Harry Reid revealed what many of us already know; that when it comes to health care reform the Democrats are a one trick pony. Their only idea for fixing the issue, or any issue, is a government take-over, also known as a public option. That's it. If that doesn't happen then they are out of ideas.
Harry Reid has said that there is no purpose to health care reform if there is not a public option, and yet the public support for that public option is dwindling -- pretty rapidly. According to previous statements by the President this means you want the status quo, but that's not true either.
The "my way or the highway" statements of the president have indicated that if you don't support the public option then you don't support reform. This must be because they have no other ideas, no inkling of how to institute reform without the government taking over the industry. The problem is that even though they are out of ideas, other people aren't and yet the Dems are unwilling to listen to anything that does not include their one and only public option solution.
They are definitely a one trick pony and their only trick is to take a big ole crap on the American people. Maybe it's time they learn a new one.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Caps on Insurance Company Profits
In House Bill 3200 there is a provision that states your insurance company will have to re-imburse you if they made too much money (according to the government of course) in the premium Vs payout ratio. So what will they do in the years, currently paid for with those overruns, when the payout exceeds the premium? Nothing would be my guess. So here again we have the government dictating the profits that a private company can make.
This is from page 24 of bill.
A qualified health benefits plan shall meet a medical loss ratio as defined by the Commissioner. For any plan year in which the qualified health benefits plan does not meet such medical loss ratio, QHBP offering entity shall provide in a manner specified by the Commissioner for rebates to enrollees of payment sufficient to meet such loss ratio.
It does specify that it is based on a benefit year so there is no provision for balancing the good years against the bad; nor does it say exactly who is going to be calculating this ratio or how.
This sounds an awful lot like government dictating privat industry profits to me. What do you think?
This is from page 24 of bill.
A qualified health benefits plan shall meet a medical loss ratio as defined by the Commissioner. For any plan year in which the qualified health benefits plan does not meet such medical loss ratio, QHBP offering entity shall provide in a manner specified by the Commissioner for rebates to enrollees of payment sufficient to meet such loss ratio.
It does specify that it is based on a benefit year so there is no provision for balancing the good years against the bad; nor does it say exactly who is going to be calculating this ratio or how.
This sounds an awful lot like government dictating privat industry profits to me. What do you think?
White House Misinformation
The largest bit of misinformation is what is coming out of the white house about being able to keep your coverage if you like it. All you have to do is read the text of the bill to find out that this is absolutely not true. Well, it's sort of true I guess, you can keep it for 5 years if it meets the government standard and your employer doesn't change a single thing in your benefits for those 5 years.
I found the text of the bill, one that didn't crash my computer when I tried to pull it up, at http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf and I encourage everybody to read it.
Sec 102 beginning on page 16 of the bill is laughingly titled "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage". Here's the rundown on this section.
subsection (a)describes individual coverage and defines grandfathered as any insurance in effect before year 1 of this new bill and which does not change.
subsection (b)defines the grace period for employer based health plans. If we get to keep it if we like it then why exactly is there a grace period? Here's what it says...
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.
So this means that we get to keep the insurance we like for up to 5 years if, and only if, it meets the requirements set down by the government. They even define "acceptable coverage" and your plan has to meet their definition of this acceptable coverage in order for you to keep it, and then you can only keep it for 5 years before being forced off of it. Your employer may still be able to offer you a plan after that, but it will be whatever plan the government deems "acceptable".
The bill also includes information to determine whether your employer has the right to be "self insured" which means that they write the plan and absorb the costs while paying an insurance company to administer the benefits. So the government can come back and tell your employer that -- although your business has decided to self insure and your accountants are sure you can support it-- being self insured is just too risky and you can't do it. Gee, guess you better put your employees on that government plan. Nice!
So tell me again Mr President how I am going to be able to keep my coverage if I like it. Lie to me one more time.
I found the text of the bill, one that didn't crash my computer when I tried to pull it up, at http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf and I encourage everybody to read it.
Sec 102 beginning on page 16 of the bill is laughingly titled "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage". Here's the rundown on this section.
subsection (a)describes individual coverage and defines grandfathered as any insurance in effect before year 1 of this new bill and which does not change.
subsection (b)defines the grace period for employer based health plans. If we get to keep it if we like it then why exactly is there a grace period? Here's what it says...
