The New York Times reports that the White House says it will give states more time to comply with the new health care law after finding that many states lag in setting up markets where millions of Americans are expected to buy subsidized private health insurance.
We've heard this before.
Sebelius is just bluffing. She's bluffing because she holds no winning cards.
By law, the Exchanges must be fully operational by January 1, 2014, and must be able to accept & process enrollments by October 1, 2013. By law, HHS must set up and operate the Exchange in any State that does not set up its own.
As of now, there are about 30 refusenik states. Sebelius knows HHS doesn't have the resources, does not have the time even if it did have the resources, and therefore cannot fulfill its obligation to set up Exchanges for all the states that refuse to set up their own Exchange. This is a slow-motion disaster that now appears impossible to prevent - and it will take place on her watch.
We know - and Sebelius knows - that Obama will instantly blame her for this failure. (Without, of course, ever reflecting on why his plan failed). She's desperate and and that explains why she's bluffing. But bluffing never works when everyone in the game knows you hold losing cards.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
MassMutual vs College Debt
The ObamaTax placed the administration of student loans under the (benign?) authority of HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious. What student loans and "affordable health care" have to do with each other is anybody's guess, but there you are. Partly as a result of this, student loan debt is at record levels, threatening the future solvency of our best and brightest (among others). MassMutual, about which we lauded their innovative LifeBridge program last Fall, wants to help out:
"[S]tudent loans in the U.S. has topped $1 trillion, surpassing both credit card and auto loan debt. The 90-day serious delinquency rate is also higher than credit cards. One-in-five households are affected by student debt with the average graduate having about $20,000 in loans."
And that's the average - seems to me that a lot of our young people have already accumulated debt well into the 6-figures (how wise that may have been is another matter).
"In an effort to provide Millennials with the support they need, MassMutual [has] launched a new initiative – “Down with Debt” - aimed at addressing the student debt crisis by providing helpful financial tips and offering a $20,000 reward for the most creative strategy to pay down debt."
I like it: creative thinking with a potential reward. Just click here for details (and perhaps to sign up).
[Hat Tip: Caitlin Bricker]
RELATED: United Home Life Insurance asks "What do Twinkies, Flu Shots and Cabbage Patch Kids have in common?"
That would be Econ 101: supply and demand. At one time or another, each of those items has been in scarce supply (and Twinkies continue to be - alas!).
There's a follow-up question, too: "What's that got to do with life insurance?"
Fair question; after all, when was the last time you saw lines around the corner of people clamoring to buy life insurance?
But as UHL points out, our time here is uncertain and scarce - it can run out any moment. The longer we wait, the more expensive life insurance becomes. And consumers urgently need to protect their lives - and their loved ones - NOW, while there's still time.
A friend of mine likes to point out that we don't buy life insurance with our wallets, we buy it with our health. LifeHealthPro's Corey Dahl asks, "what’s more uncertain and scarce than our time here, the seconds and minutes of which are rapidly ticking away and could be set to run out … now … or now … or now. No one knows for certain when his number is going to get called, so doesn’t it make sense to get a life policy for loved ones — without delay?"
Indeed.
"[S]tudent loans in the U.S. has topped $1 trillion, surpassing both credit card and auto loan debt. The 90-day serious delinquency rate is also higher than credit cards. One-in-five households are affected by student debt with the average graduate having about $20,000 in loans."
And that's the average - seems to me that a lot of our young people have already accumulated debt well into the 6-figures (how wise that may have been is another matter).
"In an effort to provide Millennials with the support they need, MassMutual [has] launched a new initiative – “Down with Debt” - aimed at addressing the student debt crisis by providing helpful financial tips and offering a $20,000 reward for the most creative strategy to pay down debt."
I like it: creative thinking with a potential reward. Just click here for details (and perhaps to sign up).
[Hat Tip: Caitlin Bricker]
RELATED: United Home Life Insurance asks "What do Twinkies, Flu Shots and Cabbage Patch Kids have in common?"
That would be Econ 101: supply and demand. At one time or another, each of those items has been in scarce supply (and Twinkies continue to be - alas!).
There's a follow-up question, too: "What's that got to do with life insurance?"
Fair question; after all, when was the last time you saw lines around the corner of people clamoring to buy life insurance?
But as UHL points out, our time here is uncertain and scarce - it can run out any moment. The longer we wait, the more expensive life insurance becomes. And consumers urgently need to protect their lives - and their loved ones - NOW, while there's still time.
A friend of mine likes to point out that we don't buy life insurance with our wallets, we buy it with our health. LifeHealthPro's Corey Dahl asks, "what’s more uncertain and scarce than our time here, the seconds and minutes of which are rapidly ticking away and could be set to run out … now … or now … or now. No one knows for certain when his number is going to get called, so doesn’t it make sense to get a life policy for loved ones — without delay?"
Indeed.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Early January Alzheimer's Update
We haven't really discussed Alzheimer's since this past Fall, but there's some potentially hopeful news coming from the folks at Rensselaer Polytech in New York:
"Antibodies developed by researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute are unusually effective at preventing the formation of toxic protein particles linked to Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease"
And these little guys are apparently helpful in the fight against Type II diabetes, as well. They're able to "target" certain cells (or clumps of cells) to proactively shut down the bad ones.
It's apparently still pretty new, but appears promising.
[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]
"Antibodies developed by researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute are unusually effective at preventing the formation of toxic protein particles linked to Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease"
And these little guys are apparently helpful in the fight against Type II diabetes, as well. They're able to "target" certain cells (or clumps of cells) to proactively shut down the bad ones.
It's apparently still pretty new, but appears promising.
[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]
PCIP Turnabout
Over the years, we've lamented the poor participation rates and stupid eligibility rules for the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan, aka PCIP. Now comes word that HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious is in a spitting contest with Ohio Insurance Commish Taylor. Perhaps the most interesting part is whose side each of these fine ladies are on:
"[Ms Shecantbeserious] has ordered 14 people to be dropped from Ohio’s temporary high-risk pool for the chronically uninsured ... after determining they had previous coverage that disqualified them from enrolling."
Yup, one of those stupid eligibility rules is that one must not have had "creditable" insurance coverage for the preceding six-months. A while back, we investigated just what comprised "creditable" coverage, and were left pretty confused. In theory, only major medical plans counted; so-called "mini-med" (or limited benefit) plans did not.
But there's no actual verbiage which specifies this, it's all inference. It seems that Ms Taylor's position is that "lousy" coverage is, in fact, not creditable, and therefore passes the PCIP "smell test." It's an interesting theory, but one which is open to lots of interpretation. On the other hand, Ms Shecantbeserious contends that the quality of the previous insurance (if any) is immaterial, it's enough that the person had any coverage.
Medical Mutual, the carrier tasked with implementing the Buckeye State's PCIP program, has gone to court asking for clarification. Of course, it's most likely a moot point: by the time a decision is reached, The ObamaTax will be in full implementation mode and the plan itself will be a memory.
Too bad, really, coulda been interesting.
[Hat Tip: FoIB Patrick P]
"[Ms Shecantbeserious] has ordered 14 people to be dropped from Ohio’s temporary high-risk pool for the chronically uninsured ... after determining they had previous coverage that disqualified them from enrolling."
Yup, one of those stupid eligibility rules is that one must not have had "creditable" insurance coverage for the preceding six-months. A while back, we investigated just what comprised "creditable" coverage, and were left pretty confused. In theory, only major medical plans counted; so-called "mini-med" (or limited benefit) plans did not.
But there's no actual verbiage which specifies this, it's all inference. It seems that Ms Taylor's position is that "lousy" coverage is, in fact, not creditable, and therefore passes the PCIP "smell test." It's an interesting theory, but one which is open to lots of interpretation. On the other hand, Ms Shecantbeserious contends that the quality of the previous insurance (if any) is immaterial, it's enough that the person had any coverage.
Medical Mutual, the carrier tasked with implementing the Buckeye State's PCIP program, has gone to court asking for clarification. Of course, it's most likely a moot point: by the time a decision is reached, The ObamaTax will be in full implementation mode and the plan itself will be a memory.
Too bad, really, coulda been interesting.
[Hat Tip: FoIB Patrick P]
Flu insurance
The good news is that I spent a chunk of the weekend replenishing the supply of Jewish penicillin for friends and family. The bad news is that the nation is in the grips of a "flu epidemic," caught shorthanded on vaccines:
"We're hearing of spot shortages," said Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ... manufacturers already have shipped nearly 130 million doses to doctors' offices, drugstores and wholesalers, out of the 135 million doses they had planned to make for this year's flu season."
Ideally, you got your shot a month or two ago, and are sitting pretty. If not, all is not (necessarily) lost:
"Health insurers are trying to do their part to keep the current U.S. influenza outbreak from becoming anything to write home about ... Massachusetts Blue [Cross] gives advice about preventing the flu from spreading, treating flu at home, seeking professional medical attention for flu symptoms, and insurance coverage for flu vaccination shots."
Many plans cover flu shots, sometimes at 100% (YMMV). We got ours at the nearest chain drugstore, and it was quick and (relatively) painless. And it's not just about your own health, either. As one insurer notes:
"You could infect other people even if you don't get that sick yourself, especially those at high risk such as infants, nursing home residents and people with chronic conditions"
The bug seems to be especially hard on our seasoned citizens, with "about 90 percent of flu-related deaths and more than half of flu-related hospitalizations occur[ing] in people ages 65 and older." So if you (or someone you know) is in that age cohort, seriously consider tracking down a dose or two.
Oh, and: gesundheit!
"We're hearing of spot shortages," said Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ... manufacturers already have shipped nearly 130 million doses to doctors' offices, drugstores and wholesalers, out of the 135 million doses they had planned to make for this year's flu season."
