It's similar to those required by landlords concerned about (for example) pit bulls and the like. The idea is that these animals may pose a more existential threat to others than the family goldfish or poodle.
The article's a little sensational: I doubt very much that the $50,000 referred to the premium; more likely, that's the policy limits, and the premium is a small fraction of that. We'd appreciate any input from our P&C-type readers on that score.
Regardless, it's still a generous and thoughtful gesture, and a great example of insurance as risk management tool.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Stupid Carrier Tricks #1648
Apparently, some carriers still don't quite get that our clients do not belong to them, and that we don't much like "poachers."
The rocket surgeons who run United Healthcare seem to think that agents are simply a "necessary (for now) evil" that can be ridden roughshod over:
[Click to embiggen]
The letter, from Operations CEO Dirk McMahon, says in part that "you now have access to a designated employer service team ... who will handle all your benefit needs."
No, Mr McMahon, that's my job. Yours is to try to rein in renewals, and provide excellent service to all your insureds.
And I don't even appreciate the sentiment: it bespeaks an arrogance that must surely permeate the Home Office.
On the other hand, it's sure a great incentive to really start thinking about moving business to other carriers.
The rocket surgeons who run United Healthcare seem to think that agents are simply a "necessary (for now) evil" that can be ridden roughshod over:
[Click to embiggen]The letter, from Operations CEO Dirk McMahon, says in part that "you now have access to a designated employer service team ... who will handle all your benefit needs."
No, Mr McMahon, that's my job. Yours is to try to rein in renewals, and provide excellent service to all your insureds.
And I don't even appreciate the sentiment: it bespeaks an arrogance that must surely permeate the Home Office.
On the other hand, it's sure a great incentive to really start thinking about moving business to other carriers.
Industry News: Life and Health edition
■ First up, some (good?) news from the Medical Information Bureau (MIB):
"U.S. life insurers researched more requests for individual coverage in March than they did in March 2010, and activity for older applicants continued to be strong."
That's interesting on several levels. First, it suggests that more folks are buying life insurance (although at least some of these are likely replacements for older policies). Second, it may also be a reflection on the decline of the economy: if folks had been counting on their investments to fund their estates, then life insurance can be an attractive means of making up for unexpected shortfalls.
■ Next, Aetna's making some interesting changes in how they'll handle individual medical insurance going forward:
"1. New 15-day lead time requirement"
When applying for a new policy, the earliest effective date one can claim is two weeks out. So if you're thinking about switching to an Aetna individual plan, don't wait 'til the last minute.
[ed: United Healthcarerequires a month has changed their issue date policy to 15 days, as well]
"2. A requested effective date can no longer be changed to an earlier date"
On its face, this makes sense: backdating is problematic. But what they're really talking about is a case where, for example, you apply today (April 22nd) requesting a June 1 effective date (obviously observing the new 15-day rule). Your approval comes back on May 3rd, and you decide that you'd really rather have the new plan effective May 15th. Nope: no can do. This makes no sense, since the 15-day rule is still being met, and it's not a question of new claims in the interim.
And last (but definitely not least):
"3. 90-day limit for choosing a future effective date following an appeal"
This one's kind of (unnecessarily) complicated: what it applies to are cases where an applicant is turned down for coverage and appeals the declination. Under the new ObamaCare© rules, the applicant has 180 days to appeal the decision. But Aetna's added a twist: "the applicant must choose an effective date within 90 days of the original signature date on the application." Here's the example given:
"An applicant signs an application on 12/31/2010 and is declined for coverage on 1/15/2011. The applicant has 180 days from 1/15/11 to appeal his/her declination ... If Aetna overturns the declination decision and approves the coverage, the applicant may be enrolled for an effective date that is within 90 days of the signature date on the application."
They then give various dates from January through April. The problem is that one could end up paying for many months where there was no coverage in force. So one could win the battle, and ultimately lose the war.
"U.S. life insurers researched more requests for individual coverage in March than they did in March 2010, and activity for older applicants continued to be strong."
That's interesting on several levels. First, it suggests that more folks are buying life insurance (although at least some of these are likely replacements for older policies). Second, it may also be a reflection on the decline of the economy: if folks had been counting on their investments to fund their estates, then life insurance can be an attractive means of making up for unexpected shortfalls.
■ Next, Aetna's making some interesting changes in how they'll handle individual medical insurance going forward:
"1. New 15-day lead time requirement"
When applying for a new policy, the earliest effective date one can claim is two weeks out. So if you're thinking about switching to an Aetna individual plan, don't wait 'til the last minute.
