Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

OpEd: Real Healthcare Reform Should Focus On Care, Not Just Coverage

O-Care’s one-size-fits-all failure

By: Nancy Pfotenhauer  -  The Hill  -  May 8, 2016

Many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree that universal health insurance is the central goal of a successful health care reform. The left sold the Affordable Care Act to the American people on this promise; the right hopes to do the same with an alternative plan set to be unveiled later this year.

Both sides are trying to fix the wrong problem. Universal health insurance is profoundly different from better health care—and so long as reformers focus on the former, the latter will continue to deteriorate.

Real healthcare reform must improve the quality of America’s healthcare system. At its most fundamental level, healthcare exists to improve individuals’ health outcomes and overall well-being. Beneficial reforms will thus improve those outcomes, increase healthcare’s quality and lower its costs, with the ancillary effect of expanding its availability.

This is a more worthy goal than putting a health insurance card in everyone’s hand, a la ObamaCare and its Republican replacements. Universal health insurance is merely the provision of a service regardless of that service’s quality. This cannot be achieved without the assistance of a massive bureaucratic apparatus in Washington that stifles innovation, limits consumer choice and increases its costs. Thus, reforms that seek universal health insurance decrease healthcare’s quality, and they don’t deliver on their promise to make coverage universal.

Better healthcare will not be realized without unleashing market-driven innovation. Reformers can’t pretend that this existed prior to Obama-Care’s passage. Then, as now, federal regulations hemmed in consumers and innovators on every side. ObamaCare’s mandates only expand this restrictive regulatory regime.

Innovators and consumers should be unshackled from the reams of red tape. This starts by putting patients—not bureaucrats or insurance companies—at the center of health care. Patients must be free to choose a health plan that is tailored to their needs, not one with benefit mandates created by special interests. Patients need access to real-time health care provider data that doesn’t hide costs or quality behind an impenetrable wall of bureaucratic regulations. Patients should be empowered to improve their own health using breakthrough technologies and personalized treatments.

Thus free to choose, consumers will seek out products and services that actually fit their needs. Innovators will concurrently strive to develop treatments and health care options that consumers want—and at a price they can afford.

No one-size-fits-all federal policy can accomplish this goal.

For instance, several state and federal laws prevent innovators and consumers from working together. So, multiple policy proposals targeting these barriers should be considered and challenged. 

National Center for Policy Analysis President John Goodman’s ideas about improving the poor’s access to care can be coupled with Cato Institute Director of Health Policy Studies Michael Cannon’s ideas about getting prices closer to consumers. Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-Okla.) idea about equalizing the tax treatment of insurance policies can be one of a number of policies, along with Rep. Steve Scalise’s (R-La.) and Rep. Tom Price’s (R-Ga.) slightly different approaches. Economist John Cochrane has proposals to help those with pre-existing conditions; Bob Graboyes, a senior research fellow at George Mason University, details how we can unleash healthcare innovation. And ideas by the likes of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), and many others all have promise.

Every proposal should be judged by whether it leads to better healthcare for individuals and families, not whether it gives them a health insurance plan they don’t want or can’t afford. Until this shift happens, the country’s healthcare system will continue to serve Washington’s whims rather than Americans’ well-being. 

Pfotenhauer is the president of MediaSpeak Strategies and a senior adviser with Freedom Partners, a nonprofit advocate for free-market policy.

Friday, March 21, 2014

Are You Ready to Take Your Senior to ER?

How to be ready for emergencies so you and your senior can get to the hospital and be comfortable while you deal with the Emergency Room or extended stay. by francy Dickinson  -  SeniorCareTips

GrabnGo ER Kit 4 You!

Grab n Go Ready ER Kit – Just 4 You!

Dear Francy; I live in a small community and my dad lives with us. He had issues last week, his heart was in a race and he was fainting…on the floor…I was in a panic. I called the doctor, because dad was on a lot of heart meds and they said take him to hospital. A neighbor helped me get him in the car and off we went for a 28 minute drive to the hospital. Once there…they took over…but I just lost my head. I had none of his information with me, we start in ER and then were there for two more days while his drugs were adjusted and watched.  I was exhausted, worried and still dressed for work. It was an all around horrible situation. I remembered you talking about being prepared…I failed on that end…would you review the ideas for stress and emergency room trips. Thanks..Cindy, New Mexico

Thank you Cindy…don’t feel bad…I’ve been there too. You sit in that hospital and are uncomfortable…and can not just race home to change or get your things….so what I suggest is that if you are caring for a senior….YOU NEED A BAG FOR THE ER!

