Death Panels Made Simple

Not to (you should pardon the expression) beat a dead horse, but one of the reasons that "Death Panels" struck such a resounding chord is because of CARS.

Hunh?

We've all watched the past few weeks while the gummint's ill-advised (and even more poorly implemented) program to turn perfectly serviceable older vehicles into new car sales has itself been traded in. Of course, no one called the program by it's actual name: the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009 (CARS). No, we immediately glommed onto the completely unauthorized and unofficial term "cash for clunkers." I defy any reader to find that term in the enabling legislation.

I'll save you some time: it ain't in there.

But that didn't make the program any less well-known or "successful." The reason it became such a joke is precisely because that new title became an unstoppable meme, with the added bonus that it happened to be spot-on accurate.

And that is exactly why "Death Panel" was effective: it accurately summarized the insidious nature of the bill, its intent and implementation, in a way that was instantly understandable and recognizable to the citizenry. They saw how the government viewed serviceable vehicles creeping past their prime, listened to Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahmbo's brother, and an advisor to the president) when he wrote that "health care should be rationed in a way that “promot[es] and reward[s] social usefulness,” [<- 6/30/10: new, working link] and that age could play a factor in determining who can and cannot access health-care resources."

It's really a very small and valid leap from there to "Death Panels."

Of course the term itself never shows up in the bill; what boots it? There were no shadowy, hooded figures coming out to announce "sorry, Mr Smith, you're denied." Such verbiage was unnecessary: all that was necessary was to pass the concept (just as the term "cash for clunkers" is nowhere to be found in HR1550).

And just how has C4C worked out? Well, it's run out of money (even with an extension) and is due to be shut down in a few days. In the meantime, it's left in its brief wake thousands of now useless vehicles (which can't even be scavenged for parts or donated to charity), thousand of dealers who have no idea when (or, perhaps, even if) they'll be paid, and a public which sees first-hand how ObamaCare can be expected to perform.

Not a pretty picture.

Knee deep? Waist deep? Neck Deep?

The cost of medical care in the U.S. is the real reason medical insurance costs so much.

Because the care is expensive and its cost is growing, the insurance is expensive and its cost is growing. As a result, there are more and more Americans whose access to medical care is limited because they are uninsured.

Very high quality medical care is delivered in Western Europe and in places all over the world, at much less cost vs. the U.S. Why can’t that be done here? That is the key question – and please note this is a medical cost question, not an insurance cost question.

Achieving real economies in medical cost should be a central objective of reform. But the administration doesn't seem to be looking there.

In fact, the administration can't seem to explain in straightforward terms, what it is trying to accomplish and why. First we were told it was health care reform. Now they say it's health insurance reform. First the motivation was to help the uninsured – plus or minus 15% of the population. Now we see Congress intends to control 100%. First we’re told we can keep the coverage we have. Now it appears we cannot. First we have Section 1233 of HR3200 that no Congressman or Senator or administration official could explain. Now the administration promises to pull Section 1233 from the Bill (as if that will change anything). First Obama told us his proposals were necessary to save the economy. Now CBO has shown that all the bills currently being discussed will increase the deficit. So now the economic argument for reform is set aside in favor of a moral and ethical imperative. First Obama demanded a bill be passed by August - a deadline that foreclosed meaningful Congressional debate. Now we are told that the public is obstructing debate in the Town Hall meetings - as though the administration suddenly decided on July 31 that debate is worthwhile. And of course this administration assured us from the beginning that it will unite us around hope and change we can believe in. Now we see the leaders in this administration descending into ugly name-calling and vilification of ordinary citizens for exercising their right to speak up and speak out.

What do you see? I see an administration and Congress who have failed to figure out what they want, or to to explain to us what they are trying to do in any but highly generalized and uninformative terms. Nevertheless, the administration and Congress seem less interested in listening to the public, and more determined to discredit public opinion, while they doggedly forge ahead with their plans anyway.

“We’re knee-deep in the big muddy but the big fool said to push on.”

Why we need real physician leadership

Physicians for a National Health Program, or PNHP, is self-described as “a non-profit research and education organization of 17,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals who support single-payer national health insurance”.

I recently went to the PNHP site. I read their mission statement. Now I feel sick.

In their mission statement, here's what PNHP says guides them:

“The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care”

Yes, the problem is medical care spending. The high cost of medical care is why medical insurance is expensive – but don’t expect PNHP to tell you that.