[ed: United Healthcare
"2. A requested effective date can no longer be changed to an earlier date"
On its face, this makes sense: backdating is problematic. But what they're really talking about is a case where, for example, you apply today (April 22nd) requesting a June 1 effective date (obviously observing the new 15-day rule). Your approval comes back on May 3rd, and you decide that you'd really rather have the new plan effective May 15th. Nope: no can do. This makes no sense, since the 15-day rule is still being met, and it's not a question of new claims in the interim.
And last (but definitely not least):
"3. 90-day limit for choosing a future effective date following an appeal"
This one's kind of (unnecessarily) complicated: what it applies to are cases where an applicant is turned down for coverage and appeals the declination. Under the new ObamaCare© rules, the applicant has 180 days to appeal the decision. But Aetna's added a twist: "the applicant must choose an effective date within 90 days of the original signature date on the application." Here's the example given:
"An applicant signs an application on 12/31/2010 and is declined for coverage on 1/15/2011. The applicant has 180 days from 1/15/11 to appeal his/her declination ... If Aetna overturns the declination decision and approves the coverage, the applicant may be enrolled for an effective date that is within 90 days of the signature date on the application."
They then give various dates from January through April. The problem is that one could end up paying for many months where there was no coverage in force. So one could win the battle, and ultimately lose the war.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Baby Joseph Update
Last time we checked in with Baby Joseph was a month ago, at which time he had been evacuated from Canada to St Louis. His prognosis hadn't really changed, but his level of care was much improved.
Now we learn that "(f)ifteen-month-old Joseph Maraachli, known to the world as “Baby Joseph,” was transported from ... St. Louis, where he received a tracheotomy last month ... He arrived in Windsor, Ontario, Thursday morning."
As regular readers know, there was never really any question as to the ultimate result here: Baby Joseph does not have a long life expectancy. So this was never about quantity of life, but quality:
"The tracheotomy was done to alleviate some of the baby’s discomfort, and now Joseph is able to breathe on his own without mechanical assistance."
Doesn't seem to me to be all that much to ask for. Yet the bureauweenies running the Canadian health "care" system would rather an innocent child suffer than provide the inexpensive palliative care that was requested, and ultimately provided by the actual health care system here.
Now we learn that "(f)ifteen-month-old Joseph Maraachli, known to the world as “Baby Joseph,” was transported from ... St. Louis, where he received a tracheotomy last month ... He arrived in Windsor, Ontario, Thursday morning."
As regular readers know, there was never really any question as to the ultimate result here: Baby Joseph does not have a long life expectancy. So this was never about quantity of life, but quality:
"The tracheotomy was done to alleviate some of the baby’s discomfort, and now Joseph is able to breathe on his own without mechanical assistance."
Doesn't seem to me to be all that much to ask for. Yet the bureauweenies running the Canadian health "care" system would rather an innocent child suffer than provide the inexpensive palliative care that was requested, and ultimately provided by the actual health care system here.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
&*$# Health News Links
An inexpensive diabetes medication may hold a key to curing breast cancer:
"Scientists have developed a new test that identifies patients who could benefit from the cheap treatment. They found that the people whose cancer cells “fed” off high-energy compounds were more likely to see their tumours spread or to die ... If cancer cells are consuming high-energy food, this makes a tumour more aggressive and harder to treat. However, patients could benefit from metformin, which cuts off this fuel supply."
Turns out, the Metformin effectively cuts off the cancer's "food supply," literally starving it to death.
Until that protocol's approved here, though, there's another low-tech ameliorative available:
"Scientists from Keele University found that letting forth a volley of foul language can have a powerful painkilling effect, especially for people who do not normally use expletives ... The team believes the pain-lessening effect occurs because swearing triggers the ''fight or flight'' response."
And you don't even need a danged prescription!
"Scientists have developed a new test that identifies patients who could benefit from the cheap treatment. They found that the people whose cancer cells “fed” off high-energy compounds were more likely to see their tumours spread or to die ... If cancer cells are consuming high-energy food, this makes a tumour more aggressive and harder to treat. However, patients could benefit from metformin, which cuts off this fuel supply."
Turns out, the Metformin effectively cuts off the cancer's "food supply," literally starving it to death.
Until that protocol's approved here, though, there's another low-tech ameliorative available:
"Scientists from Keele University found that letting forth a volley of foul language can have a powerful painkilling effect, especially for people who do not normally use expletives ... The team believes the pain-lessening effect occurs because swearing triggers the ''fight or flight'' response."
And you don't even need a danged prescription!
Cavalcade of Risk #129 now online
Bob at Christian Personal Finance makes his CavRisk hosting debut with this week's roundup of risk-related posts.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Grand Rounds is up...