I have heard the stories for years…a spouse, family member or dear friend goes into a serious backward spiral and you know that you have to call 911 or take them to the hospital yourself. You are caught up in the moment of panic, worry and actual action of caring for the senior. Out the door you fly…to drive behind the ambulance or drive to the emergency care place yourself. The last thing on your mind is comfort..your mind is racing and your heart is in a high state of worry. But once at the hospital…everyone starts to ask you questions…social security numbers, health card information, does the senior have allergies, what are the medications that they are taking…you stand there in stunned silence…just wanting to be in the ER with your spouse or parent…and there you are – stuck with answering questions that you are not prepared to answer. After that nasty 15-20 minutes…you try to find your senior and they have started treatments. They are telling you things and you wish you could write them down…new ideas for treatment, interactions of medications and you are just trying to breath and tell your senior that they are OK…just hang in there. Then the ER puts the senior in a side area and they have to wait…wait for tests, wait for doctors to arrive, wait for ER or CAT scans…and the minutes stretch into hours and hours…then they say they will put the senior in a room for a couple of days…they want to keep them on close watch. Close watch? That means you don’t leave your senior’s side.

You are tired…your phone is on the last few minutes of energy…you have no phone numbers with you to use the hospital room line. You need to drink some water, have a snack but its the middle of the night and the cafeteria is not open yet and no change for the snack machines. You have now been at the hospital for 4-6 hours and you are looking at an over-night stay…sitting in a chair in the room. Nasty….and all of us…have gone through all of this and there is no reason to do that to ourselves….we do enough just loving and caring for our seniors. We need to be prepared for these fast, unscheduled emergencies….so we all need to put a kit together for our own use.

“ER Grab n Go Bag”

If you have not experienced this yet, please believe me…it happens…your senior can fall or become unwell in an instant…and you will be faced with all this drama…and wind up feeling like a fool that you did not plan ahead to make the trip so much easier for your self. REMEMBER: the hospital is going to give full care to the senior in the emergency…YOU are the one that is not going to be cared for…you are simply in their way…so you stay quiet and try to stay close to your senior so you can give them calm and love. BE PREPARED!

ER Info Kit for your Senior

ER Info Kit for your Senior

START WITH ER INFO KIT FOR YOUR SENIOR

I keep an ER info Kit for George in my handbag…and one in the kitchen. I have given one to my sister and his kids know where I keep another copy. I have all the info that the ER entry office person is going to ask me. There is a good copy of all his cards, front and back. There is a review of what he is allergic to and his personal needs for check-in. There is a very detailed medical prescription and doctor listing and there is Power Of Attorney or a letter signed…that allows you to give and get medical information. I also tuck in the driving instructions so if I get too nervous or stressed…I can still get to the hospital. This is a must…and you have to take time to type it up and make copies…and then you are set to go. I update my medication listing…and you will find a whole blog on the details on April 21, 2010 called “If your senior goes to ER, are you ready” Please put that in the search bar on the top of the page and read over that blog…it has all the details for the paperwork to get you in the out of the check-in process of hospital or doctor visits. I can not tell you how many health care professionals tell me how they love my kit…you will too.

Just remember this information is all of the personal ID on the senior and it has to be kept private and safe…so keep it protected...I use a plastic envelope and I also have a whole booklet that I use for his medical information. If you do put together the “Grab n Go Ready Kit” you will also have a spiral notebook n pen to take notes. Trust me…I have given care to my mum and my husband for over 10 years now…you need these items when you go to the doctor and the hospital. I know you may think they have all the patient’s information in their computer system…but you are wrong…info is rarely updated and they often lose the patient in the computer files. Be ready to give them any thing they need to help the senior get well in the middle of a crisis. Do not count on your mind…even ss# can be forgotten or mis-stated when you see someone you love in peril! (NOTE: What I remember is wasting time at the check-in window when I wanted so badly to be with my frightened 95 yr old mother in the ER room…to keep her calm. I did all of this so I would never have to repeat that.) The next time we were at the ER…the check in lady…just took my paperwork and told me she would enter it all and bring it to me in the ER…it was perfect. I have been thanked by nurses, doctors and admin-people for having the information so well-organized and it only took the time for me to enter it into the computer the first time. I update the info every six months or on medication changes. Easy -peasy for no stress check-in’s.

NOW LETS TALK YOU…HOW ARE YOU GOING TO COPE WITH HOURS IN THE ER– IF NOT DAYS IN THE HOSPITAL? JUST LIKE SCOUTS….”BE PREPARED”

hospital sleeping chairWell this is the chair you get to live in for a couple of days. As you can see it is not pretty, but it does recline and you can stay in the senior’s room…by their side and be part of their healing team. Even a First lady, does not get anything better than a sleeping chair in most hospitals. But trust me…its a lonely place if you don’t have anything with you.