“Yet our system performs poorly in comparison”

And that, too, is a medical problem. Question: who is responsible for medical care in your home town?

“and still leaves 45.7 million without health coverage”

Kaiser Family Foundation released a study a couple years ago that revealed 65% of the uninsured have incomes below 2X’s the Federal Poverty Limit.

Why has Medicaid failed to protect the poor? Medicaid is the government program expressly established to provide adequate medical insurance for the poor. Why is it not doing so? Why has our government left so many of the poor without access to medical insurance? I think that is a scandal. PNHP won’t tell you this, because PNHP advocates government-controlled medical care for EVERYONE, not just the poor.

Medicaid’s failure is not speculation, it's real. What is speculative is to believe, despite the evident Medicaid failure, that the government would truly manage a universal, single-payer public plan as its advocates promise.

“This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar.”

One of my former jobs was chief of benefits for a very large employer. If I mentioned the name, everyone would instantly recognize it. We worked with Aetna and Blue Cross. Their administrative overheads amounted to about 5% of our annual claim volume. Why is this relevant? Because the 31% number that organizations like PNHP like to throw around is a cherry-picked number – and PNHP presents it dishonestly. It may be the right number for individual insurance. But in my experience it is clearly not the right number for group plans – where most insured Americans are covered. and besides, it defies logic for PNHP to blame the problem of high medical costs on insurance. In fact, the reverse is true.

“Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.”

Think carefully about this statement. PNHP is not saying any “savings” would be returned to the public. PNHP is saying that such "savings" would be paid to physicians. Aside from increasing physician incomes, this means that the public would pay even more for the expensive medical care we now have.

So PNHP presents nothing that will help solve our principal problem - the high cost of medical care. The public has every right to expect physicians to help solve that problem, not simply to demand more money from us. Sadly, PNHP barely acknowledges that problem, and offers no solution – just more spending.

And this is why we need real physician leadership on health policy.

Two-wheeled Risk (You Want Fries With That?)

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

While not strictly an insurance issue, this story does pose some interesting risk-management questions:

"Sarah Gilbert stepped off her bicycle long enough to send one angry tweet via Twitter — and it's changed the way one fast-growing burger chain treats bike riders ... after biking last week into the drive-through of the local Burgerville — an eco-conscious burger chain that even recycles its used cooking oil into biodiesel — she tried to order four cheeseburgers ... She was refused service at the drive-through for, of all things, ordering from a bike."

[ed: we'll table the discussion about the seeming contradiction between eschewing a car for a bike but ordering a cheeseburger instead of a salad]

The gist of the story is that this particular chain, known for its "green policies," banned bike riders from using the drive-through, citing safety concerns. Other national chains also do this, but Burgerville has decided, as a result of Ms Gilbert's experience and response, to delete (or at least modify) that policy. One supposes that's good news, at least for the bicyclists.

But is it sound risk management?

Here's why I ask: if you're on a bike going through the drive-through, aren't you at greater risk of being run-over than if you simply parked the bike out front and walked on in? I don't know the answer to that, and I spent quite some time Googling around trying to find stats to prove the case either way.

No luck; perhaps one of our resourceful readers has access to this info and would be willing to share it?

Of course, this same principle would apply to drive-up ATM's [ed: and BTW, what is it with braille markings on drive-up ATM's? Isn't that oxymoronic?], and I didn't see any stats on that either.

While I understand how riders must feel when they find themselves barred from the drive-up, how big is that lawsuit going to be the first time one gets creamed by a Caddy? Which also begs the question: is this policy driven by insurance company rules as much as common sense?

It's funny how things snowball: when I began to write this post, I had two questions that were still unanswered: one, stats on bikes and drive-throughs and two, whether or not insurance carriers played a role in the "no bike" rule. Since this falls under the general aegis of "P&C," I called on my colleagues in that field. There seems to be a mixed bag of answers: it doesn't appear to be a general industry rule that Wendy's et al post and enforce a "no bikes" rule. There may well be carriers which include that verbiage, but it doesn't seem to be a standard policy clause.

One colleague suggested that it may have to do with the inherent risk of letting people walk up to the window: if they pull a gun and ask for money, they can be gone pretty quickly. If they're in a car, they're likely blocked front and rear (and, of course there's the license plates). There's also a slippery slope here: in my research, I noted that there were at least a few incidents where folks on "Rascals" (motorized wheelchairs) were also turned away, presumably for the same "safety concerns" as the bikers. If Burgerville lets bikers use the drive-through, what can they say to Granny in her Rascal. Or Joe in his "regular" wheelchair?