Julie Rosen presents this week's roundup of great medblog posts. As usual, it's an eclectic collection, but the underlying theme is patient-centered care.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Passover 2011/5771
Passover is, at its heart, a celebration of freedom (although not necessarily liberation). Tonight, we celebrate the first night of this weeklong holiday, breaking bread (literally!) with people we know and love and, often, total strangers. May all our lives be blessed with freedom and liberation.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Shecantbeserious hits bottom, keeps digging
It's becoming ever more difficult to take HHS Secretary Kathy Shecantbeserious, well, seriously. To wit:
"We pay 2 1/2 times what anybody else pays in the world, and our care outcomes look like we're in a developing country.”
Leaving aside the obvious logical disconnect inherent in that statement, to which 3rd world country is she referring? Great Britain? Canada? Sweden?
She goes on to say that "(i)t takes about 17 years from the identification of a procedure, to have it fully incorporated into the medical community. But in health care, we say that's OK."
What's your point, Kathy? That the FDA takes too darned long to approve new procedures and med's? Well, how about taking that up with your counterparts at that agency? How does adding even more bureaucracy move that ball forward?
And referring to the (evil) individual mandate, this is priceless:
"I do think it's a precarious notion of not having some kind of individual responsibility."
This from a member of the least fiscally responsible administration in memory (if not history). Pot, meet kettle.
"We pay 2 1/2 times what anybody else pays in the world, and our care outcomes look like we're in a developing country.”
Leaving aside the obvious logical disconnect inherent in that statement, to which 3rd world country is she referring? Great Britain? Canada? Sweden?
She goes on to say that "(i)t takes about 17 years from the identification of a procedure, to have it fully incorporated into the medical community. But in health care, we say that's OK."
What's your point, Kathy? That the FDA takes too darned long to approve new procedures and med's? Well, how about taking that up with your counterparts at that agency? How does adding even more bureaucracy move that ball forward?
And referring to the (evil) individual mandate, this is priceless:
"I do think it's a precarious notion of not having some kind of individual responsibility."
This from a member of the least fiscally responsible administration in memory (if not history). Pot, meet kettle.
Stupid Broker Tricks©: WC Edition
Kevin Sullivan runs the Rucking Insurance blog, where he writes about insurance and rugby ("rucking" is a rugby term having to do with ball possession). Inspired by our continuing Stupid Agent Tricks© series, Kevin has the sordid story of what happens when an agent betrays his client's trust. Recommended.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Cavalcade of Risk #129: Call for submissions
Bob at Christian Personal Finance makes his CavRisk hosting debut with next week's edition. Submissions are due this Monday (the 18th), and Bob asks that you 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.
■ 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.
More than just Klingon
As if the last little "present" from Ms Shecantbeserious wasn't enough, there's a raft of new notices on its way to businesses which stubbornly continue to offer group health insurance. Here's a preview:
"On March 31, several Federal agencies released for public comment various documents regarding Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). The central document includes the Proposed Rule released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on ACOs under the Medicare Shared Savings Program."
Oh, goody!
But wait, there's more:
"Also on March 31, CMS issued a notice entitled, "Early Retiree Reinsurance Program." This notice announces that the ERRP will no longer accept new applicants after April 30, 2011."
We've discussed this program before, noting that it's basically an accounting ruse to funnel extra ObamaCash© to worthy entities.
But we're not done yet. Last fall, we noted a new W-2 requirement, allegedly voluntary this year, but set to become mandatory later on. According to the new release:
"This is an informational reporting obligation and does not cause excludable employer provided health care coverage to become taxable."
Color me skeptical.
"On March 31, several Federal agencies released for public comment various documents regarding Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). The central document includes the Proposed Rule released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on ACOs under the Medicare Shared Savings Program."
Oh, goody!
But wait, there's more:
"Also on March 31, CMS issued a notice entitled, "Early Retiree Reinsurance Program." This notice announces that the ERRP will no longer accept new applicants after April 30, 2011."
We've discussed this program before, noting that it's basically an accounting ruse to funnel extra ObamaCash© to worthy entities.
But we're not done yet. Last fall, we noted a new W-2 requirement, allegedly voluntary this year, but set to become mandatory later on. According to the new release:
"This is an informational reporting obligation and does not cause excludable employer provided health care coverage to become taxable."
Color me skeptical.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Booze (Health) Nooze
First, the bad news:
"Alcohol causes about 13,000 cancers a year in Britain ... A team of researchers found that most of these cases were caused by people drinking more than the recommended daily limits"
Thus (perhaps) proving the old adage about moderation.
And if you're thinking "no problem, I'll just fuhgedaboutit," well, think again:
"Drinking to forget your problems? Scientists have found that drinking will actually help you to remember them."
Oops.
Turns out, drinking can actually increase activity in the areas of the brain that enable us to remember things.
And there's this:
Drinking can actually increase activity in the areas of the brain that enable us to remember things.