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.
So this means that we get to keep the insurance we like for up to 5 years if, and only if, it meets the requirements set down by the government. They even define "acceptable coverage" and your plan has to meet their definition of this acceptable coverage in order for you to keep it, and then you can only keep it for 5 years before being forced off of it. Your employer may still be able to offer you a plan after that, but it will be whatever plan the government deems "acceptable".
The bill also includes information to determine whether your employer has the right to be "self insured" which means that they write the plan and absorb the costs while paying an insurance company to administer the benefits. So the government can come back and tell your employer that -- although your business has decided to self insure and your accountants are sure you can support it-- being self insured is just too risky and you can't do it. Gee, guess you better put your employees on that government plan. Nice!
So tell me again Mr President how I am going to be able to keep my coverage if I like it. Lie to me one more time.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
In Case You're Feeling Left Out
I somehow was bestowed the dubious honor of being added to David Axelrod's chain letter e-mail list. Don't know how. Don't know why. Don't much appreciate the spam, but in case you were not granted the same honor, here's the e-mail that's coming from the white house. For some strange reason it reminds me of junior high school.
Dear Friend,
This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.
Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.
As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”
So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.
Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.
Thanks,
David
David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President
P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:
8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/
8 common myths about health insurance reform
Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq
8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf
Dear Friend,
This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.
Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.
As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”
So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.
Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.
Thanks,
David
David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President
P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:
8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/
8 common myths about health insurance reform
Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq
8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf
Those Greedy Doctors
In speeches promoting the need for government oversight and cost control of our health care, Obama has accused our doctors of willful negligence in their care of patients in order to make more money. Does he honestly believe this or are these just exaggerated scenarios? Either way, they're insulting to our medical professionals.
At a press conference in July he said that a doctor will remove a kid's tonsils because he can make more money subjected a child to an unnecessary surgery than be treating the sore throat. That's a nice view of the medical professionals isn't it? But perhaps that was just a bad example. Maybe he didn't really mean it; he just misspoke. Isn't that the excuse we get from Press Sec Robert Gibbs. The president misspoke. OK, I can live with that. So what did Obama do to make up for that characterization of doctors?
At the recent town hall he said that a doctor will allow a patient's diabetes to advance untreated until his foot needs to be amputated because he can make more money depriving a patient of a limb than by treating the disease itself. So we've gone from taking out tonsils unnecessarily to shopping off limbs, all out of greed. You've got to be kidding me!
Does Obama know the difference between a GP and a surgeon? First, if you go to your GP for a sore throat unless he is an ENT he's not going to be the one to take your tonsils out. Second, your GP treating you for Diabetes is definitely not going to be the one to remove your foot. Does Obama think that doctors are giving kick-backs to each other? I can hear it now, "Hey, if you let your patient slide and send the amputation my way I'll hook you up with an extra case of tongue depressors."
I don't know what kind of doctors Obama has been surrounding himself with, but these aren't the kind of doctors I've ever been exposed to. My doctors harass me to do what I need to do in order to stay healthy; they do not, nor have they ever, encouraged me to be in bad health so they can make more money off of me. If anything they've put me through more tests than I would have liked in order to find something early.
If I'm interpreting the message from Obama correctly there are three things that Obama believes.
1) The insurance companies are evil and cackle with glee each time they deny a claim.
2) Doctors go to the Sweeney Todd Medical Academy where they learn they can make more money by hacking than healing.
3) Government is the answer to all questions and concerns.
And this is what is referred to as reasonable discussion and rational debate.
At a press conference in July he said that a doctor will remove a kid's tonsils because he can make more money subjected a child to an unnecessary surgery than be treating the sore throat. That's a nice view of the medical professionals isn't it? But perhaps that was just a bad example. Maybe he didn't really mean it; he just misspoke. Isn't that the excuse we get from Press Sec Robert Gibbs. The president misspoke. OK, I can live with that. So what did Obama do to make up for that characterization of doctors?
