When Politicians Run Health Care

From National Review Online:

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

So what has that to do with health care?

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

And who doesn't.

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

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

Inquiring minds want to know.

ObamaCare© and You: Late March MVNHS© Report

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

■ The Ambulance Dance

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

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

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

[Hat Tip: Bob Vineyard]

■ Reconstructing Patsy

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

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

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

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

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

But of course.

Insurers Save ObamaCare© From Itself

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

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

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

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

Grand Rounds - "Reform" edition

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

Passover 5770/2010

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

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

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

The REAL Costs of ObamaCare©

Submitted for your consideration:

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

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

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

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

But hey, they "fixed health care."

Right?

Viva ObamaCare©!

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

What could possibly go wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

Still think this is about health care?

[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]

Sol-Tax, Bo-Tax and Ko-Tax

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

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

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

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

Under Pressure...

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



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

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

Cato Gets it (Way!) Wrong [UPDATED]

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

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

Um, no:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I rest my case.

Cavalcade of Risk #101: Up Down Under

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

ObamaCare© Can't Even Screw Up Correctly

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

Um, no:

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

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

The Face of ObamaCare©

Jumping into the pool...

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

But mostly, they're expensive.

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

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

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

Uh-hunh....

National Diabetes Alert Day

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

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

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

■ Quick Reference Information: Medicare Preventive Services

and

■ Diabetes-Related Services Brochure

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

Celebrating Women: Grand Rounds is up!

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

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

March 18, 2010:

Dear Census Director:

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

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

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

Please advise.

Thank you, in advance, for your courtesy.

eGrumps

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

ObamaCare Passes: So Now What?

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

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

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

The Public Be Damned

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

Interesting, eh?

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

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

The Public be damned.