The other concern regarding safety is this: at drive-through speeds, if my Honda hits your Buick, there are some scrapes and dents, but no one's getting care-flighted. But if my Ford hits you on your Schwinn, there could be some major injuries.

The bottom line, such as one exists here, is that this really isn't as cut-and-dried as it might at first appear. Risk management means taking into account all the variables (or at least as many as possible), and sometimes we don't like the answers.

Cavalcade of Risk #86: Call for submissions

The Political Calculations blog hosts next week's edition. Submissions are due this Monday (the 24th). PC requests that you include:

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

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

You can submit your post via Blog Carnival or email.

HOSTING: We're scheduling fall Cav's now, please let me know if you'd like to host one.

Late Breaking Wonkery

Health Business Blog's David Williams hosts this week's Health Wonk Review. Today's edition of this bi-weekly compendium of all that's wonky is a bit late out of the gate but well worth the wait.

Do check it out.

ObamaCare 2011

"Hundreds of [physicians] in the New York area have withdrawn from the government’s [Public Option] program, citing delays in getting reimbursed by the government, a [provider's] group said Wednesday.

The Greater New York [Medical] Association, which represents [doctors] in the New York metro area, said about half its 425 members have left the program because they cannot afford to offer more [health care]. They’re also worried about getting repaid."

We now return you to regularly scheduled blogging.

Are You on "God's Team?"

PresBo wants you to be:

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death"

Yes, our Spiritual Leader in Chief© really said that in a conference call with some 1000 Rabbis, as he urged them to supplement his bully bimah with their real ones. As an aside, whatever happened to that much vaunted proscription from the left regarding "separation of church and state?"

Or is that only on the right side of the equation?

This little pep talk was especially inappropriate when one considers the overarching Torah commandment to "choose life." This is, of course, in direct contravention to the proposed cuts in Medicare, the rush to rationing, and the inclusion of abortion coverage in the House bill.

Amen?

I Drank WHAT?!

Such were Socrates' (alleged) last words in the best-forgotten film "Real Genius." Apparently, the prototypical Greek sage was also covered by the VA:

"Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices" ... Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman ... a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing."

President Bush quickly put the kibosh on that little missive, but it has been, um, resurrected by the Obamastration.

The pamphlet "presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."

Is this the model upon which ObamaCare will draw? But of course.

Now, what was that railing against those of us opposed to "Death Panels?"

[Hat Tip: NRO]

It's All Fun and Games - Until Somebody Gets Hurt

There's nothing funny or amusing about our rush to socialized medicine, but that doesn't mean the debate has to be dry or humorless. Want to see how a gummint-run health care system would work? Well, here's your chance:

Can You Make It To The Hospital In Time?

[Hat Tip: Lyndsi Thomas]

Grandma's Throwing AARP Under the Bus

Earlier this summer, we reported that AARP seemed to have no qualms about selling out their own membership. Well, to borrow a phrase, it seems those chickens have come home to roost:

"CBS News has learned that up to 60,000 people have cancelled their AARP memberships since July 1, angered over the group's position on health care."

Ooops.

And they're not just leaving AARP (although AARP seems to have left them): a lot of them are voting with their Social Security checks by joining the conservative-leaning American Seniors Association, and a sweet deal it is, too:

"The American Seniors Association (ASA) invites any American Association of Retired Persons member to mail us your torn AARP card and receive a 2 year- for- 1 year membership with ASA."

That's gonna leave a mark.

AARP's losing some veteran members, too:

"Elaine Guardiani has been with AARP for 14 years, and said, "I'm extremely disappointed in AARP."

Retired nurse Dale Anderson has 12 years with AARP and said, "I don't wanna be connected with AARP."

This is more interesting than it might at first appear: presuming that these folks joined up upon becoming eligible, they're just now hitting the "senior circuit," thus robbing AARP of what would presumably be many years of dues.

And unlike AARP's record of flip-flops on ObamaCare, the ASA is unequivocally agin' it:

"The American Seniors Association is flat-out against President Obama's plan, which calls for $313 billion dollars in Medicare cuts over ten years. The AARP is widely viewed as supporting the President."

Doesn't get any clearer than that.