Who knew?
"Alcohol causes about 13,000 cancers a year in Britain ... A team of researchers found that most of these cases were caused by people drinking more than the recommended daily limits"
Thus (perhaps) proving the old adage about moderation.
And if you're thinking "no problem, I'll just fuhgedaboutit," well, think again:
"Drinking to forget your problems? Scientists have found that drinking will actually help you to remember them."
Oops.
Turns out, drinking can actually increase activity in the areas of the brain that enable us to remember things.
And there's this:
Drinking can actually increase activity in the areas of the brain that enable us to remember things.
Who knew?
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Don't get sick on the MVNHS©
One of the more odious aspects of rationed care is that, just like at the deli, waiting on line until one's number is called can be tedious. Unlike the line at the deli, of course, is what's at stake while you're tapping your feet:
"The most seriously ill patients in the NHS have become the victims of “neglect” as surgeons are forced to focus on hitting waiting list targets for pre-planned operations ... while the NHS has succeeded in reducing waiting times for pre-planned operations ... this has come “at the cost of relative neglect of the needs of the patients admitted as emergencies.”
Translated, this means that the concept of "triage" is taking a back seat to expediency. When the government runs health care, it's the bean counters - not the caregivers - that set the priorities, often to the detriment to those whose very lives are at risk.
It's simple supply and demand, really: when the government promises "free" health care to everyone, then everyone wants their piece of the pie. Of course, the supply of those able to actually deliver that care is finite, and so waiting lists become the de facto order of the day. What happens if you're in dire straits but have a high number? Well, the odds are you're not going to get the best of (or perhaps any) care.
This is, of course, a direct consequence of the nature of the Brits' system, and soon to be of ours. Not to be a tease, but our Resident MOM (Medical Office Manager) will have some words on this as regards the new ACO's (Accountable Care Organizations) shortly.
Stay tuned....
"The most seriously ill patients in the NHS have become the victims of “neglect” as surgeons are forced to focus on hitting waiting list targets for pre-planned operations ... while the NHS has succeeded in reducing waiting times for pre-planned operations ... this has come “at the cost of relative neglect of the needs of the patients admitted as emergencies.”
Translated, this means that the concept of "triage" is taking a back seat to expediency. When the government runs health care, it's the bean counters - not the caregivers - that set the priorities, often to the detriment to those whose very lives are at risk.
It's simple supply and demand, really: when the government promises "free" health care to everyone, then everyone wants their piece of the pie. Of course, the supply of those able to actually deliver that care is finite, and so waiting lists become the de facto order of the day. What happens if you're in dire straits but have a high number? Well, the odds are you're not going to get the best of (or perhaps any) care.
This is, of course, a direct consequence of the nature of the Brits' system, and soon to be of ours. Not to be a tease, but our Resident MOM (Medical Office Manager) will have some words on this as regards the new ACO's (Accountable Care Organizations) shortly.
Stay tuned....
How to say ObamaCare© in Klingon
No idea how I missed this before, but in correspondence from February, United Healthcare (UHC) advised its group clients that effective this July, "[ObamaCare©] requires that group health plans make certain member notices available [in] non-English languages when specific group thresholds have been met."
According to the memo, if there are a number of folks who are literate only in some language other than the erstwhile official tongue of the land, then UHC has to offer those folks EOB's and other routine notices in their native language.
Gee, that's not going to add to the cost of health insurance.
Group admin's are then told to log onto a dedicated UHC website to complete a survey which will determine whether or not they're affected. But of course, everyone's affected by this silliness, since it increases the cost to handle day-to-day transactions, and for which everyone's rates will have to be increased.
The silliest part?
This:
"If you do not [take the survey], we will assume that your group does not meet the threshold."
Just another Stupid Government Trick©.
According to the memo, if there are a number of folks who are literate only in some language other than the erstwhile official tongue of the land, then UHC has to offer those folks EOB's and other routine notices in their native language.
Gee, that's not going to add to the cost of health insurance.
Group admin's are then told to log onto a dedicated UHC website to complete a survey which will determine whether or not they're affected. But of course, everyone's affected by this silliness, since it increases the cost to handle day-to-day transactions, and for which everyone's rates will have to be increased.
The silliest part?
This:
"If you do not [take the survey], we will assume that your group does not meet the threshold."
Just another Stupid Government Trick©.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Medicare and Claims: The Search is on...
The Senate is considering a bill that would create a "searchable Medicare claims database that the public can access at no cost."
On the one hand, Ms Shecantbeserious and her minions would be responsible for building and maintaining the database, which aims to provide more transparency in how and where Medicare expenses are paid.
On the other hand, Ms Shecantbeserius and her minions would be responsible for building and maintaining the database, which means that exemptions from participation will no doubt be available for unions and providers who make the appropriate, um, contributions.