So, out comes your ER GRAB n GO READY BAG…and you have a few things to make yourself feel comforted and rest as you help your senior do the same.

  1. Comfort and Warmth; I put an old pair of sweats and a warm top in the bag…with cozy warm slipper socks…that way my clothes are presentable to the public…but totally comfortable for me to sit and sleep. I also have a throw…or you could put in a hoodie so at night you can be extra warm…the hospital rooms are always cold to me. They often give you a blanket…but its never enough for me. As you see the chair it does have a lift so your feet will be up and the back will tilt. I have a pillow collar that I can tuck under my head or put on my lower back to ease the comfort level. You can get blow up neck pillows in the travel department. They are honestly the best gift to yourself in this situation. (I would rather use my things instead of hospital things…its a germ thing with me…my things make me feel safe, not worried about catching something)
  2. A small water bottle is in my bag…you can refill it in the hall with the drinking fountains. This is just a must…I don’t want to be buying soda all day…and swell up…the hospital can have dry air…so stay hydrated. I also have a couple of snack bars…to get me through. Usually the emergency is through the night and when I am able to take a few minutes to eat…the cafeteria is not open and you are faced with only snack machines. So, I have my snack bars and I tuck a few dollars in an envelope and keep in my bag. Often times, I am out of cash in my purse so this makes it easy to get anything I want out of the machines…and then I can also go to the cafeteria for a sandwich or soup during the day. I also tuck in a few tea bags and sweeteners…you can always get hot water from the nurse’s station…and it tastes so good to relax and calm yourself with tea. You can also ask them if there is a snack fridge for family….the VA has a nice area for us to go and get hot coffee, yogurt, or pudding etc – any time, when we are with our loved ones. Don’t be afraid to ask…it maybe there for you, just steps away from the room.
  3. Keep clean…wash your hands until you drop when you are in the hospital…and I have a small hand cleaner in my bag with Kleenex if I get snuffy. Plus…you will never find me wo/ my Advil. I have a bad back and I tend to get pressure headaches…so my little package of Advil that I got at the Dollar Store is heaven-sent when I’m in need. If I was taking medications…I would have a couple of ziplock baggies with a couple of days of those in my Ready Bag too. Nothing worse than going without your bladder or blood pressure med for a day or two…add in the stress and your body will really complain.
  4. Bored? Remember…people that are unwell…sleep. The hospital will give them drugs to keep them calm…but what about you? I bring a book to read. I use a Kindle but you don’t want to depend on remembering that….as you run out the door. A good old fashion paperback book and a pair of readers can be tucked in and ready for you to dive into and remove your stress in a good story. An older Mp3 player is also a great tuck in…yes, TV’s are in the rooms…but often they are on a channel that you don’t like or you can not hear them…so I make sure I have my own things to keep me calm. If you are a knitter…just tuck in an old project you have never finished…in a zip lock bag and its there for you. Think what it is that you enjoy…and make that happen in your Ready Kit.
  5. Calling the family? You need to have a re-charger in your bag…buy one that will recharge all your devises and if you tuck in your reader or tablet as you run out the door…you will be able to keep them going with your charger. Your mobile phone is your lifeline to the family…but many times the hospitals…block the cell phone signals. What then? You have to walk all the way to the front of the building and make your calls…not an easy thing to do. I had that happen to me and it was exhausting. So, write down a few of the key family phone numbers to keep posted. You can always ask them to send the information out to others. This way you can use the in-room telephone for local calling. I have my number in the front of my spiral notebook and I’m ready to go.
  6. Pets left behind…what about the mail? After a long stay in the ER and then you find out you maybe in the hospital for a day or two longer….have a neighbor or friend that has a key to your home and will take care of your pets. They can also pick up the mail and put it in the kitchen for you and just keep the lights out and everything in order while you are gone. I always put a key ring with my name on it…so the neighbor can keep it and knows who it belongs to — it could be a couple of years before the call could come for them to help….once you have this info in place…you can relax and know that all is well without you leaving your loved one to run home.
  7. A Ziplock baggie with little things that mean something to you…to keep you calm. Maybe you need cough drops…or lip balm. A new toothbrush and small toothpaste. Hand cream and face cream…Glasses and a glass cleaning cloth. Maybe you are a person that needs a few peanuts to keep you going or hand wipes to feel clean. If you are in need…you can tuck in a few Poise/Depend pads. Think comfort. NO the bag does not have to be a huge case…its just a big tote…but keep it full of things that bring you comfort…so when you are stressed and worried…you can keep yourself calm.
  8. If you forget your tote…then you call a friend to retrieve it from your hall closet and everything is in the tote..instead of the friend wandering around your home for a “few things”.