Can you believe it? Another Insurance Horror!

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

According to Congressman Joe Sestak, Democrat of Pennsylvania (Sestak is challenging Senator Spectre for his Senate seat in the 2010 election): “ . . . only 2 percent of claims have been paid and that four of every five applications have been rejected for minor oversight.” Horrible, horrible!

But this horror is NOT another complaint about private-sector medical insurance companies. It’s about the federal cash-for-clunkers program.

Speaking of federal programs – won’t the federales also manage American medical insurance reimbursements, after Congress votes later this year to take control of them? How smoothly can we expect that to go?

Much popular opinion seems to be that after the federal takeover, medical insurers will be prohibited from ever again refusing coverage to anyone. Also, medical insurers will be prohibited from ever again denying a claim. Yet the cash for clunkers programme denies 80% of applications and 98% of claims. Problem is, neither popular opinion nor the cash-for-clunkers outcome has any truthiness to it.

So who can we believe and what can we expect?

If there were an Obi-Wan Kenobi, he would be our only hope - if there were any hope.

Back to School Grand Rounds

The Invisible Illness Week blog hosts this week's roundup of med-posts. Be sure to attend!

One more on HR3200 Section 1233.

The administration has announced that the Democrat House majority will remove Section 1233 from HR3200 – the House version of Obamacare. This is the so-called death panel provision.

I hope no one who reads this blog is so naive as to believe this settles the matter.

The administration still intends to control medical costs by

(1) reducing fraud and waste
(2) reducing admin cost thru a single payer mechanism and
(3) limiting payments for Americans' medical treatments.

That third objective will not go away. Section 1233 has been put aside for the moment, as a political expedient to induce people who disagree with Obamacare to quiet down and get out of the way.

Meanwhile, anyone remember Barbara Wagner? Her case illustrates exactly what governments do when they are in charge of medical care. This case predicts how the Federal Government will administer a single-payer medical insurance plan.

Wagner is an Oregon woman whose cancer returned from remission in early 2008 [ed: and about whom we blogged here]. Wagner was covered under the Oregon Health Plan (a Medicaid plan). Her doctor prescribed a new cancer drug for her. But the State of Oregon health plan denied payment for the medicine. It wrote Wagner a letter, stating the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," - - that’s better known in Oregon as assisted suicide.

Wagner appealed the State’s decision twice and the State denied her appeal both times.

But the the state assured Wagner that there was no malice intended:

“Dr. Som Saha, chairman of the commission that sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, said Wagner is making an "unfortunate interpretation" of the letter and that no one is telling her the health plan will only pay for her to die.

See? No malice. Only an “unfortunate interpretation.” All better now, right?

Technically this story proves the Obama administration is telling the truth.

There may be a commission, but no officials are “telling us” it is a death panel. I mean now really, who would tell us that anyway? Fer cryin out loud, it’s a HEALTH Plan Commission. HEALTH, not death. Don’t you see, health has nothing to do with death? So, everyone can stop worrying. No government official is telling us that there will be death panels. That must mean if you don’t get the care your doctor prescribes, it’s just “unfortunate”. People who say otherwise are uninformed. People who say otherwise are repeating fishy things and should be reported to the authorities.

Oh yeah – Barbara Wagner died. May God bless her.

It is sad that her story has receded from public memory - thanks in no small part to our bumbling media – while buffoons like Nancy Pelosi are given the headlines. But you can be certain that the tactics by which the administration intends to reduce medical care spending will impose limits on government payments. And that will mean fewer treatments available for people who are receiving them now.

Nose + Face (Some Assembly Required)

On the one hand, this would seem to be good news for proponents of the status quo:

"A health care reform plan without government-run insurance is "D.O.A.," says one left-wing grassroots organizer up in arms about the possibility the Obama administration could abandon its efforts to build a "public option."

As we've repeatedly shown, the so-called "Public Option" was never a good or viable idea, although the recent rumors of its demise are, um, exaggerated. Nevertheless, the sooner that monstrosity is off the table, the sooner we can begin to look for meaningful, realistic and sustainable solutions.

Which is why I, for one, am quite puzzled at the left's seeming to throw in the towel on health care reform (or, as it's evolved, health insurance reform). If it's PO or nothing, and PO gets thrown under the bus, then who's going to be supporting a major overhaul? The right? Maybe, but I thought this was supposed to be a bipartisan effort. And if it is defeated, it's obviously not going to be at the hands of the Republicans (the minority party in the House, and facing a filibuster-proof Senate).