Ideally, you got your shot a month or two ago, and are sitting pretty. If not, all is not (necessarily) lost:
"Health insurers are trying to do their part to keep the current U.S. influenza outbreak from becoming anything to write home about ... Massachusetts Blue [Cross] gives advice about preventing the flu from spreading, treating flu at home, seeking professional medical attention for flu symptoms, and insurance coverage for flu vaccination shots."
Many plans cover flu shots, sometimes at 100% (YMMV). We got ours at the nearest chain drugstore, and it was quick and (relatively) painless. And it's not just about your own health, either. As one insurer notes:
"You could infect other people even if you don't get that sick yourself, especially those at high risk such as infants, nursing home residents and people with chronic conditions"
The bug seems to be especially hard on our seasoned citizens, with "about 90 percent of flu-related deaths and more than half of flu-related hospitalizations occur[ing] in people ages 65 and older." So if you (or someone you know) is in that age cohort, seriously consider tracking down a dose or two.
Oh, and: gesundheit!
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Sunny in Malaysia
While it's easy to forget that this is indeed a global economy, sometimes the news has a way of reminding us:
"Canada's Sun Life Financial and Malaysian state investor Khazanah have agreed to buy Aviva's Malaysian [life] insurance ... Britain's No.2 insurer Aviva is exiting marginal markets across the world with the aim of boosting its underperforming share price"
Whoa, they're concerned about profits? How provincial of them.
"Canada's Sun Life Financial and Malaysian state investor Khazanah have agreed to buy Aviva's Malaysian [life] insurance ... Britain's No.2 insurer Aviva is exiting marginal markets across the world with the aim of boosting its underperforming share price"
Whoa, they're concerned about profits? How provincial of them.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Suck it up, Buttercup
New York's Nanny Mayor Bloomberg has a message for folks in pain:
"[M]ost public hospital patients will no longer be able to get more than three days’ worth of narcotic painkillers like Vicodin and Percocet."
And of course, no 16oz Big Gulps to wash 'em down with, either.
This flies in the face of President Obama's promise that all Grandma (and, presumably, other hospitalized folks) needs is a little pill.
Now, it's easy to treat this as a bit humorous, but there's a serious element here: these are government-run health care facilities, deciding unilaterally - without regard to providers' recommendations or patients' needs - what will and won't be provided. As the city's the one paying the piper, it has every right to call the tune. But it should give us all pause to consider the ramifications of this thinking as it applies to The ObamaTax (and it most certainly does).
Blue pill or red, which will it be?
[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]
"[M]ost public hospital patients will no longer be able to get more than three days’ worth of narcotic painkillers like Vicodin and Percocet."
And of course, no 16oz Big Gulps to wash 'em down with, either.
This flies in the face of President Obama's promise that all Grandma (and, presumably, other hospitalized folks) needs is a little pill.
Now, it's easy to treat this as a bit humorous, but there's a serious element here: these are government-run health care facilities, deciding unilaterally - without regard to providers' recommendations or patients' needs - what will and won't be provided. As the city's the one paying the piper, it has every right to call the tune. But it should give us all pause to consider the ramifications of this thinking as it applies to The ObamaTax (and it most certainly does).
Blue pill or red, which will it be?
[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]
Making a clean breast: An Ethical Conundrum
First, let me say that I admire this young woman's courage and dedication, and of course this is her choice, her decision.
Having said that, I am troubled by the message she's apparently trying to send about young women and breast cancer:
"Win or lose Saturday, Miss America contestant Allyn Rose will have conveyed a message about breast cancer prevention using her primary tool as a beauty queen: her body. The 24-year-old Miss DC plans to undergo a double mastectomy ... removing both breasts as a preventative measure to reduce her chances of developing the disease that killed her mother, grandmother and great aunt."
Here's the thing: while there's sufficient evidence linking genetics and predisposition to certain cancers (such as of the breast), it's not a certainty that she'll ever develop the disease. The problem is the message that she's sending to millions of other young women about preemptive mutilation (regardless of the underlying risk).
As a husband, and the proud (if harried) father of two lovely daughters, I'm concerned about this message. I certainly wish Ms Rose good health and long life, but remain unconvinced that this is an ideal route.
What say you, dear reader?
Having said that, I am troubled by the message she's apparently trying to send about young women and breast cancer:
"Win or lose Saturday, Miss America contestant Allyn Rose will have conveyed a message about breast cancer prevention using her primary tool as a beauty queen: her body. The 24-year-old Miss DC plans to undergo a double mastectomy ... removing both breasts as a preventative measure to reduce her chances of developing the disease that killed her mother, grandmother and great aunt."
Here's the thing: while there's sufficient evidence linking genetics and predisposition to certain cancers (such as of the breast), it's not a certainty that she'll ever develop the disease. The problem is the message that she's sending to millions of other young women about preemptive mutilation (regardless of the underlying risk).
As a husband, and the proud (if harried) father of two lovely daughters, I'm concerned about this message. I certainly wish Ms Rose good health and long life, but remain unconvinced that this is an ideal route.
What say you, dear reader?
Gray Lady Joke of the Day: EHR D'unh!
From Nate's post last Fall:
"[I]n reality, the move to electronic health records may be contributing to billions of dollars in higher costs for Medicare, private insurers and patients by making it easier for hospitals and physicians to bill more for their services, whether or not they provide additional care."
And from yesterday's New York Times:
"The conversion to electronic health records has failed so far to produce the hoped-for savings in health care costs"
Nice that the Gray Lady is finally catching up to us.
ADDENDUM: As Mike points out in the comments, he made the EHR cost/benefit connection in the Fall of 2011:
"Last week the UK announced that it will scrap its 9-year-old Information Technology (IT) project intended to digitize all National Health Service patient records and link all parts of the enormous NHS together ... Perhaps more important is the global impact on thinking about health IT. For example US policymakers hope that IT will save scads, tons, bundles, oodles of money in the delivery of medical care."
The key (but inoperative) word being "hope."
RELATED: From the Dayton Daily News this morning:
"Health insurance premiums are rising this year for many Ohioans, andsome pretty much everyone will see larger double-digit percent increases than they’ve seen before"
Fixed that for ya, DDN.
[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]
"[I]n reality, the move to electronic health records may be contributing to billions of dollars in higher costs for Medicare, private insurers and patients by making it easier for hospitals and physicians to bill more for their services, whether or not they provide additional care."
And from yesterday's New York Times:
"The conversion to electronic health records has failed so far to produce the hoped-for savings in health care costs"
Nice that the Gray Lady is finally catching up to us.
ADDENDUM: As Mike points out in the comments, he made the EHR cost/benefit connection in the Fall of 2011:
"Last week the UK announced that it will scrap its 9-year-old Information Technology (IT) project intended to digitize all National Health Service patient records and link all parts of the enormous NHS together ... Perhaps more important is the global impact on thinking about health IT. For example US policymakers hope that IT will save scads, tons, bundles, oodles of money in the delivery of medical care."
The key (but inoperative) word being "hope."
RELATED: From the Dayton Daily News this morning:
"Health insurance premiums are rising this year for many Ohioans, and
Fixed that for ya, DDN.
[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]
Giving Obama his credit when due
I have recently hired three workers and expect to hire at least a couple more in the next month or two. As much as I would like to take credit for this success that would not be fair. In large part, just like Obama said, I did not build this.
Myriad regulations and notices have scared employers into hiring a new company I created called Compliance & Regulation Administrators to assist them in staying out of trouble.
New laws treating a company with 49 workers different then one with 51 has created a booming market in counting employees, or equivalent employees, or seasonal unless they aren't seasonal based on a self selected standard measurement period employees.
Expensive new coverage requirements like unlimited lifetime maximums, minimum essential benefits, and "free" preventative care have driven employers to me searching for alternative and affordable ways to fund these mandates.
These are just a few of the ways Obama helped me build this. And for that, with just a slight touch of sincerity, I would like to thank him.
Myriad regulations and notices have scared employers into hiring a new company I created called Compliance & Regulation Administrators to assist them in staying out of trouble.
New laws treating a company with 49 workers different then one with 51 has created a booming market in counting employees, or equivalent employees, or seasonal unless they aren't seasonal based on a self selected standard measurement period employees.
Expensive new coverage requirements like unlimited lifetime maximums, minimum essential benefits, and "free" preventative care have driven employers to me searching for alternative and affordable ways to fund these mandates.
These are just a few of the ways Obama helped me build this. And for that, with just a slight touch of sincerity, I would like to thank him.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Monthly billing: Is this something? [UPDATED]
Got email today from Anthem (Blue Cross/Shield) announcing that they're doing away with billing modes other than monthly:
"All Individual under 65 members who currently pay their premiums on other than a monthly basis (quarterly, semi-annually or annually where available) will be changed to monthly billing"
There's never been a really good reason for choosing other options, anyway (other than, perhaps, convenience) because - unlike most other forms of life and health insurance - there were no premium discounts for paying ahead.
Still, it's interesting, so I've reached out to our Anthem field rep to see if she can shed some light on the subject. I'll update as appropriate. And if you have any thoughts on why they're going this route, we'd love to discuss them in the comments.
UPDATE [1/11/13]: Well, that was fast. Our intrepid field rep got back to me this morning. In her email, she explained that:
"Of course it all has to do with [the ObamaTax]. We will only offer monthly billing in 2014 and by changing our billing mode now, it will remove one additional change that members will have to experience at that time. Additionally, there will be new systems and having to move “pre-paid” money from current system to new system next year could create billing problems and money not being credited. In a nutshell that sums it up."
Thanks!