At the recent town hall he said that a doctor will allow a patient's diabetes to advance untreated until his foot needs to be amputated because he can make more money depriving a patient of a limb than by treating the disease itself. So we've gone from taking out tonsils unnecessarily to shopping off limbs, all out of greed. You've got to be kidding me!
Does Obama know the difference between a GP and a surgeon? First, if you go to your GP for a sore throat unless he is an ENT he's not going to be the one to take your tonsils out. Second, your GP treating you for Diabetes is definitely not going to be the one to remove your foot. Does Obama think that doctors are giving kick-backs to each other? I can hear it now, "Hey, if you let your patient slide and send the amputation my way I'll hook you up with an extra case of tongue depressors."
I don't know what kind of doctors Obama has been surrounding himself with, but these aren't the kind of doctors I've ever been exposed to. My doctors harass me to do what I need to do in order to stay healthy; they do not, nor have they ever, encouraged me to be in bad health so they can make more money off of me. If anything they've put me through more tests than I would have liked in order to find something early.
If I'm interpreting the message from Obama correctly there are three things that Obama believes.
1) The insurance companies are evil and cackle with glee each time they deny a claim.
2) Doctors go to the Sweeney Todd Medical Academy where they learn they can make more money by hacking than healing.
3) Government is the answer to all questions and concerns.
And this is what is referred to as reasonable discussion and rational debate.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Pre-Existing Conditions
If you can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition you should probably shop around. There are many plans that will not apply a pre-existing condition clause, and for those that do, most will waive that if you had insurance before your current effective date.
The real purpose of a pre-existing condition clause is to prevent people from only spending the money on insurance after they know they need it. Insurance is supposed to be a "just in case" situation and the premiums are based on the risk of the health care costs you will accrue. The idea is that you'll pay while using it little and that money will be there if you need to use it a lot.
Is it fair to the company which will cover you to go without insurance until you know you need it, and then expect them to pay for everything you've let go for years? I can already hear many people saying, yes it is, those evil insurance company bastards just want to steal my money and not cover me. This might be a slight exaggeration.
The healthy people paying their insurance premiums are paying for the sick people paying their premiums. It all goes into one big pool and the insurance company prays that they don't have to pay out more than they take in. The pre-existing clause is designed to help with that goal.
Would you wait until after a tornado struck your home to obtain homeowners insurance and then expect the new company to pay for the damage done before your coverage began? Waiting until you're sick to try to obtain insurance is basically the same thing. The tornado has struck and now you're saying "oh shit I better get covered."
HIPPA regulations currently limit the wait time for a pre-existing condition to be covered to 12 months, but most companies will waive this, again, if you've had insurance previously. This is due to the probability that you've been receiving treatment for it and have not just allowed it to get worse (and exponentially more expensive to address).
Insurance companies are companies; they do not print their own money and they do not have limitless resources. If there are no pre-existing clauses the alternative is to set the premium based on the anticipated expenses, which means that your coverage will cost you. A lot. The funny thing is that people who decide not to get coverage until they're sick expect to pay the same premium as a healthy person, and if you shop around enough you may be able to find a company with a wide enough margin to give that to you, but don't count on it.
Elimination of a pre-existing clause while simultaneously keeping the premium low is like telling somebody you'll pay them $500 a month for the use of their credit card and then charging $20,000 a month to it. You're leaving that person holding the bag for the extra $15,000; is that really fair? Maybe if they have lots of other people paying $500 per month and charging less than that. It's a big maybe.
So what's the answer to this issue? Simple, get coverage while you're healthy.
The real purpose of a pre-existing condition clause is to prevent people from only spending the money on insurance after they know they need it. Insurance is supposed to be a "just in case" situation and the premiums are based on the risk of the health care costs you will accrue. The idea is that you'll pay while using it little and that money will be there if you need to use it a lot.
Is it fair to the company which will cover you to go without insurance until you know you need it, and then expect them to pay for everything you've let go for years? I can already hear many people saying, yes it is, those evil insurance company bastards just want to steal my money and not cover me. This might be a slight exaggeration.
The healthy people paying their insurance premiums are paying for the sick people paying their premiums. It all goes into one big pool and the insurance company prays that they don't have to pay out more than they take in. The pre-existing clause is designed to help with that goal.