Who's in?
On the one hand, Ms Shecantbeserious and her minions would be responsible for building and maintaining the database, which aims to provide more transparency in how and where Medicare expenses are paid.
On the other hand, Ms Shecantbeserius and her minions would be responsible for building and maintaining the database, which means that exemptions from participation will no doubt be available for unions and providers who make the appropriate, um, contributions.
Who's in?
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Reining in costs: Networking revisited
As agents, we often tout a carrier's broad network of providers as a selling point. The idea is that switching insurers doesn't have to mean finding a new primary care doc, or leaving one's favorite cardiologist. It's always been a case of "bigger is better."
But is it?
Sometimes, as in the case of Sutter Health, one provider network can drive costs up while simultaneously reducing choice. But hospital chains such as Sutter's aren't the only model:
"Thousands of employers ... are opting for 'narrow network' HMOs, which offer notable savings on insurance premiums but also offer fewer medical providers."
In this case, by reducing access, it's hoped that insurance claims costs (and hence, premiums) can also be reduced. This makes a lot of sense: choice costs. That is, more flexibility means more admin costs, which are in turn passed on to the insured.
One key question left unanswered here, of course, is whether reducing "choice" also reduces "quality." One supposes that time will tell.
But is it?
Sometimes, as in the case of Sutter Health, one provider network can drive costs up while simultaneously reducing choice. But hospital chains such as Sutter's aren't the only model:
"Thousands of employers ... are opting for 'narrow network' HMOs, which offer notable savings on insurance premiums but also offer fewer medical providers."
In this case, by reducing access, it's hoped that insurance claims costs (and hence, premiums) can also be reduced. This makes a lot of sense: choice costs. That is, more flexibility means more admin costs, which are in turn passed on to the insured.
One key question left unanswered here, of course, is whether reducing "choice" also reduces "quality." One supposes that time will tell.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
MVNHS©: The Hits Just Keep on Comin'
Fresh on the heels of yesterday's expose, our own Bob V tipped me to this debacle:
"Surgeons say patients in some parts of England have spent months waiting in pain because of delayed operations or new restrictions on who qualifies for treatment."
We know from recent experience that even (former) MVNHS© Directors are not immune to the vagaries of the government-run health care scheme, but at least that case had certain complications involved. What's now coming to light is that the same kinds of problems affect even routine procedures.
The driving force?
The MVNHS© needs to slash more than $32 Billion over the next four years.
Ouch!
And what kinds of surgeries are at the top of the list?
Glad you asked:
"[H]ip and knee replacements are being targeted as a way of finding savings."
And just which demographic does one suppose is most affected?
It's not immediately clear why the rocket surgeons at the top of that food chain believe that simply delaying these procedures will save money, but in a classic example of British understatement, Peter Kay, the president of the British Orthopaedic Association, avers "that simply delaying surgery by one means or another does not improve the outcome for patients as their condition can deteriorate."
Ya think?
Of course, this is one of the the systems on which ObamaCare© is modeled, so better drink your milk and watch where you're walking.
"Surgeons say patients in some parts of England have spent months waiting in pain because of delayed operations or new restrictions on who qualifies for treatment."
We know from recent experience that even (former) MVNHS© Directors are not immune to the vagaries of the government-run health care scheme, but at least that case had certain complications involved. What's now coming to light is that the same kinds of problems affect even routine procedures.
The driving force?
The MVNHS© needs to slash more than $32 Billion over the next four years.
Ouch!
And what kinds of surgeries are at the top of the list?
Glad you asked:
"[H]ip and knee replacements are being targeted as a way of finding savings."
And just which demographic does one suppose is most affected?
It's not immediately clear why the rocket surgeons at the top of that food chain believe that simply delaying these procedures will save money, but in a classic example of British understatement, Peter Kay, the president of the British Orthopaedic Association, avers "that simply delaying surgery by one means or another does not improve the outcome for patients as their condition can deteriorate."
Ya think?
Of course, this is one of the the systems on which ObamaCare© is modeled, so better drink your milk and watch where you're walking.
Cavalcade of Risk #128 now live (and kickin'!)
Russell at the Chatswood Moneyblog hosts what may be the best Cavalcade of Risk yet. Chock full of great posts, with new features (including Oddball posts and great quotes), you won't want to miss it.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
On Band-Aids and Severed Limbs
When I was in college, the university medical service (known affectionately, if pejoratively, as the "Quack Shack") had a reputation for diagnosing pretty much every illness and injury as "mono." Didn't seem to matter what the actual symptoms were, "it's mono" was the canned response.