"All Individual under 65 members who currently pay their premiums on other than a monthly basis (quarterly, semi-annually or annually where available) will be changed to monthly billing"
There's never been a really good reason for choosing other options, anyway (other than, perhaps, convenience) because - unlike most other forms of life and health insurance - there were no premium discounts for paying ahead.
Still, it's interesting, so I've reached out to our Anthem field rep to see if she can shed some light on the subject. I'll update as appropriate. And if you have any thoughts on why they're going this route, we'd love to discuss them in the comments.
UPDATE [1/11/13]: Well, that was fast. Our intrepid field rep got back to me this morning. In her email, she explained that:
"Of course it all has to do with [the ObamaTax]. We will only offer monthly billing in 2014 and by changing our billing mode now, it will remove one additional change that members will have to experience at that time. Additionally, there will be new systems and having to move “pre-paid” money from current system to new system next year could create billing problems and money not being credited. In a nutshell that sums it up."
Thanks!
The ObamaTax shooting blanks?
This is odd:
According to the video, the ObamaTax specifically prohibits collecting info on legally owned guns and ammo. But you know us: we couldn't just take the media's word on this. So, off to our copy of The ObamaTax we went. And, just like that famous pasta sauce, it's in there:
"None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to (A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; (B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or (C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition."
Now, one may wonder what this has to do with "affordable" health care, but then, what do college loans have to do with it, either?
Too bad no one read it before they passed it.
[Hat Tip: Hot Air]
According to the video, the ObamaTax specifically prohibits collecting info on legally owned guns and ammo. But you know us: we couldn't just take the media's word on this. So, off to our copy of The ObamaTax we went. And, just like that famous pasta sauce, it's in there:
"None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to (A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; (B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or (C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition."
Now, one may wonder what this has to do with "affordable" health care, but then, what do college loans have to do with it, either?
Too bad no one read it before they passed it.
[Hat Tip: Hot Air]
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Biting the hand... [UPDATED & BUMPED]
[Originally posted January 8, 2013]
Last we looked, insurance behemoth American International Group (AIG) had been the recipient of almost $200 billion in American taxpayer largesse. The good news is that they've (apparently) re-paid all of this, plus interest.
The not-so-good news is that, in a very strange twist of fate, they're contemplating suing the very taxpayers that bailed them out:
"[T]he insurance company is actually thinking about suing the U.S. government over the bailout that saved it ... The lawsuit does not argue that government help was not needed"
Wait, what?
"[The lawsuit] contends that the onerous nature of the rescue ... deprived shareholders of tens of billions of dollars and violated the Fifth Amendment."
Heh.
For the record, we noted the unconstitutional nature of the bailout in 2009; and Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe (an Obama campaign advisor) agreed. Interesting times, indeed.
UPDATE: Well, that didn't take long:
"American International Group won’t join or take over a lawsuit ... alleging that the government acted punitively against its shareholders when it acted to bail out AIG starting in September 2008."
Shall we all now breathe a sigh of relief?
Last we looked, insurance behemoth American International Group (AIG) had been the recipient of almost $200 billion in American taxpayer largesse. The good news is that they've (apparently) re-paid all of this, plus interest.
The not-so-good news is that, in a very strange twist of fate, they're contemplating suing the very taxpayers that bailed them out:
"[T]he insurance company is actually thinking about suing the U.S. government over the bailout that saved it ... The lawsuit does not argue that government help was not needed"
Wait, what?
"[The lawsuit] contends that the onerous nature of the rescue ... deprived shareholders of tens of billions of dollars and violated the Fifth Amendment."
Heh.
For the record, we noted the unconstitutional nature of the bailout in 2009; and Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe (an Obama campaign advisor) agreed. Interesting times, indeed.
UPDATE: Well, that didn't take long:
"American International Group won’t join or take over a lawsuit ... alleging that the government acted punitively against its shareholders when it acted to bail out AIG starting in September 2008."
Shall we all now breathe a sigh of relief?
Cavalcade of Risk #174: Risky Risk
Nina
Kallen hosts this week's outstanding collection of risk-related posts, with a twist:
she's nicknamed this edition "the Cavalcade of Risk of Risk, in honor the many
posts that discuss how an obvious risk (drunk-driving, getting sick) leads to a
different sort of risk (personal financial disaster; having your medical records
kidnapped.)"
Very cool - Thanks, Nina!
Very cool - Thanks, Nina!
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
ObamaTax Schadenfreude
Perhaps it's a bit misanthropic of me to take satisfaction in the fact that the young folks, who voted overwhelmingly to reconfirm the ObamaTax, will now reap the "benefits" of that decision:
"A new study predicts that health premiums could increase as much as 40 percent for young adults once [the ObamaTax] goes into effect in 2014 ... close to 4 million uninsured individuals . . . can expect to pay more out of pocket for single coverage than they otherwise would"
And this is despite anticipated premium subsidies that were supposed to mitigate those costs. Since the age 21-29 cohort comprises almost twice the number of those uninsured than other age groups, they'll be feeling the pinch pretty hard. And since, come 2014, they'll be required by law to buy (more expensive) coverage, they'll soon learn this the hard way.
On the other hand, those of us a bit older (but not necessarily wiser) shouldn't rest too easily:
"Oregon residents who buy their own health insurance "face major cost changes."
And by "changes" they mean "major increases."
And this is, of course, a national trend, as we're beginning to see.
"A new study predicts that health premiums could increase as much as 40 percent for young adults once [the ObamaTax] goes into effect in 2014 ... close to 4 million uninsured individuals . . . can expect to pay more out of pocket for single coverage than they otherwise would"
And this is despite anticipated premium subsidies that were supposed to mitigate those costs. Since the age 21-29 cohort comprises almost twice the number of those uninsured than other age groups, they'll be feeling the pinch pretty hard. And since, come 2014, they'll be required by law to buy (more expensive) coverage, they'll soon learn this the hard way.
On the other hand, those of us a bit older (but not necessarily wiser) shouldn't rest too easily:
"Oregon residents who buy their own health insurance "face major cost changes."
And by "changes" they mean "major increases."
And this is, of course, a national trend, as we're beginning to see.
The topsy-turvy world of health care
Overlawyered found this gem in an otherwise reasonable
report on continuing findings of the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care:
Do tell?
There must be SOME problem that Obamacare can solve for America.
Maybe this is it?
Have it your way...or not
Maybe it's something to do with company names that start with W:
"Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, plans to begin denying health insurance to newly hired employees who work fewer than 30 hours a week"
This in response to the ObamaTax mandate that employers provide group health insurance benefits to "full-time" workers. But that was then, and this is now:
"A fast-food chain is slashing employee hours so franchise owners don't have to pay health benefits ... The company has announced that all non-management positions will have their hours reduced to 28 a week"
The move affects about 100 Omaha area Wendy's employees - for now. But don't expect it to stop there; how long do you suppose it will take Mickey D's and other fast-food emporia to reach the same conclusion?
"Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, plans to begin denying health insurance to newly hired employees who work fewer than 30 hours a week"
This in response to the ObamaTax mandate that employers provide group health insurance benefits to "full-time" workers. But that was then, and this is now:
"A fast-food chain is slashing employee hours so franchise owners don't have to pay health benefits ... The company has announced that all non-management positions will have their hours reduced to 28 a week"
The move affects about 100 Omaha area Wendy's employees - for now. But don't expect it to stop there; how long do you suppose it will take Mickey D's and other fast-food emporia to reach the same conclusion?
Risky Bulbs
About 3 years ago, we noted some of the dangers of those new-fangled "curly bulbs" (CFLs) that are now mandated for our continued lighting needs:
"In addition to toxic mercury, our Neighbors to the North are becoming increasingly concerned that they may also be giving off "potentially harmful ultraviolet radiation."
Turns out, Canadian authorities may have been prescient:
“When there is something in your house, you don’t perceive any danger, you wouldn’t get that close to an x-ray in a doctor’s office ... compact fluorescent light bulbs emit high levels of ultra violet radiation ... the bulbs emit rays so strong that they can actually burn skin and skin cells."
Cursing the darkness, or the light?
You be the judge:
"In addition to toxic mercury, our Neighbors to the North are becoming increasingly concerned that they may also be giving off "potentially harmful ultraviolet radiation."
Turns out, Canadian authorities may have been prescient:
“When there is something in your house, you don’t perceive any danger, you wouldn’t get that close to an x-ray in a doctor’s office ... compact fluorescent light bulbs emit high levels of ultra violet radiation ... the bulbs emit rays so strong that they can actually burn skin and skin cells."
Cursing the darkness, or the light?
You be the judge:
Monday, January 07, 2013
Additional Info - CO-OPs over the cliff
This is a follow on to Hank's post on CO-OPs a couple days ago. Authority for CO-OPs was created by PPACA. CO-OPs are nonprofit, customer-owned health plans, designed to compete against the major for-profit insurers.
According to Kaiser Health News, the fiscal cliff deal approved by Congress on New Year’s Day eliminated most of the $1.4 billion in remaining funding from the federal health law for new CO-OPs. The fiscal cliff deal does not affect the $2 billion in loans already awarded by HHS to a number of CO-OPs around the U.S. The start-up loans are interest-free. (. . . which means the taxpayer bears the cost of the money - as well as the business risk of these new businesses.)
Initially, the health law allocated $6 billion to help co-ops start up and meet state insurance solvency requirements. In 2011, Congress reduced that funding to $3.4 billion as part of broader budget cuts.
One organization that has received CO-OP loans: the Freelancers Union. This organization is a nonprofit created to represent freelance workers and independent contractors. It’s reported that the Freelancers Union will receive $341 million in loans from the U.S. government to start health insurance plans in three states – New York, New Jersey, and Oregon.
“It’s like venture capital for health care,” said Sara Horowitz, the group’s executive director.