Would you wait until after a tornado struck your home to obtain homeowners insurance and then expect the new company to pay for the damage done before your coverage began? Waiting until you're sick to try to obtain insurance is basically the same thing. The tornado has struck and now you're saying "oh shit I better get covered."
HIPPA regulations currently limit the wait time for a pre-existing condition to be covered to 12 months, but most companies will waive this, again, if you've had insurance previously. This is due to the probability that you've been receiving treatment for it and have not just allowed it to get worse (and exponentially more expensive to address).
Insurance companies are companies; they do not print their own money and they do not have limitless resources. If there are no pre-existing clauses the alternative is to set the premium based on the anticipated expenses, which means that your coverage will cost you. A lot. The funny thing is that people who decide not to get coverage until they're sick expect to pay the same premium as a healthy person, and if you shop around enough you may be able to find a company with a wide enough margin to give that to you, but don't count on it.
Elimination of a pre-existing clause while simultaneously keeping the premium low is like telling somebody you'll pay them $500 a month for the use of their credit card and then charging $20,000 a month to it. You're leaving that person holding the bag for the extra $15,000; is that really fair? Maybe if they have lots of other people paying $500 per month and charging less than that. It's a big maybe.
So what's the answer to this issue? Simple, get coverage while you're healthy.
Fearmongering
We've been hearing a lot about fearmongering as it relates to any political debate. Right now the opposition to government run health care are being accused of spreading misinformation and fearmongering; so what exactly does that mean?
Wikipedia defines it as: is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.[citation needed]
Merriem Webster defines a Fearmonger as somebody who incites alarms needlessly.
If we use the Wikipedia definition then isn't anybody who says, "hey this bad thing could happen" considered a fearmonger?
If we use the Webster definition then is pointing out potential and probable issues around government health care really raising a needless alarm?
The biggest question though may be why it's ok to be a fearmonger when you oppose something, but bad to have a fearmonger opposing what you support? For example, does anybody remember the attempt to fix social security by phasing it out; giving the young people another option while leaving people over a certain age on the social security program? What happened to that? Opponents screamed that seniors would have their benefits taken from them and be left to die in the streets. Completelly untrue according to the information proposed but I guess that wasn't bad fearmongering because it was done by the same people crying about fearmongering now. But what is the fearmongering now? Is saying that there will be rationing of healthcare in the US based on what has happened in every other nation who has tried this type of program really fearmongering? Is telling the truth as you see it, calling out a consequence there is a high probability of occuring, fearmongering?
So here's how I see it -- Telling both faced lies about a proposed legislation and using those lies to scare the shit out of the general population is not fearmongering, but showing the true and actual potential problems of a piece of legislation is bad fearmongering.
Do I have this wrong?
Wikipedia defines it as: is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.[citation needed]
Merriem Webster defines a Fearmonger as somebody who incites alarms needlessly.
If we use the Wikipedia definition then isn't anybody who says, "hey this bad thing could happen" considered a fearmonger?
If we use the Webster definition then is pointing out potential and probable issues around government health care really raising a needless alarm?
The biggest question though may be why it's ok to be a fearmonger when you oppose something, but bad to have a fearmonger opposing what you support? For example, does anybody remember the attempt to fix social security by phasing it out; giving the young people another option while leaving people over a certain age on the social security program? What happened to that? Opponents screamed that seniors would have their benefits taken from them and be left to die in the streets. Completelly untrue according to the information proposed but I guess that wasn't bad fearmongering because it was done by the same people crying about fearmongering now. But what is the fearmongering now? Is saying that there will be rationing of healthcare in the US based on what has happened in every other nation who has tried this type of program really fearmongering? Is telling the truth as you see it, calling out a consequence there is a high probability of occuring, fearmongering?
So here's how I see it -- Telling both faced lies about a proposed legislation and using those lies to scare the shit out of the general population is not fearmongering, but showing the true and actual potential problems of a piece of legislation is bad fearmongering.
Do I have this wrong?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Obama On Immigration Reform
While at the North American Summit, President Obama addressed the issue of illegal immigration. The clips below are from the Washington Post.