I was reminded of this by today's news that one of the least important parts of the ObamaCare© train-wreck has been set aside:
"The Senate voted 87 to 12 to repeal the [1099] filing requirement, which would have forced millions of businesses to file tax forms for every vendor selling them more than $600 in goods each year"
So. What?
This is putting a band-aid on a severed limb. Either repeal the whole mess or go home.
I was reminded of this by today's news that one of the least important parts of the ObamaCare© train-wreck has been set aside:
"The Senate voted 87 to 12 to repeal the [1099] filing requirement, which would have forced millions of businesses to file tax forms for every vendor selling them more than $600 in goods each year"
So. What?
This is putting a band-aid on a severed limb. Either repeal the whole mess or go home.
Tales of the MVNHS©: Robots and Wheelchairs
As we move inexorably towards government-run health"care," it's instructive to see what lies ahead for those among us facing life-altering and/or -threatening conditions. Championed by erstwhile CMMS Honcho "Sir" Donald Berwick, the Much Vaunted National Health System© provides stark examples of the path on which we find ourselves.
For example, what would you think of a government program that dumped millions of dollars (well, pounds) into research and development of cutting edge robotic surgery, only to deny its lifesaving services to those most in need of it?
Sound farfetched?
Not so:
"Lesley Whiting ... was selected for the procedure because after treatment for advanced breast cancer, three tumours were found in her skull. Without the radiosurgery, she would have around 18 months to live ... But NHS bureaucrats refused to fund the treatment ... despite the fact almost £9 million has been spent buying the robotic technology for three NHS hospitals."
Mrs Whiting, an otherwise sprightly 56 year old mum of two, faced certain, painful death, but she's far from alone:
"In total, fewer than 30 of 150 PCTs have now funded the radical treatment, with just 26 patients receiving Cyberknife at an NHS hospital."
Small wonder our own cancer survival rates are so much higher than theirs.
The good news, such as it is, is that the Sussex resident received the cybersurgery at a private clinic with help from a local charity. How many others, though, are left to twist in the wind?
Of course, Mrs Whiting is far from the only victim of the MVNHS©:
"A wheelchair-bound patient fed up with being in hospital was found by police on a motorway trying to hitch-hike the 80-mile journey home."
The 42 year old was scheduled for same-day surgery at one of the ironically named "Trusts" (a misnomer if there ever was one), but was kept there, a virtual prisoner, for a fortnight-and-a-half. There's some dispute as to why they wouldn't let him go:
"He says he has been given numerous reasons ... These include a lack of hospital beds at Lincoln and disputes over arranging an ambulance to transport him."
Ah, yes, the (in)famous British "ambulance dance."
And as to the actual "care" which one can expect from these facilities, well, it's not exactly up to our standards:
"And he says he cannot eat the hospital meals - especially as he says four of his teeth have fallen out since he was admitted."
Remember, though, that this is the kind of system touted by those who demanded that we pass the bill to learn what's in it.
For example, what would you think of a government program that dumped millions of dollars (well, pounds) into research and development of cutting edge robotic surgery, only to deny its lifesaving services to those most in need of it?
Sound farfetched?
Not so:
"Lesley Whiting ... was selected for the procedure because after treatment for advanced breast cancer, three tumours were found in her skull. Without the radiosurgery, she would have around 18 months to live ... But NHS bureaucrats refused to fund the treatment ... despite the fact almost £9 million has been spent buying the robotic technology for three NHS hospitals."
Mrs Whiting, an otherwise sprightly 56 year old mum of two, faced certain, painful death, but she's far from alone:
"In total, fewer than 30 of 150 PCTs have now funded the radical treatment, with just 26 patients receiving Cyberknife at an NHS hospital."
Small wonder our own cancer survival rates are so much higher than theirs.
The good news, such as it is, is that the Sussex resident received the cybersurgery at a private clinic with help from a local charity. How many others, though, are left to twist in the wind?
Of course, Mrs Whiting is far from the only victim of the MVNHS©:
"A wheelchair-bound patient fed up with being in hospital was found by police on a motorway trying to hitch-hike the 80-mile journey home."
The 42 year old was scheduled for same-day surgery at one of the ironically named "Trusts" (a misnomer if there ever was one), but was kept there, a virtual prisoner, for a fortnight-and-a-half. There's some dispute as to why they wouldn't let him go:
"He says he has been given numerous reasons ... These include a lack of hospital beds at Lincoln and disputes over arranging an ambulance to transport him."
Ah, yes, the (in)famous British "ambulance dance."
And as to the actual "care" which one can expect from these facilities, well, it's not exactly up to our standards:
"And he says he cannot eat the hospital meals - especially as he says four of his teeth have fallen out since he was admitted."
Remember, though, that this is the kind of system touted by those who demanded that we pass the bill to learn what's in it.