Just what we need – a federal snowstorm of high-stakes venture-capital wagers, based on political calculations, not business calculations. Another wager like Solyndra. Be still, my beating heart!
Notwithstanding this generous, reckless federal plunge into more “investments” it does not understand, CO-OPs will encounter harsh reality. Can they really compete with the large, established companies like United, Wellpoint, and Aetna? How much marketing overhead will be necessary to overcome those major companies’ existing name recognition, public confidence, and enormous membership base over which their expenses are spread? Will a hoped-for 5%-6% “advantage” arising from the CO-OPs’ non-profit status translate into premiums low enough to persuade people to risk joining an untried CO-OP? If CO-OP membership does not materialize, how long before the feds give up and cancel further subsidies?
Beyond these practicalities, the odor of political cronyism and paybacks is heavy around the CO-OP awards. Devon Herrick, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, says "the federal loans will likely enrich unions and the executives who administer the plans, but the coverage is unlikely to be any more efficient than commercial insurers.”
I think the appropriate taxpayer response to CO-OPS, is “Uh-oh”.
According to Kaiser Health News, the fiscal cliff deal approved by Congress on New Year’s Day eliminated most of the $1.4 billion in remaining funding from the federal health law for new CO-OPs. The fiscal cliff deal does not affect the $2 billion in loans already awarded by HHS to a number of CO-OPs around the U.S. The start-up loans are interest-free. (. . . which means the taxpayer bears the cost of the money - as well as the business risk of these new businesses.)
Initially, the health law allocated $6 billion to help co-ops start up and meet state insurance solvency requirements. In 2011, Congress reduced that funding to $3.4 billion as part of broader budget cuts.
One organization that has received CO-OP loans: the Freelancers Union. This organization is a nonprofit created to represent freelance workers and independent contractors. It’s reported that the Freelancers Union will receive $341 million in loans from the U.S. government to start health insurance plans in three states – New York, New Jersey, and Oregon.
“It’s like venture capital for health care,” said Sara Horowitz, the group’s executive director.
Just what we need – a federal snowstorm of high-stakes venture-capital wagers, based on political calculations, not business calculations. Another wager like Solyndra. Be still, my beating heart!
Notwithstanding this generous, reckless federal plunge into more “investments” it does not understand, CO-OPs will encounter harsh reality. Can they really compete with the large, established companies like United, Wellpoint, and Aetna? How much marketing overhead will be necessary to overcome those major companies’ existing name recognition, public confidence, and enormous membership base over which their expenses are spread? Will a hoped-for 5%-6% “advantage” arising from the CO-OPs’ non-profit status translate into premiums low enough to persuade people to risk joining an untried CO-OP? If CO-OP membership does not materialize, how long before the feds give up and cancel further subsidies?
Beyond these practicalities, the odor of political cronyism and paybacks is heavy around the CO-OP awards. Devon Herrick, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, says "the federal loans will likely enrich unions and the executives who administer the plans, but the coverage is unlikely to be any more efficient than commercial insurers.”
I think the appropriate taxpayer response to CO-OPS, is “Uh-oh”.
LCP vs Stafford
As Mike pointed out last week, the Brits' Much Vaunted National Health System© has a slight problem:
"60,000 patients put on death pathway without being told ... It also appears family members and even family physicians are not being advised."
The LiverpoolDeath Panel Care Pathway may have competition for its race to the bottom, though, if the folks at the Mid Staffordshire's Stafford Hospital have anything to say about it.
And - no surprise here - they do:
"Hundreds of hospital patients died needlessly. In the wards, people lay starving, thirsty and in soiled bedclothes, buzzers droning hopelessly as their cries for help went ignored. Some received the wrong medication; some, none at all."
This is par for the course for the MVNHS©, and demonstrates just how efficiently a government-run health "care" system (like the ObamaTax) can save money when it wants to. How can one doubt the efficacy of a system that denies treatment to hundreds ofpatients citizens?
But Henry, you may object, this is but one hospital in a vast system. Surely this is the exception, and not the rule?
Object away, dear reader, but ponder this:
"LOTHIAN [Scottish] patients who have been diagnosed with cancer are facing stressful and unacceptable delays in receiving their lifesaving treatment ... For patients with colorectal cancer and cancer affecting the head and neck, NHS Lothian hit the target in fewer than 80 per cent of cases, and in urological cancers, such as bladder, kidney, prostate and testicular, 82.5 per cent of sufferers began their treatment on time – the lowest rate in all of Scotland."
Something about a stiff upper lip?
"60,000 patients put on death pathway without being told ... It also appears family members and even family physicians are not being advised."
The Liverpool
And - no surprise here - they do:
"Hundreds of hospital patients died needlessly. In the wards, people lay starving, thirsty and in soiled bedclothes, buzzers droning hopelessly as their cries for help went ignored. Some received the wrong medication; some, none at all."
This is par for the course for the MVNHS©, and demonstrates just how efficiently a government-run health "care" system (like the ObamaTax) can save money when it wants to. How can one doubt the efficacy of a system that denies treatment to hundreds of
But Henry, you may object, this is but one hospital in a vast system. Surely this is the exception, and not the rule?
Object away, dear reader, but ponder this:
"LOTHIAN [Scottish] patients who have been diagnosed with cancer are facing stressful and unacceptable delays in receiving their lifesaving treatment ... For patients with colorectal cancer and cancer affecting the head and neck, NHS Lothian hit the target in fewer than 80 per cent of cases, and in urological cancers, such as bladder, kidney, prostate and testicular, 82.5 per cent of sufferers began their treatment on time – the lowest rate in all of Scotland."
Something about a stiff upper lip?
Ship, sailed
Noted ObamaTax flip-floppers at AHIP (Association of Health Insurance Plans) have once again weighed in - a dollar short and many days late - on the role of states and insurers under the new regime:
"Federal regulators should give states and health insurers enough flexibility to keep new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) rules from pushing up costs or disrupting the market in other ways ... The EHB package requirement may make coverage more comprehensive for some, but it also could increase the cost of coverage for many"
Um, guys? That's already a done deal. We've already seen dramatic rate increases (with more on the horizon). And there's zero indication that HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious has any intention of negotiating with you.
After all, why should she?
Meanwhile, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (all 58 of 'em!) are "concerned about “rate shock” from the younger and healthier portion of the population leaving the health insurance marketplace and skewering it by taking the penalties in the first years when they are low."
These guys crack me up. This is not new, folks, regardless of the fact that you've had 3-plus years to understand it. And this is priceless:
"States need flexibility to develop a regulatory environment that will discourage adverse selection"
Guaranteed issue, gents: do you speak it?
"Federal regulators should give states and health insurers enough flexibility to keep new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) rules from pushing up costs or disrupting the market in other ways ... The EHB package requirement may make coverage more comprehensive for some, but it also could increase the cost of coverage for many"
Um, guys? That's already a done deal. We've already seen dramatic rate increases (with more on the horizon). And there's zero indication that HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious has any intention of negotiating with you.
After all, why should she?
Meanwhile, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (all 58 of 'em!) are "concerned about “rate shock” from the younger and healthier portion of the population leaving the health insurance marketplace and skewering it by taking the penalties in the first years when they are low."
These guys crack me up. This is not new, folks, regardless of the fact that you've had 3-plus years to understand it. And this is priceless:
"States need flexibility to develop a regulatory environment that will discourage adverse selection"
Guaranteed issue, gents: do you speak it?
Best Defense from Adverse Selection....
.....is fair rates.
The brilliant minds at NAIC are concerned about adverse selection, as they should be.
"State insurance regulators remain concerned about “rate shock” from the younger and healthier portion of the population leaving the health insurance marketplace and skewering it by taking the penalties in the first years when they are low."
It won't be just the first years, at that rate of subsidy they are expecting the young to contribute they would need to triple the current tax for it to make sense for a young, healthy person to buy coverage. Before we toss young healthy males in with the 1% and blame them for everything that is wrong, though, let's look at their situation.
A very specific segment of the population is going to bear the brunt of healthcare reform, and that is young males. If politicians really felt it was in the public interest to subsidize the premiums of sick and older individuals then the public as a whole should do so. Allow insurers to charge rates actuarially derived for the risk they are taking and subsidize them on the back end.
Instead of driving people out of the system and encouraging fraud, you would attract far more, eliminating most of the problems before they happen. We need to remember insurance is already guaranteed renewable 99% of the time, the key is to get people insured before they get sick, healthcare reform so far does the exact opposite.
The brilliant minds at NAIC are concerned about adverse selection, as they should be.
"State insurance regulators remain concerned about “rate shock” from the younger and healthier portion of the population leaving the health insurance marketplace and skewering it by taking the penalties in the first years when they are low."
It won't be just the first years, at that rate of subsidy they are expecting the young to contribute they would need to triple the current tax for it to make sense for a young, healthy person to buy coverage. Before we toss young healthy males in with the 1% and blame them for everything that is wrong, though, let's look at their situation.
- Just out of High School or college and making entry level wages
- Auto Insurance is not community rated or age subsidized costing them many times what older drivers pay.
- Medicare and SS taxes already increased and sure to increase far more for the acturially excessive benefits seniors have already been promised.
A very specific segment of the population is going to bear the brunt of healthcare reform, and that is young males. If politicians really felt it was in the public interest to subsidize the premiums of sick and older individuals then the public as a whole should do so. Allow insurers to charge rates actuarially derived for the risk they are taking and subsidize them on the back end.
Instead of driving people out of the system and encouraging fraud, you would attract far more, eliminating most of the problems before they happen. We need to remember insurance is already guaranteed renewable 99% of the time, the key is to get people insured before they get sick, healthcare reform so far does the exact opposite.