"Wrapping up the two-day meeting, Obama said that there needs to be "a pathway to citizenship" for millions of illegal immigrants in the United States, and that the system must be reworked to avoid tensions with Mexico. Without it, he said, Mexicans will keep crossing the border in dangerous ways and employers will continue exploiting workers."
Avoid tensions with Mexico? So having a secure boarder might create tensions with our neighboring nation, but we'll pay no attention to the tensions created within our own nation over NOT securing the boarder. Isn't this like saying that though the neighbors keep breaking in to my house I'm not going to lock my doors because my neighbors may not like it? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it?
Mexicans will keep crossing the boarder in dangerous ways? So what we're really interested in here is making it less dangerous for the Mexicans to violate our immigration laws? I know that's my top priority when it comes to immigration reform. It's so dangerous to break our laws that we should just do away with the laws all together. That will make everything so much nicer because right now it's just tragic what they have to go through to bypass all of our immigration laws and boarder patrols. I think it is tragic what people suffer when violating our laws, but we can't forget that they wouldn't be going through any of it if they weren't violating our laws.
Employers will continue to exploit workers? The workers of course have no culpability in their own exploitation; or should we make it easier for them to get false documentation so they aren't exploited. It's just so unfair that we don't give somebody who shouldn't be here taking the job of a citizen the same way we treat the citizen. How rude.
"We can create a system in which you have . . . an orderly process for people to come in, but we're also giving an opportunity for those who are already in the United States to be able to achieve a pathway to citizenship so that they don't have to live in the shadows," Obama said during an hour-long news conference at the Cabañas Cultural Center in downtown Guadalajara. "Am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done? No. This is going to be difficult."
So they don't have to live in the shadows? How dare we force the people who break into our country without documentation, violating our immigration and labor laws and putting stress on our educational and healthcare systems, to live in the shadows.
The common theme in these statements from Obama is that none of the fault for the illegal immigration issue lies with the illegal immigrants. It's all our fault and the poor illegal immigrants are being unfairly forced into dangerous environments to get here illegally, exploited when they try to work illegally, and live in the shadows like a criminal just because they're here illegally.
So the people who violate the laws are the victims and the people who seek to uphold the law are the criminals. Isn't that typical.
"Wrapping up the two-day meeting, Obama said that there needs to be "a pathway to citizenship" for millions of illegal immigrants in the United States, and that the system must be reworked to avoid tensions with Mexico. Without it, he said, Mexicans will keep crossing the border in dangerous ways and employers will continue exploiting workers."
Avoid tensions with Mexico? So having a secure boarder might create tensions with our neighboring nation, but we'll pay no attention to the tensions created within our own nation over NOT securing the boarder. Isn't this like saying that though the neighbors keep breaking in to my house I'm not going to lock my doors because my neighbors may not like it? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it?
Mexicans will keep crossing the boarder in dangerous ways? So what we're really interested in here is making it less dangerous for the Mexicans to violate our immigration laws? I know that's my top priority when it comes to immigration reform. It's so dangerous to break our laws that we should just do away with the laws all together. That will make everything so much nicer because right now it's just tragic what they have to go through to bypass all of our immigration laws and boarder patrols. I think it is tragic what people suffer when violating our laws, but we can't forget that they wouldn't be going through any of it if they weren't violating our laws.
Employers will continue to exploit workers? The workers of course have no culpability in their own exploitation; or should we make it easier for them to get false documentation so they aren't exploited. It's just so unfair that we don't give somebody who shouldn't be here taking the job of a citizen the same way we treat the citizen. How rude.
"We can create a system in which you have . . . an orderly process for people to come in, but we're also giving an opportunity for those who are already in the United States to be able to achieve a pathway to citizenship so that they don't have to live in the shadows," Obama said during an hour-long news conference at the Cabañas Cultural Center in downtown Guadalajara. "Am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done? No. This is going to be difficult."
So they don't have to live in the shadows? How dare we force the people who break into our country without documentation, violating our immigration and labor laws and putting stress on our educational and healthcare systems, to live in the shadows.
The common theme in these statements from Obama is that none of the fault for the illegal immigration issue lies with the illegal immigrants. It's all our fault and the poor illegal immigrants are being unfairly forced into dangerous environments to get here illegally, exploited when they try to work illegally, and live in the shadows like a criminal just because they're here illegally.