RomneyCare© Death Panels
It's conventional wisdom that ObamaCare© is, in general, a nationalized version of Massachusetts' state-run health insurance scheme. Most of the focus on the Bay State's program has been on the mandates and unexpected cost-overruns, but something that seems to have flown under the radar is RomneyCare©'s Death Panel.
Of course it's not called that. Known in the parlance as "the Expert Panel on End of Life Care," this unelected commission is charged with determining appropriate funding for that purpose. The problem, of course, is that it's never really that simple:
"(W)hen the Panelists insist that keeping us out of the ICU and sending us either home or to a hospice is not about the money but rather is about giving us what we really want, they are engaging in willful institutional deceit."
Which is not to say that they're motivated by malevolence, but if the mission is to save money (and it is), then what better way to do so? And how do we know this? Well, that requires digging a little deeper:
"(T)he Experts recommend that "any Commonwealth payment reform initiative should be designed to ensure that, for all patients with serious advancing illness...payment for medical services requires adequate documentation that they are based on the well-informed wishes of patients (or appropriate surrogates), including understanding of life-prolonging and palliative care or hospice alternatives."
On its face, that doesn't seem so foreboding. But then there's that tricky little "adequate documentation." What, exactly, does that mean? Harvard nanotechnologist Michael Stopa thinks he knows:
"(I)ntroductory courses like Greeting the Grim Reaper; practical offerings like Mummies for Dummies: Embalming Made Easy; or maybe business-related electives like Buying the Perfect Farm."
Although he offers this tongue-in-cheek, it's not exactly far-fetched. While making an informed decision is a good thing, having to essentially pass a government-mandated test on determining one's own end (or that of a loved one) seems, well, overly intrusive. Balanced against that, of course, is the fact that the state is, in fact, paying the bill (or at least the lion's share). The bigger concern is that these folks are unelected (and unaccountable - sound familiar?); who's watching them?
Of course it's not called that. Known in the parlance as "the Expert Panel on End of Life Care," this unelected commission is charged with determining appropriate funding for that purpose. The problem, of course, is that it's never really that simple:
"(W)hen the Panelists insist that keeping us out of the ICU and sending us either home or to a hospice is not about the money but rather is about giving us what we really want, they are engaging in willful institutional deceit."
Which is not to say that they're motivated by malevolence, but if the mission is to save money (and it is), then what better way to do so? And how do we know this? Well, that requires digging a little deeper:
"(T)he Experts recommend that "any Commonwealth payment reform initiative should be designed to ensure that, for all patients with serious advancing illness...payment for medical services requires adequate documentation that they are based on the well-informed wishes of patients (or appropriate surrogates), including understanding of life-prolonging and palliative care or hospice alternatives."
On its face, that doesn't seem so foreboding. But then there's that tricky little "adequate documentation." What, exactly, does that mean? Harvard nanotechnologist Michael Stopa thinks he knows:
"(I)ntroductory courses like Greeting the Grim Reaper; practical offerings like Mummies for Dummies: Embalming Made Easy; or maybe business-related electives like Buying the Perfect Farm."
Although he offers this tongue-in-cheek, it's not exactly far-fetched. While making an informed decision is a good thing, having to essentially pass a government-mandated test on determining one's own end (or that of a loved one) seems, well, overly intrusive. Balanced against that, of course, is the fact that the state is, in fact, paying the bill (or at least the lion's share). The bigger concern is that these folks are unelected (and unaccountable - sound familiar?); who's watching them?
Grand Rounds: Not just for the birds
Nurse Kim presents this weeks almost overwhelming edition of Grand Rounds. Come for the Angry Birds, stay for the Green Pigs.
Monday, April 04, 2011
Before I forget: Alzheimer's news
If knowledge is power, then some recent news on the Alzheimer's front is a real shot in the arm:
"In the biggest such study to date, research institutions including the University of Miami have identified four genes implicated in causing Alzheimer's disease."
Unfortunately, there are believed to be "as many as 100 genes linked to Alzheimer's;" still, scientists involved in the study believe that they're well on the way to identifying the rest within the next few years. Of course, that doesn't guarantee that there is a cure, or that we'll find it if there is. On the other hand, the more we learn, the more likely it becomes that we'll at least begin to understand the mechanism. And this, in turn, could "help pharmaceutical companies create drugs aimed specifically at the faulty genes," as well as helping identify folks with an increased risk of contracting the dread disease.
In addition to the human cost, there's big bucks involved, as well: "Alzheimer's today afflicts 3 to 5 million Americans and costs $24.6 billion a year for healthcare."
Let's keep our fingers crossed.
"In the biggest such study to date, research institutions including the University of Miami have identified four genes implicated in causing Alzheimer's disease."