Sunday, January 06, 2013
The Gray Lady: Corrected
A bit of a different take on Bob's post:
"Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, [because] of the Obama administration’s health care law"
Fixed that for you.
[Hat Tip: FoIB Jeff M]
"Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, [because] of the Obama administration’s health care law"
Fixed that for you.
[Hat Tip: FoIB Jeff M]
Saturday, January 05, 2013
But this I know and know full well . . .
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel wrote this article in the NY Times on January 3.
Among other things, Dr. Emanuel states "A related intervention - an idea that never actually was in the Affordable Care Act but inspired the death panel accusation - is that physicians should be paid a one-time fee to talk with patients about their preferences for end-of-life care."
This is technically true. However - this end-of-life “intervention” WAS INCLUDED in HR3200 – the Bill that eventually was passed as the Affordable Care Act. The end-of-life provision was removed from the final version of the Bill only because of widespread public outcry.
Dr. Emanuel knows this history full well and thus his statement above must be considered deliberately misleading. Besides, Dr Emanuel is a long-time advocate of withholding care from some people in favor of other people.
More specifically, Section 1233 of HR3200 went on for 11 pages and 249 lines of text - remarkably long for a provision that its defenders claimed was innocuous.
Section 1233 of HR3200 would have compensated physicians for mandatory end-of-life counseling. It stated in detail exactly what physicians shall discuss, with whom, and at what times. Keep in mind Section 1233 was proposed legislation. Regulations are written after enactment and are always much more prescriptive than legislation.
So, was the objection to Section 1233 about compensating physicians? Of course not. People who objected to Section 1233 did not fear “physician compensation” - they feared a “death panel”. And why was that? The Affordable Care Act depends on a large reduction to Medicare spending. Medicare patients fear that such a large reduction will end up harming them by making care less available. Given that fear, mandatory end-of-life counseling was not seen as a means to bring out patients' "preferences" but rather as a tactic for the administration to reduce Medicare spending.
That is, Medicare participants perceived a threat of withholding end of life care. This issue still has traction because neither the administration nor the Congress has ever, persuasively, answered the concerns raised about this threat. By appearing evasive, the administration actually intensified the fears.
Those fears have not disappeared. Dr. Emanuel also knows that full well.
Among other things, Dr. Emanuel states "A related intervention - an idea that never actually was in the Affordable Care Act but inspired the death panel accusation - is that physicians should be paid a one-time fee to talk with patients about their preferences for end-of-life care."
This is technically true. However - this end-of-life “intervention” WAS INCLUDED in HR3200 – the Bill that eventually was passed as the Affordable Care Act. The end-of-life provision was removed from the final version of the Bill only because of widespread public outcry.
Dr. Emanuel knows this history full well and thus his statement above must be considered deliberately misleading. Besides, Dr Emanuel is a long-time advocate of withholding care from some people in favor of other people.
More specifically, Section 1233 of HR3200 went on for 11 pages and 249 lines of text - remarkably long for a provision that its defenders claimed was innocuous.
Section 1233 of HR3200 would have compensated physicians for mandatory end-of-life counseling. It stated in detail exactly what physicians shall discuss, with whom, and at what times. Keep in mind Section 1233 was proposed legislation. Regulations are written after enactment and are always much more prescriptive than legislation.
So, was the objection to Section 1233 about compensating physicians? Of course not. People who objected to Section 1233 did not fear “physician compensation” - they feared a “death panel”. And why was that? The Affordable Care Act depends on a large reduction to Medicare spending. Medicare patients fear that such a large reduction will end up harming them by making care less available. Given that fear, mandatory end-of-life counseling was not seen as a means to bring out patients' "preferences" but rather as a tactic for the administration to reduce Medicare spending.
That is, Medicare participants perceived a threat of withholding end of life care. This issue still has traction because neither the administration nor the Congress has ever, persuasively, answered the concerns raised about this threat. By appearing evasive, the administration actually intensified the fears.
Those fears have not disappeared. Dr. Emanuel also knows that full well.
Friday, January 04, 2013
Co-ops over the cliff
The New Year's Day "fiscal cliff deal fiasco" also included some bad news for proponents of so-called "co-ops." As we discussed last Spring, these are essentially "mini-insurers designed to compete with the big boys. CO-OP's (the misnomered Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan) would be state-licensed, and available both inside and outside of the Exchanges."
What might have been...
Turns out, the CO-OPs are now taking their turn under the bus:
"The new fiscal cliff deal could hurt the nonprofit groups that want to set up Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) health insurers ... Section 644, the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan program contingency fund section, would cut 90 percent of the CO-OP program loan funding that is not already "obligated."
And thanks to co-blogger Nate, we already know that "19 non-profits offering coverage in 18 states ... have already been awarded $1 billion. That leaves $2.8 billion left to be "had"."
Or not.
As one might imagine, proponents of the CO-OP plans are less than pleased:
"John Morrison, president of the National Alliance of State Health CO-OPs (NASHCO), is blasting [the aforementioned] Section 644 ... Since long before the fiscal cliff agreement, the big health insurance companies have fought the new CO-OPs because they represent a real opportunity to lower health insurance premiums and allow consumers to belong to a member-governed heath insurer"
Funny, we used to call them MEWAs, and that's not a good thing. As for lowering health insurance premiums, well, color me skeptical.
What might have been...
Turns out, the CO-OPs are now taking their turn under the bus:
"The new fiscal cliff deal could hurt the nonprofit groups that want to set up Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) health insurers ... Section 644, the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan program contingency fund section, would cut 90 percent of the CO-OP program loan funding that is not already "obligated."
And thanks to co-blogger Nate, we already know that "19 non-profits offering coverage in 18 states ... have already been awarded $1 billion. That leaves $2.8 billion left to be "had"."
Or not.
As one might imagine, proponents of the CO-OP plans are less than pleased:
"John Morrison, president of the National Alliance of State Health CO-OPs (NASHCO), is blasting [the aforementioned] Section 644 ... Since long before the fiscal cliff agreement, the big health insurance companies have fought the new CO-OPs because they represent a real opportunity to lower health insurance premiums and allow consumers to belong to a member-governed heath insurer"
Funny, we used to call them MEWAs, and that's not a good thing. As for lowering health insurance premiums, well, color me skeptical.
Cavalcade of Risk #174: Call for submissions
Nina
Kallen hosts the last Cav of 2012 next week. Entries are due by Monday (the
7th).
To submit your risk-related post, just click here to email it.
To submit your risk-related post, just click here to email it.
You'll need to provide:
■ Your post's url and title
■ Your blog's url and name
■ Your name and email
■ A (brief) summary of the post
PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like). And please only submit if you are willing to link back to the carnival if your submission is accepted.
Thursday, January 03, 2013
Thursday Afternoon LinkFest
■ First up, from the D'Uh! Department:
"Human resource firms say many businesses will hire more part-time workers, trim hours of full-time staff or hold off on hiring because of the new health care law."
This isn't news so much as confirmation of something we've been saying for quite some time. But it's nice to see that someone in the MSM is paying attention.
■ Next up, the clock continues to tick for HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious:
"Today is the day [Ms Shecantbeserious] tells states whether their plans for health insurance exchanges pass muster."
Inasmuch as she's as clueless as the 58 state departments of insurance, this should be fun.
■ And finally, speaking of Ms Shecantbeserious and her minions (aka the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS), we're now officially in the rolling out stages of new ObamaTax rules and regs (and, of course, major tax increases). The list is extensive, but here's a sample:
"Single risk pool. Issuers are required to establish a single risk pool in each state where they offer coverage for each of their non-grandfathered individual (one pool) and small group markets (separate pool)."
As we've already seen, these sound great in theory, but in practice....
[Hat Tip for first two items: FoIB Holly R; and UHC for the CMS info]
"Human resource firms say many businesses will hire more part-time workers, trim hours of full-time staff or hold off on hiring because of the new health care law."
This isn't news so much as confirmation of something we've been saying for quite some time. But it's nice to see that someone in the MSM is paying attention.
■ Next up, the clock continues to tick for HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious:
"Today is the day [Ms Shecantbeserious] tells states whether their plans for health insurance exchanges pass muster."
Inasmuch as she's as clueless as the 58 state departments of insurance, this should be fun.
■ And finally, speaking of Ms Shecantbeserious and her minions (aka the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS), we're now officially in the rolling out stages of new ObamaTax rules and regs (and, of course, major tax increases). The list is extensive, but here's a sample:
"Single risk pool. Issuers are required to establish a single risk pool in each state where they offer coverage for each of their non-grandfathered individual (one pool) and small group markets (separate pool)."
As we've already seen, these sound great in theory, but in practice....
[Hat Tip for first two items: FoIB Holly R; and UHC for the CMS info]
Health Wonk Review: Happy New Year! edition
Brad Wright hosts the first Health Wonk Review of 2013, and it's a doozy. From workers comp to government subsidized health insurance to new tech, there's something to whet your wonketite (that's word, right).
Pay & Chase for Individual Subsidies?
One of Medicare's biggest systemic failures (if not its biggest) is pay and chase. Claims must be processed in 15 days and payment sent, at some point down the road, usually a year or two after they get around to checking if the claim should have actually been paid. If they find out it should not have been paid they then try to recover these monies. A system only a politician could accept.
Appears that this is the plan for ObamaCare as well:
"Employers will receive notice if their employees are certified for premium tax credits and will have an opportunity to respond. The IRS will then present the employer with a notice and demand for payment. It appears that this will happen in 2015 for penalties owed for 2014."
January 1st, 2014 employees go to the exchange and gets a subsidy to buy coverage. Come some point in 2015 the IRS will send a notice to employers trying to collect the penalty. What if the employer proves the employee was not eligible for the subsidy and thus they are not subject to the penalty? Does the IRS then go after the employee to recoup the subsidy? This is money that went to buy insurance so it is doubtful the employee would have it to repay.