So the people who violate the laws are the victims and the people who seek to uphold the law are the criminals. Isn't that typical.
Specter Tells The Truth
At the town hall in Pennsylvania Senator Specter finally tells the truth about Washington by making the statement that he didn't have to be at that town hall and he was under no obligation to meet with his constituents.
So what he's really saying is that he's doing the people of PA a huge favor by actually listening to them. I guess I must be reallly naive because I was under the impression that the Senators worked for the people.
His statement that he was under no obligation to listen is the perfect reflection of what's going on right now, but it also reveals how these town halls are perceived by the legislators. If they don't think they are obligated to listen, then they won't, and these town halls are all for show. They will do what they want to do and what the people think about it matters not a jot.
Finally, somebody tells the truth about how the politicians view the people.
So what he's really saying is that he's doing the people of PA a huge favor by actually listening to them. I guess I must be reallly naive because I was under the impression that the Senators worked for the people.
His statement that he was under no obligation to listen is the perfect reflection of what's going on right now, but it also reveals how these town halls are perceived by the legislators. If they don't think they are obligated to listen, then they won't, and these town halls are all for show. They will do what they want to do and what the people think about it matters not a jot.
Finally, somebody tells the truth about how the politicians view the people.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Creating Terrorists
We've been repeatedly advised that our behavior in going on the offensive against Islamic Jihadists has created even more terrorists instead of reducing them; that the harder we attack the more vehemently they oppose us. Why then are the Democratic leaders not following their own advise when dealing with irate Americans?
We who speak out against policies we strongly disagree with have already been labeled as radicals and potential terrorists, our ideals scoffed at and our very existance marginalized, but has this shut us up or has it made us louder?
Is it logical or reasonable to believe that disregarding the opinions of people already upset with their leadership will help a volatile situation, especially considering that the situations is only volatile because people feel they are not being heard? Is it really a good idea to deal with a dissenting opinion by telling the concerned people to sit down and shut up whiile in no way addressing the concerns that drove them to speak, or are you only swelling their ranks?
By going on the offensive and referring people to exercise their very American right to question their government as Unamerican, the leadership appears to be alienating even more people. The support for the Obama plan is steadily declining and yet on July 29th Time published an article titled "Americans Back Reform, Worry Over Details". Although the title says we all support the reform, in the body it indicates that over 60% believe that with the government plan the cost and the complexity will rise, while 56% believe that we will no longer be able to choose our own doctors. Yet the title says we back this reform and we wonder why people are getting frustrated.
The leadership will argue that they have told us repeatedly that these things will not happen, that costs will not go up and we'll be able to keep our doctors, and what possible reason could we have for questioning the word of our politicians. They wouldn't lie to us don't you know.
My question is this; will the pat answer of "because I said so" combined with the stradegy of discreting dissenters serve to reduce protests -- or increase them?
We who speak out against policies we strongly disagree with have already been labeled as radicals and potential terrorists, our ideals scoffed at and our very existance marginalized, but has this shut us up or has it made us louder?
Is it logical or reasonable to believe that disregarding the opinions of people already upset with their leadership will help a volatile situation, especially considering that the situations is only volatile because people feel they are not being heard? Is it really a good idea to deal with a dissenting opinion by telling the concerned people to sit down and shut up whiile in no way addressing the concerns that drove them to speak, or are you only swelling their ranks?
By going on the offensive and referring people to exercise their very American right to question their government as Unamerican, the leadership appears to be alienating even more people. The support for the Obama plan is steadily declining and yet on July 29th Time published an article titled "Americans Back Reform, Worry Over Details". Although the title says we all support the reform, in the body it indicates that over 60% believe that with the government plan the cost and the complexity will rise, while 56% believe that we will no longer be able to choose our own doctors. Yet the title says we back this reform and we wonder why people are getting frustrated.
The leadership will argue that they have told us repeatedly that these things will not happen, that costs will not go up and we'll be able to keep our doctors, and what possible reason could we have for questioning the word of our politicians. They wouldn't lie to us don't you know.
My question is this; will the pat answer of "because I said so" combined with the stradegy of discreting dissenters serve to reduce protests -- or increase them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