We are not proponents of the status quo; the current system needs work, beginning with identifying the real culprits: the cost of health care and so many mandated benefits. If the left is going to pick up its ball and go home to sulk, we're more than up to the challenge of crafting sustainable, reasonable reform.

CDHP News: Lukewarm

Late last year, the Guardian Life Insurance company surveyed 1,000 working folks, specifically looking for their attitudes and opinions about Consumer Driven Health Care. Not surprisingly, the survey found that there's a lot of misinformation about CDHP, and that if we're going to have a meaningful national debate about its role, we need to clear those up.

While "traditional" plans still hold the lion's share of the market, consumer driven products (e.g. HSA's, HRA's, etc) are gaining ground, with some 14% of the market. Still, given that the current version of HSA's has been around for almost half a decade, I found that result disappointing (although not, frankly, surprising). The survey focused on the group market, though, so these numbers may or may not translate to the individual.

Part of the problem with that anemic enrollment is that almost half the respondents (44%) believe that such plans are actually more expensive than PPO's or similar plans, and almost a third (29%) are very concerned about what would happen if there was a catastrophic claim. There are two problems with this, of course:

First, high deductible plans are almost always going to have lower premiums than comparable co-pay plans. This just makes sense: if the carrier is off the risk for the little claims, they can charge less premium. The second problem is that, come a major claim, the high deductible plan will have - at worst - no greater out-of-pocket exposure than the co-pay plan, and often a lower one.

Another interesting find is that " (a) strong majority of consumers (85%) want more control over decisions that affect their health care, and 81% think health care costs should be transparent. Nevertheless, 33% of workers feel overwhelmed by too much information already."

That's really a shame. On the one hand, it illustrates that people do want to have some say in their own care, and a majority (think they) want more transparency in that care. On the other hand, there are still a lot of folks who are saying "TMI!" Still, they represent a minority opinion, and can easily avoid that overload (just swear off WebMD and Google).

Having done a number of employee enrollment meetings over the years, I wasn't the least bit surprised by the finding that over half (53%) of those surveyed listed co-payments for doc and hospital visits, not price, as their number one concern. That's not news to me (nor, I suspect, my colleagues): after carefully explaining how the high deductible plan and accompanying savings account work, the number one question I'm asked is always "okay, Mr Stern, that's really great. But what's my co-pay?" After explaining again how the plan works, and that there are no co-pays, the second question I'm asked is always "oh, that makes sense. So, then, what's my co-pay?"

I'm not trying to make fun of the employees here - after all, we're the ones who've been pushing $10 and $15 co-pays for years - but to illustrate the uphill battle we face if we're going to break through that 14% barrier. In the event, the complete results are here, and I'd recommend reading through it for even more insights.

"Mini-Med" Update: STOP! [UPDATED & BUMPED]

[Please scroll down for update]

Just got this from one of the "mini-med" (limited benefit) companies. Seems that the Empire State has decided to review "all companies that sell Limited Medical Plans in their state for various reasons." As a result, this particular carrier is pre-emptively suspending sales of its products in New York. I'm sure that, as the day goes on, I'll be receiving similar notices from other carriers in that market.

A quick look around the New York DOI site yielded no additional information on this; I've emailed this particular carrier for more details.

We'll keep you posted.

UPDATE: No thanks to the carrier who sent out the original "alert," we've been able to confirm that the New York Department of Insurance is, in fact, "reviewing the sales practices of insurance companies that provide limited benefit health insurance plans." It's also worth noting that, despite the growing number of carriers offering these plans, the email in the original post was the only one I've received on this. Strange.

In the event, Gov David Paterson is concerned that these "plans provide less coverage than what consumers are led to believe."

That's probably correct: unfortunately, sometimes people believe what they want to believe, and agents sometimes feed into that assumption.

In addition to requesting information from the carriers who market these plans, the DOI is planning a series of public hearings on the matter. For more details, here's the press release.

Weird Carrier Tricks [UPDATED & BUMPED]

[Please scroll down for update]

This one would initially seem to fall under our Stupid Carrier Tricks category, but it also seems to have a "happy ending:"

"An Anthem [insured] could not believe it when her insurance company refused to pay for a $77 blood test that would show if her breast cancer was still in remission ... but was willing to pay for a much more expensive pet scan, which costs thousands of dollars."