Can anyone dream of a system our government could implement that would accurately determine eligibility? They want individuals to instantly be able to price policies and buy online. How do you instantly gather that information from employers?
It almost seems as if there is some layer of administrative work provided at the employer level, between the worker and carrier, that accurately and timely makes these determinations, within 30 day window or so. Those arguing, mainly clueless academics, that insurance could more efficiently be offered if decoupled from employment never grasped the administrative savings of bulk buying. If employers were not contributing that would make things easier, but I have yet to see an affordable or palatable system employers did not contribute to financially. If you think individual polices subsidized through the tax system would work you would just be ignorant. 25% of owed taxes aren't collected and fraud is rampant, see refund fraud as a clear example.
Appears that this is the plan for ObamaCare as well:
"Employers will receive notice if their employees are certified for premium tax credits and will have an opportunity to respond. The IRS will then present the employer with a notice and demand for payment. It appears that this will happen in 2015 for penalties owed for 2014."
January 1st, 2014 employees go to the exchange and gets a subsidy to buy coverage. Come some point in 2015 the IRS will send a notice to employers trying to collect the penalty. What if the employer proves the employee was not eligible for the subsidy and thus they are not subject to the penalty? Does the IRS then go after the employee to recoup the subsidy? This is money that went to buy insurance so it is doubtful the employee would have it to repay.
Can anyone dream of a system our government could implement that would accurately determine eligibility? They want individuals to instantly be able to price policies and buy online. How do you instantly gather that information from employers?
It almost seems as if there is some layer of administrative work provided at the employer level, between the worker and carrier, that accurately and timely makes these determinations, within 30 day window or so. Those arguing, mainly clueless academics, that insurance could more efficiently be offered if decoupled from employment never grasped the administrative savings of bulk buying. If employers were not contributing that would make things easier, but I have yet to see an affordable or palatable system employers did not contribute to financially. If you think individual polices subsidized through the tax system would work you would just be ignorant. 25% of owed taxes aren't collected and fraud is rampant, see refund fraud as a clear example.
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
ObamaTax(es) for all!
Courtesy of Grace-Marie Turner (Galen Institute president and Forbes contributor):
■ "[T]he Medical Device Tax that hits entrepreneurial firms making equipment such as heart valves and hip replacement parts."
As regular readers already know, corporations don't pay taxes, their customers (that would be you) do.
■ "A new Medicare Tax ... a big hit especially for the self-employed."
That would also be job creators (who now won't be so inclined).
■ "The new Flexible Spending Account Tax limits the amount of money that workers can set aside tax-free for medical costs."
This is a double-whammy (at least): just as the ObamaTax itself has increased the cost of health care, ways to mitigate the damage are drying up.
There's more at the link - but only for those with strong stomachs (and/or access to adult beverages).
■ "[T]he Medical Device Tax that hits entrepreneurial firms making equipment such as heart valves and hip replacement parts."
As regular readers already know, corporations don't pay taxes, their customers (that would be you) do.
■ "A new Medicare Tax ... a big hit especially for the self-employed."
That would also be job creators (who now won't be so inclined).
■ "The new Flexible Spending Account Tax limits the amount of money that workers can set aside tax-free for medical costs."
This is a double-whammy (at least): just as the ObamaTax itself has increased the cost of health care, ways to mitigate the damage are drying up.
There's more at the link - but only for those with strong stomachs (and/or access to adult beverages).
Gray Lady Joke of the Day
You really can't make this up:
"In a long-awaited interpretation of the [ObamaTax], the Obama administration said Monday that employers must offer health insurance to employees and their children, but will not be subject to any penalties if family coverage is unaffordable to workers."
Wait, what?
So first they make it impossible to write child-only health plans, and now they've decided that "dependents" doesn't include spouses?
But the best part?
Remember: the "official" name of the ObamaTax is the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" [emphasis/irony added]. But they've now officially backtracked on that "affordability" requirement:
"[T]he meaning of “affordable” depends entirely on the cost of individual coverage for the employee"
Reminds me of something....
[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]
"In a long-awaited interpretation of the [ObamaTax], the Obama administration said Monday that employers must offer health insurance to employees and their children, but will not be subject to any penalties if family coverage is unaffordable to workers."
Wait, what?
So first they make it impossible to write child-only health plans, and now they've decided that "dependents" doesn't include spouses?
But the best part?
Remember: the "official" name of the ObamaTax is the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" [emphasis/irony added]. But they've now officially backtracked on that "affordability" requirement:
"[T]he meaning of “affordable” depends entirely on the cost of individual coverage for the employee"
Reminds me of something....
[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]
EHR and the MVNHS©
Electronic Health Record-keeping is an integral part of the ObamaTax and, as we noted last week, these records aren't necessarily safe from prying eyes. So how are we to know how safe our newly-digitized medical records will be once they're on-line in a national database?
Well, we can look to Britain's Much Vaunted National Health System© for a peek at our own future:
"More than one in three [Brits] have had their medical details uploaded onto a central database accessible by healthcare professionals across the country, many without their knowledge ... the majority of those patients whose records have been uploaded will not be aware and said there are dangers the information could be hacked, bought by private companies or matched to other publicly available details on individuals."
Of course, that last part is pure hype, right?
Maybe, but this kind of thing isn't exactly reassuring:
"[E]mployees, who work for NHS Lothian ... had the temerity to assume that their own medical records were their own business. Or at the very least, that they had as much right to read them as some other government employees did."
But why would they believe that? They've already ceded their health care to their fellow government bureauweenies, why would their medical records be sacrosanct?
When the government is in charge of your healthcare, they mean it:
"There is a fair warning system on the computers but people don’t always read it and they don’t actually realize they're not allowed to look at their own records"
Seems pretty clear to me.
And this is the (very near) future of our health care "system" under the ObamaTax.
[Hat Tip for NHS Lothian story: FoIB Fred W]
Well, we can look to Britain's Much Vaunted National Health System© for a peek at our own future:
"More than one in three [Brits] have had their medical details uploaded onto a central database accessible by healthcare professionals across the country, many without their knowledge ... the majority of those patients whose records have been uploaded will not be aware and said there are dangers the information could be hacked, bought by private companies or matched to other publicly available details on individuals."
Of course, that last part is pure hype, right?
Maybe, but this kind of thing isn't exactly reassuring:
"[E]mployees, who work for NHS Lothian ... had the temerity to assume that their own medical records were their own business. Or at the very least, that they had as much right to read them as some other government employees did."
But why would they believe that? They've already ceded their health care to their fellow government bureauweenies, why would their medical records be sacrosanct?
When the government is in charge of your healthcare, they mean it:
"There is a fair warning system on the computers but people don’t always read it and they don’t actually realize they're not allowed to look at their own records"
Seems pretty clear to me.
And this is the (very near) future of our health care "system" under the ObamaTax.
[Hat Tip for NHS Lothian story: FoIB Fred W]
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
Another ObamaTax speedbump
Last Friday, an Illinois-based business was granted an injunction against HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious enforcing the birth control convenience item mandate.
Now, another federal judge has issued one on behalf of a Michigan-based property management company:
"U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff ruled Sunday in favor of Tom Monaghan and his Domino's Farms Corp ... Zatkoff granted Monaghan's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order until a final decision is made in the case."
And the slow slog continues apace.
Now, another federal judge has issued one on behalf of a Michigan-based property management company:
"U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff ruled Sunday in favor of Tom Monaghan and his Domino's Farms Corp ... Zatkoff granted Monaghan's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order until a final decision is made in the case."
And the slow slog continues apace.
This Sceptered Isle - Part CCXXV
From the London Telegraph, here’s new, yet more depressing news about the British National Health Service:
60,000 patients put on death pathway without being told but minister still says controversial end-of-life plan is 'fantastic’
In part, this is an old dispute about whether the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is a gentle and dignified end of life treatment – similar to what America calls hospice – or instead is a “death pathway” designed to finish people off. An estimated 130,000 patients per year are put on LCP.
According to the Telegraph article. “The pathway involves withdrawal of lifesaving treatment, with the sick sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids. Death typically takes place within 29 hours.”
But the new issue is not about speed. The new issue is about ethics. It appears hospitals are not careful to advise conscious patients when they are placed on LCP or what will then happen to them. It also appears family members and even family physicians are not being advised.
This new issue became public following a recent national audit of LCP conducted by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool and the Royal College of Physicians. As though the scary numbers were not enough, the U.K. Health Minister Jeremy Hunt belittled the audit findings by saying “I would be very sad if as a result of something that is a big step forward going wrong in one or two cases we discredited the concept”
Wrong in “one or two cases”, would make Jeremy “very sad”. Indeed.
From the article: “The national audit . . . examined a representative sample of 7,058 deaths between April and June last year. The figures were scaled up to give a national picture. It found that in 44 per cent of cases when conscious patients were placed on the pathway, there was no record that the decision had been discussed with them.”
Well then, Jeremy, 44% would be more than one or two.
Also according to the article, the audit “revealed that one in three families did not receive a leaflet to explain the process.”
Got it. In the U.K. at least it appears that the National Health Service permits government functionaries to withdraw food and medicine from patients - whom the functionaries also select - without knowledge of the patient, the patient’s family, or even the family physician.
No need for mum to know that she's been put on the Liverpool Care Pathway at St. Lucifer General. It's all the better to care for her. No need for you to know about this either, it will only upset you. So just fold your hands and relax. All is under control - our control.
O brave new world that hath such people in’t.