Unfortunately, there are believed to be "as many as 100 genes linked to Alzheimer's;" still, scientists involved in the study believe that they're well on the way to identifying the rest within the next few years. Of course, that doesn't guarantee that there is a cure, or that we'll find it if there is. On the other hand, the more we learn, the more likely it becomes that we'll at least begin to understand the mechanism. And this, in turn, could "help pharmaceutical companies create drugs aimed specifically at the faulty genes," as well as helping identify folks with an increased risk of contracting the dread disease.
In addition to the human cost, there's big bucks involved, as well: "Alzheimer's today afflicts 3 to 5 million Americans and costs $24.6 billion a year for healthcare."
Let's keep our fingers crossed.
Waivers in the air
"Hallelujah, come on, get waivers!" is apparently the newest hit tune in DC-land. Last time we checked, the count was up to 1,040. But that's so yesterday. For those keeping score at home, the total has now climbed to 1,168 waivers, up 128 (or over 10%). At this rate, of course, by the time 2014 rolls around, only suckers will be required to play by ObamaCare© rules.
Don't worry, though, there's still time to get your own ObamaWaiver©.
Don't worry, though, there's still time to get your own ObamaWaiver©.
A Billion here, a Billion there, pretty soon...
Last fall, we posted an email conversation with one of our readers, the subject of which was the fact that retiree health plans are "exempt from certain PPACA requirements."
Turns out, that word "exempt" is only a part of the story:
"Investigators ... have discovered that a little-known provision in [ObamaCare©] has allowed the federal government to pay nearly $2 billion to unions, state public employee systems, and big corporations to subsidize health coverage costs for early retirees."
Ahem.
About that "little-known provision;" some of us not only knew about it, but actually reported on it over half a year ago:
"The folks in Washington that gave us the "bridge to nowhere" have done it again, this time with health insurance ... (Early Retirement Reinsurance Program) as announced by HHS is supposed to make it easier for employers to provide health insurance to early retirees. Congress authorized $5 billion of money they did not have to fund this program until 2014."
So, according to the Examiner, 40% of the funding for this program has already been paid out, with 3 years worth of retirees still in the wings. At this rate, the program will be bust in about half that time.
What then?
Turns out, that word "exempt" is only a part of the story:
"Investigators ... have discovered that a little-known provision in [ObamaCare©] has allowed the federal government to pay nearly $2 billion to unions, state public employee systems, and big corporations to subsidize health coverage costs for early retirees."
Ahem.
About that "little-known provision;" some of us not only knew about it, but actually reported on it over half a year ago:
"The folks in Washington that gave us the "bridge to nowhere" have done it again, this time with health insurance ... (Early Retirement Reinsurance Program) as announced by HHS is supposed to make it easier for employers to provide health insurance to early retirees. Congress authorized $5 billion of money they did not have to fund this program until 2014."
So, according to the Examiner, 40% of the funding for this program has already been paid out, with 3 years worth of retirees still in the wings. At this rate, the program will be bust in about half that time.
What then?
Friday, April 01, 2011
MVNHS©: Suckers!
In a cruel April Fool's Day prank, Englishfolks suffering under the Much Vaunted National Health System© will now be subsidizing their Scottish brethrens' prescription costs:
"All prescription charges have been abolished in Scotland, leaving England the last part of the UK still charging for some prescriptions."
Nice!
The folks who bring us Glenfiddich join those responsible for Guinness and rarebit in passing off the cost of their meds to the producers of Bangers and Mash.
Tapadh leibh!
"All prescription charges have been abolished in Scotland, leaving England the last part of the UK still charging for some prescriptions."
Nice!
The folks who bring us Glenfiddich join those responsible for Guinness and rarebit in passing off the cost of their meds to the producers of Bangers and Mash.
Tapadh leibh!
Hey, Where's MY ObamaWaiver©?
Hey boys and girls, do you know what Anthony Weiner, the State of Maine, and a bunch of unions all have in common? That's right, they're getting ObamaWaiver©s, and you can, too. It's fun, easy and best of all, it's free*.
[*Well, except for the cost of donations to the Democrat party, of course]
"How do I get my waiver" you ask?
Couldn't be simpler!
Just click here, fill out the request form, and Bob's your uncle!
Isn't ObamaCare© great?!
[*Well, except for the cost of donations to the Democrat party, of course]
"How do I get my waiver" you ask?
Couldn't be simpler!
Just click here, fill out the request form, and Bob's your uncle!
Isn't ObamaCare© great?!
Cavalcade of Risk #128: Call for submissions
Russell at Chatswood Consulting hosts next week's Cavalcade of Risk. Submissions are due this Monday (the 4th), and Russell asks that you 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.
■ 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