Hunh?

Apparently, Heather Toplak is a 35 year old breast cancer survivor, who needs annual blood screenings to determine if she's still in remission. Such tests are generally considered "standard of care," meaning that they're usually covered expenses, unlike much more expensive scans. This can save the insurer (and thus, its policyholders) a lot of money, which would seem to be a good thing.

During her battle with the cancer, Anthem apparently had no qualms about paying for various treatments and procedures [ed: Hey, aren't they supposed to fight these types of claim tooth and nail, and then cancel the offending insured's coverage? Looks like someone didn't get the memo!]. The follow-up blood test was denied as "not medically necessary," and recommended that she instead undergo a (much more expensive) Pet Scan. One presumes, given her condition, that she would have already met most (if not all) of her own out-of-pocket maximum, meaning that Anthem would have footed most or all of that bill.

Now, the twist: Mrs Toplak contacted her local TV-news troubleshooter, who in turn contacted the insurer. Anthem has reversed its decision, and "has agreed to pay for the [blood test]. Not only that, they are changing their policy on paying for these blood tests going forward."

Kudos!

The story still left a few unanswered questions:

■ Why was an Arizona woman covered by Anthem (since that state is served by BCBS of Arizona)?

■ What type of policy did she have, a co-pay plan or an HSA?

That second question is important because it's generally presumed that folks with HSA plans are more attuned to these issues.

I've emailed the reporter for clarification. So far, I haven't heard back. We'll let you know if and when we do.

[Hat Tip: FoIB Rick B]

UPDATE: In the comments, reader John H tells us that Mrs Toplak is most likely covered under the "Bluecard" program, which enables folks who live in states served by other "Blues" to have essentially seamless cover.

And we've heard from Carey Peña, the reporter on whose work we based this post. She tells us that she appreciates our "posting the story and hope that it helps advance the conversation."

In response to our question regarding the type of coverage involved, she writes:

"I’m not at liberty to answer your questions due to the privacy that I extend to my interview subjects. However I am more than happy to forward your link and request to Mrs. Toplak and if she wants, she can contact you directly with additional information."

That's an entirely reasonable response; we'll let you know if we hear from Mrs Toplak.

Slashing CEO Comp, Saving Money?

Our own Bob V has made this point before, but it bears repeating, and who better than FoIB Flarin' Karen. She notes that Cigna's CEO reportedly makes some $30 million a year. She further notes that Cigna insures about 11 million people. She then observes:

"If he worked for free then each insured would pay $3 per year less in premiums on a policy that costs about $10,000 or more per year.

If their $1.7 billion operating expenses were reimbursed to the insured, they'd save less than $200 per year.

Savings we can believe in!"

Amen!

Forget Chilling - Try Freezing!

We were perplexed and a bit put out by the Obamistration's Big Brother effort with the tattle-tale email addy.

And were alarmed when this was expanded to an entire website given over to collecting "misinformation."

But this is beyond stunning:

"Since 2000, it has been the policy of the federal government not to use such technology. But the OMB is now seeking to change that policy and is considering the use of cookies for tracking web visitors across multiple sessions and storing their unique preferences and surfing habits."

When one surfs the 'net, one invariably picks up these little info gathering pieces of code, which are used for a variety of purposes (some benign, some not so much). The best definition I could find says that cookies are "a piece of text that a Web server can store on a user's hard disk. Cookies allow a Web site to store information on a user's machine and later retrieve it."

As noted above by the ACLU (not exactly a bastion of right-wing ideology), it has long been our gummint's policy to eschew cookies, encouraging citizen participation.

But that was then, and this is now:

"Without explaining this reversal of policy, the OMB is seeking to allow the mass collection of personal information of every user of a federal government website."

This means, for example, that if you visit that Big Brother site, our most transparent administration ever will be able to see many (perhaps most) of the websites that you've previously visited. And because of in-place regulations, once this data is collected, they are forbidden to destroy it.

Now, one might say that this is no big deal, because there's no way they can match up your "hit" with any personally identifiable information.

And one would be wrong:

How many of us shop online? How many use our real names (or even parts of our real names) in email addresses and when leaving comments? These are easily "picked up" by various cookies, and could potentially become government policy. Before you fit me for a tin-foil hat, do a little research and prove me wrong.

But be convincing.

And, perhaps, be afraid.