60,000 patients put on death pathway without being told but minister still says controversial end-of-life plan is 'fantastic’
In part, this is an old dispute about whether the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is a gentle and dignified end of life treatment – similar to what America calls hospice – or instead is a “death pathway” designed to finish people off. An estimated 130,000 patients per year are put on LCP.
According to the Telegraph article. “The pathway involves withdrawal of lifesaving treatment, with the sick sedated and usually denied nutrition and fluids. Death typically takes place within 29 hours.”
But the new issue is not about speed. The new issue is about ethics. It appears hospitals are not careful to advise conscious patients when they are placed on LCP or what will then happen to them. It also appears family members and even family physicians are not being advised.
This new issue became public following a recent national audit of LCP conducted by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool and the Royal College of Physicians. As though the scary numbers were not enough, the U.K. Health Minister Jeremy Hunt belittled the audit findings by saying “I would be very sad if as a result of something that is a big step forward going wrong in one or two cases we discredited the concept”
Wrong in “one or two cases”, would make Jeremy “very sad”. Indeed.
From the article: “The national audit . . . examined a representative sample of 7,058 deaths between April and June last year. The figures were scaled up to give a national picture. It found that in 44 per cent of cases when conscious patients were placed on the pathway, there was no record that the decision had been discussed with them.”
Well then, Jeremy, 44% would be more than one or two.
Also according to the article, the audit “revealed that one in three families did not receive a leaflet to explain the process.”
Got it. In the U.K. at least it appears that the National Health Service permits government functionaries to withdraw food and medicine from patients - whom the functionaries also select - without knowledge of the patient, the patient’s family, or even the family physician.
No need for mum to know that she's been put on the Liverpool Care Pathway at St. Lucifer General. It's all the better to care for her. No need for you to know about this either, it will only upset you. So just fold your hands and relax. All is under control - our control.
O brave new world that hath such people in’t.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
ObamaTax speedbump
Well, well, well:
"Late [Friday] afternoon, the Seventh Circuit granted an emergency injunction against the HHS mandate — preventing its enforcement against an Illinois business and its owners."
The business, Korte & Luitjohan Contractors of Highland, Illinois, is a "family-owned, full-service construction contractor." In this case, the court disagreed with the recent Hobby Lobby decision, and went ahead and stayed Ms Shecantbeserious from enforcing the mandate forbirth control convenience items. This court's take is that the mandate itself is coercive, and in direct contravention of the First Amendment.
Interesting opinion. Hopefully, it's just the beginning.
"Late [Friday] afternoon, the Seventh Circuit granted an emergency injunction against the HHS mandate — preventing its enforcement against an Illinois business and its owners."
The business, Korte & Luitjohan Contractors of Highland, Illinois, is a "family-owned, full-service construction contractor." In this case, the court disagreed with the recent Hobby Lobby decision, and went ahead and stayed Ms Shecantbeserious from enforcing the mandate for
Interesting opinion. Hopefully, it's just the beginning.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Swiss Miss bliss [UPDATED]
As major proponents of consumer-driven health care, this post at Avik Roy's place is a treat:
"[Author Regina] Herzlinger describes the health care system of Switzerland as a case study in consumer-driven health care ... Switzerland, the only developed country with a long-standing consumer-driven health care system, provides broad evidence and important lessons about its efficacy ... in Switzerland, it is the consumers themselves who purchase their health insurance."
Gee, what a novel idea.
Seriously, read the whole thing.
ADDENDUM: While I do like Avik's analysis, and the discussion in the comments (definitely see the ones from folks currently living under the Swiss health care regime) is enlightening, I wonder about its usefulness. After all, the American people has reaffirmed its desire for socialized health care, which is now (becoming) the law of the land.
"[Author Regina] Herzlinger describes the health care system of Switzerland as a case study in consumer-driven health care ... Switzerland, the only developed country with a long-standing consumer-driven health care system, provides broad evidence and important lessons about its efficacy ... in Switzerland, it is the consumers themselves who purchase their health insurance."
Gee, what a novel idea.
Seriously, read the whole thing.
ADDENDUM: While I do like Avik's analysis, and the discussion in the comments (definitely see the ones from folks currently living under the Swiss health care regime) is enlightening, I wonder about its usefulness. After all, the American people has reaffirmed its desire for socialized health care, which is now (becoming) the law of the land.
The (Young) Invincibles
A year ago:
"Seventeen million young Americans would lose promised access to health insurance if the Supreme Court strikes down [ObamneyCare©]"
Oh the irony - it burns. Today:
"WellPoint and competitors have made concerted, well-publicized efforts to sell health coverage to the "Young Invincibles" ... who are not quite sure why they should buy health coverage."
But they have to - it's the law!
Really? It's a surprise that young people, inherently rebellious in nature, might not be too keen on paying for something they believe they'll never need? Hunh. Here's a clue, DC:
"A senior fellow at the National Opinion Research Center ... talked about "Calculated Risk Takers" -- uninsured, employed individuals ages 18 to 34 who have incomes over 400 percent of the federal poverty level ... If large numbers of healthy young adults fail to buy coverage, that could expose them to huge medical bills when they do get sick, and it could deprive health plans of premium revenue from young, generally healthy adults who could help offset the claims that older, sicker enrollees file." [emphasis added]
Let's translate this, shall we:
"Healthy young people would prefer to keep their own money rather than pay for their sick neighbors' medical insurance and care."
Sounds about right.
As we noted yesterday, however, Golden State politicos are in a quandary about how to implement their ObamaTax Exchange; they need the "yutes" on-board (the yutes' money, that is):
"Calculated Risk Takers are by far the least likely to purchase a plan compared to other groups"
Ooops.
"Seventeen million young Americans would lose promised access to health insurance if the Supreme Court strikes down [ObamneyCare©]"
Oh the irony - it burns. Today:
"WellPoint and competitors have made concerted, well-publicized efforts to sell health coverage to the "Young Invincibles" ... who are not quite sure why they should buy health coverage."
But they have to - it's the law!
Really? It's a surprise that young people, inherently rebellious in nature, might not be too keen on paying for something they believe they'll never need? Hunh. Here's a clue, DC:
"A senior fellow at the National Opinion Research Center ... talked about "Calculated Risk Takers" -- uninsured, employed individuals ages 18 to 34 who have incomes over 400 percent of the federal poverty level ... If large numbers of healthy young adults fail to buy coverage, that could expose them to huge medical bills when they do get sick, and it could deprive health plans of premium revenue from young, generally healthy adults who could help offset the claims that older, sicker enrollees file." [emphasis added]
Let's translate this, shall we:
"Healthy young people would prefer to keep their own money rather than pay for their sick neighbors' medical insurance and care."
Sounds about right.
As we noted yesterday, however, Golden State politicos are in a quandary about how to implement their ObamaTax Exchange; they need the "yutes" on-board (the yutes' money, that is):
"Calculated Risk Takers are by far the least likely to purchase a plan compared to other groups"
Ooops.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Cavalcade of Risk #173: Post-Mayan Apocalypse Edition
Risking the wrath of the
Mayan Gods, Van
Mayhall has outdone himself with a terrific collection of risk-related
blogetry.
What makes Van's Cavs so delightful is that he's obviously read through the posts, and includes his own take on them.
Do stop by (and don't miss the great Mayan digs).
BTW: We still have some slots available for early Spring 2013 - just email us to claim yours.
What makes Van's Cavs so delightful is that he's obviously read through the posts, and includes his own take on them.
Do stop by (and don't miss the great Mayan digs).
BTW: We still have some slots available for early Spring 2013 - just email us to claim yours.
Gold, the ObamaTax and Consequences
As in "The Golden State:"
"California officials are concerned that the federal government might scale back its share of the costs under [the ObamaTax] ... state officials fear that the Obama administration won't cover as much of the law's costs as initially planned."
What's so amusing about this is that the ObamaTax's official name includes the word "Affordable" yet California pols are only just now coming to understand that it is no such thing. They went ahead and (foolishly) set up their own Health Insurance Exchange, without fully realizing that the rules keep changing, and that they're going to be on the hook for implementing it.
As a direct result of how the ObamaTax is structured, "California is expecting a massive surge in its Medicaid rolls" which, of course, will be paid for (or not) by the state's citizenry.
As FoIB Patrick P (who tipped us to this story) puts it, "talk about a sure sign that the health care law is bad, even Moonbat Jerry Brown is worried!"
I'm thinking of a word...
"California officials are concerned that the federal government might scale back its share of the costs under [the ObamaTax] ... state officials fear that the Obama administration won't cover as much of the law's costs as initially planned."
What's so amusing about this is that the ObamaTax's official name includes the word "Affordable" yet California pols are only just now coming to understand that it is no such thing. They went ahead and (foolishly) set up their own Health Insurance Exchange, without fully realizing that the rules keep changing, and that they're going to be on the hook for implementing it.
As a direct result of how the ObamaTax is structured, "California is expecting a massive surge in its Medicaid rolls" which, of course, will be paid for (or not) by the state's citizenry.
As FoIB Patrick P (who tipped us to this story) puts it, "talk about a sure sign that the health care law is bad, even Moonbat Jerry Brown is worried!"
I'm thinking of a word...
Watching figures
Thanks to FoIB Holly R, here's an interesting story about the confluence of medical tech and health care, with a dash of privacy and frugality thrown in:
"Those of us trying to lose some pounds after overindulging this holiday season can get help from a slew of smartphone apps that count steps climbed and calories burned ... technology lovers are testing homemade do-it-yourself devices on people eager to measure their mind and body."
Back in the day, pedometers were the go-to method for determining how far we'd walked on a given day, and (presumably) how many calories we'd burned by doing so. Now, their descendants are linked to GPS and other devices capable of tracking a slew of different metrics.
Which is all well and good, up to a point:
"[S]ome experts worry that the data collected could be used against users in the long run ... Two years ago, some users of a leading self-tracking brand, Fitbit, were logging their sexual activity as exercise and found the sex logs somehow popping up on Google searches."
Of course, anyone who still believes that we truly have any real privacy anymore (especially on-line) is sadly mistaken.
There's another facet to these new devices, as well:
"Chang raised $9 million for a new kind of tracker that he promises is "the world's first very accurate heart rate monitor on just a wrist watch — no chest strap, no other device" ... if the company turns a big profit ... it will be from selling the data aggregated on a smartphone app and analyzing it for you, the user."
After all, the raw data won't likely be of much help to most of us. But I can foresee a metaphorical brick wall ahead: who, ultimately, will own that data?
Reason I ask is this:
"The small box inside Amanda Hubbard's chest beams all kinds of data about her faulty heart to the company that makes her defibrillator implant ... it apparently doesn't prohibit Medtronic from seeking to make a buck off that data."
It's possible, one supposes, that the User Agreements that come with the new apps will cover this, but how many of us actually read these?
Thought so.
"Those of us trying to lose some pounds after overindulging this holiday season can get help from a slew of smartphone apps that count steps climbed and calories burned ... technology lovers are testing homemade do-it-yourself devices on people eager to measure their mind and body."
Back in the day, pedometers were the go-to method for determining how far we'd walked on a given day, and (presumably) how many calories we'd burned by doing so. Now, their descendants are linked to GPS and other devices capable of tracking a slew of different metrics.
Which is all well and good, up to a point:
"[S]ome experts worry that the data collected could be used against users in the long run ... Two years ago, some users of a leading self-tracking brand, Fitbit, were logging their sexual activity as exercise and found the sex logs somehow popping up on Google searches."
Of course, anyone who still believes that we truly have any real privacy anymore (especially on-line) is sadly mistaken.
There's another facet to these new devices, as well:
"Chang raised $9 million for a new kind of tracker that he promises is "the world's first very accurate heart rate monitor on just a wrist watch — no chest strap, no other device" ... if the company turns a big profit ... it will be from selling the data aggregated on a smartphone app and analyzing it for you, the user."
After all, the raw data won't likely be of much help to most of us. But I can foresee a metaphorical brick wall ahead: who, ultimately, will own that data?
Reason I ask is this:
"The small box inside Amanda Hubbard's chest beams all kinds of data about her faulty heart to the company that makes her defibrillator implant ... it apparently doesn't prohibit Medtronic from seeking to make a buck off that data."
It's possible, one supposes, that the User Agreements that come with the new apps will cover this, but how many of us actually read these?
Thought so.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Boxing Day Roundup
Here in southwest Ohio, we're getting our White Christmas a day late. It's quite beautiful, if treacherous, and the added treat of thunder-and-lightning is a real joy.
In that spirit, then, here are some interesting (if disheartening) health- and health insurance-related tidbits:
■ First up, co-blogger Bob shares this news on the anticipated growing costs (both financial and otherwise) of treating folks with dementia over the next few years:
"The fiscal climate may be challenging, but the Alzheimer's Association is estimating that, unless the country finds some way to prevent Alzheimer's disease (AD), cure it or substantially improve treatments for disease, the condition will cost the United States alone about $20 trillion over the next 40 years"
■ And as if that's not scary enough, turns out that those great Electronic Health Records mandated by the ObamaTax aren't necessarily safe from prying eyes:
"Security researchers warn that intruders could exploit known gaps to steal patients’ records for use in identity theft schemes and even launch disruptive attacks that could shut down critical hospital systems."
■ If you're one of those folks classified as "poor," you're about to get even poorer:
"[F]amilies earning as little as $19,000 will face a tax up to $2,085 if they don't buy health care under Obamacare by 2016 ... A family of four will face the highest tax, a penalty of 8 percent to 10 percent."
■ Finally, lest the rest of us think we've gotten off easy, here's a handy list of many of the new ObamaTaxes arriving in '14:
"Upper-income households. Starting Jan. 1, individuals making more than $200,000 per year, and couples making more than $250,000 will face a 0.9 percent Medicare tax increase on wages above those threshold amounts" [ed: lest you think these are "elites," remember that a great many of those in that bracket are business owners who may well have to scale back their companies - and your job]
And of course there's more at the link.
Happy Holidays!
In that spirit, then, here are some interesting (if disheartening) health- and health insurance-related tidbits:
■ First up, co-blogger Bob shares this news on the anticipated growing costs (both financial and otherwise) of treating folks with dementia over the next few years:
"The fiscal climate may be challenging, but the Alzheimer's Association is estimating that, unless the country finds some way to prevent Alzheimer's disease (AD), cure it or substantially improve treatments for disease, the condition will cost the United States alone about $20 trillion over the next 40 years"
■ And as if that's not scary enough, turns out that those great Electronic Health Records mandated by the ObamaTax aren't necessarily safe from prying eyes:
"Security researchers warn that intruders could exploit known gaps to steal patients’ records for use in identity theft schemes and even launch disruptive attacks that could shut down critical hospital systems."
■ If you're one of those folks classified as "poor," you're about to get even poorer:
"[F]amilies earning as little as $19,000 will face a tax up to $2,085 if they don't buy health care under Obamacare by 2016 ... A family of four will face the highest tax, a penalty of 8 percent to 10 percent."
■ Finally, lest the rest of us think we've gotten off easy, here's a handy list of many of the new ObamaTaxes arriving in '14:
"Upper-income households. Starting Jan. 1, individuals making more than $200,000 per year, and couples making more than $250,000 will face a 0.9 percent Medicare tax increase on wages above those threshold amounts" [ed: lest you think these are "elites," remember that a great many of those in that bracket are business owners who may well have to scale back their companies - and your job]
And of course there's more at the link.
Happy Holidays!
Where do these numbers come from?
Not that I would ever question my academic betters but a quote from my previous post raised another question;
"Hadidi paid $40,000 in Baltimore for pediatric orthopedic surgeon Shawn Standard to do a procedure called core decompression with stem cell implantation, which is not approved in B.C. for any child with the disease."
Where does this $40,000 get accounted for, in US spending or Canadian? I tried finding out, with no luck, how our national healthcare spending is calculated. Best I can find they calculate/estimate what healthcare providers collect in revenue then divide by the US population(just citizens or census?), I can not find any reference to adjustments for care provided to foreign nationals. When our average spending is $8,400 per person it doesn't take many visitors at 40K+ each to skew this number. Unlike Americans going to foreign countries for affordable care, people aren't coming to the US to save a penny. Maybe someone knows the answer to how these numbers used to brow beat our system are calculated.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19809557/ns/health-health_care/t/foreigners-fret-over-funds-us-medical-care/#.UNpQFHdhse4
"Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which treated about 8,000 foreigners last year at its hospitals, including several hundred children.
The federal government does not track how many of the millions of people who come here on tourist visas are seeking medical care."
One patient who doesn't count in the average...
"Years of lobbying convinced the New Zealand government to cover the $1.4 million cost of Matisse’s planned transplants."
Do we really spend twice as much per citizen as any other country or is it some really sloppy academic work, or just outright propaganda?
"Hadidi paid $40,000 in Baltimore for pediatric orthopedic surgeon Shawn Standard to do a procedure called core decompression with stem cell implantation, which is not approved in B.C. for any child with the disease."
Where does this $40,000 get accounted for, in US spending or Canadian? I tried finding out, with no luck, how our national healthcare spending is calculated. Best I can find they calculate/estimate what healthcare providers collect in revenue then divide by the US population(just citizens or census?), I can not find any reference to adjustments for care provided to foreign nationals. When our average spending is $8,400 per person it doesn't take many visitors at 40K+ each to skew this number. Unlike Americans going to foreign countries for affordable care, people aren't coming to the US to save a penny. Maybe someone knows the answer to how these numbers used to brow beat our system are calculated.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19809557/ns/health-health_care/t/foreigners-fret-over-funds-us-medical-care/#.UNpQFHdhse4
"Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which treated about 8,000 foreigners last year at its hospitals, including several hundred children.
The federal government does not track how many of the millions of people who come here on tourist visas are seeking medical care."
One patient who doesn't count in the average...
"Years of lobbying convinced the New Zealand government to cover the $1.4 million cost of Matisse’s planned transplants."
Do we really spend twice as much per citizen as any other country or is it some really sloppy academic work, or just outright propaganda?
Don't second guess the Canadian Healthcare System
NHS has long denied treatment to patients that received non-approved care, often from the US where we are more aggressive in trying to save lives. Canada is following their lead.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/12/14/bc-specialistdenied.html
"An eight-year-old boy with a rare childhood disease has been refused care by at least one Canadian specialist because his mother took him to the U.S. for a treatment not approved in B.C.
“When it’s your child, you feel outraged,” said mother Sima Hadidi, of Surrey, B.C. “He needs to be monitored. And you just cannot punish people because they didn’t do what you suggested.”
The same people that will be first to berate our system for spending twice as much as Canada or England would also be the first to demand an eight year old get this treatment or any other that might add even a day to his life; no matter the cost.
We can't expect the same cost outcome when we also insist on providing twice the care.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/12/14/bc-specialistdenied.html
"An eight-year-old boy with a rare childhood disease has been refused care by at least one Canadian specialist because his mother took him to the U.S. for a treatment not approved in B.C.
“When it’s your child, you feel outraged,” said mother Sima Hadidi, of Surrey, B.C. “He needs to be monitored. And you just cannot punish people because they didn’t do what you suggested.”
The same people that will be first to berate our system for spending twice as much as Canada or England would also be the first to demand an eight year old get this treatment or any other that might add even a day to his life; no matter the cost.
We can't expect the same cost outcome when we also insist on providing twice the care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