I suppose you read this and think…Oh, I will get on this pretty soon….please do not do that. Go right now and just put a few things in a bag and tuck it in the hall closet. You can make it fancy or expanded later..but get the ER senior’s information kit, in order and a few things in your own Ready Kit–RIGHT NOW. Its like giving yourself a gift…and you will rejoice in it if and when the day comes that an emergency hits your home…and you can just open a door grab your Ready Kit and walk out the door caring for your senior in need.

I always want to thank you for caring for your senior. Would you do me a favor and “sign up” up for the blog. That way it will come to you via the email and you will not miss any of the tips…and if you know someone that is a care giver…please share my blog with them…thank you.

As a spouse of a Alzheimer’s/Parkinson’s senior…I find the care giving can be so overwhelming and it represents such love. The gift of care is the dearest thing you can give to a person that has become unwell, unsteady or confused.

My Georgie has been declining a great deal lately. Falls and safety issues are a daily challenge for me to handle now. I am not blogging as much as I would like…but know I’m here for you to send me a message if you have a question or need help.

I am pleased to say I have a dear friend that helps me with my care giving….and I want to thank you for just “being there” for me in this journey I am taking with George….Friends are the best. I hope you feel I am on your friend list and you will feel free to ask questions that you may have at any time….Blessings…francy

Me with my friend Cheryl who is always helping me with George and supporting me as a loving friend...Thank you Cheryl!

Me with my friend Cheryl who is always helping me with George and supporting me as a loving friend…Thank you Chery

Monday, October 21, 2013

The Dirty Secret Behind ObamaCare No One's Talking About

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnyUrXKPOTha9z8KUu_8nUUpkDl_l3HCtlmkugcvZKwe7rPi6_nJAn5FZo3PM48tJ44vK6zV0uwUljojzxwGz2vi4FUNeEYGghmYihQ03D3qoXYaypE4ewiyCFQp6JCEJFecEz5VMZeSCP/s1600/062812_Obamacare-lied.jpg

JoshuaPundit – Cross-Posted at AskMarion: At this point, much is being made about the failure of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare.

President Obama himself tacitly admitted as much by calling in what amounts to an emergency rescue squad from Silicon Valley to try and make sense of the dysfunctional website...paid for by the American taxpayers at a staggering cost of over $500 million. (And some say it cost as much $634 Million and was not even an American company.  That’s right… that outrageous amount of American taxpayer money went to a Canadian company.)The website itself was granted to a company with connections to Obama backer George Soros, CGI Federal in a no bid contract, and the job they did was so amateurish and sloppy that they even opened the government to a lawsuit for violating the licensing agreement of a copyrighted web script used by the site.

The estimated cost to repair the system and get it up and running again may run as high as $2 billion, and it might take months to repair.

Meanwhile, Americans coast to coast are experiencing sticker shock over the huge increases to their existing healthcare policies, and the demographic ObamaCare targeted to pay the freight - largely uninsured healthy young adults - is steering clear as they discover what enrolling in ObamaCare actually entails.

For instance, here’s a typical deal that's being offered:

“One option available only to people under 30 is a so-called catastrophic policy that kicks in after a $6,350 annual deductible. In Monroe County, you can buy that policy on the New York State of Health exchange for as low as $131 a month for single coverage.”
Let's look at the math. They're offering coverage for $1,572.00 per year that only kicks in after you pay $6,350, not a sum the majority of under 30s still paying off student loans have laying around even if they happen to have full time jobs. Any wonder that healthy young adults aren't signing up, and opting to pay the tax instead? And without their participation, ObamaCare is doomed to failure.
There are significant voices on the right end of the spectrum who are saying that the best policy is simply to allow this debacle to happen. The strategy they're touting assumes that when this happens, both President Obama and the Democrats will be blamed for the colossal and expensive failure and it will all end up collapsing and eventually being repealed anyway.

They're missing two important factors.

First, no federal entitlement has ever been repealed.They just morph into something different in the name of 'reform'.

And that brings us to the second factor, the dirty secret behind ObamaCare - it was always designed to fail.

President Obama and his minions always had the goal of Sovietizing the American health care system by making it single payer and having it controlled solely by the Federal government. ObamaCare was never anything more than a poorly constructed Potemkin village designed to fail so miserably that the American people would demand single payer just to get rid on the unwieldy mess ObamaCare would create.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid admitted as much  when he was asked whether Obama Care was merely a step towards single payer answering, “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

Senator Reid's told PBS in his interview that he and other 'progressives' wanted single payer all along, but even with the Democrats having a veto proof majority in 2009, they didn't have the 60 votes needed to push it through.

“We had a real good run at the public option … don’t think we didn’t have a tremendous number of people who wanted a single-payer system,” Reid said.

But in the end, some Democrats weren't willing to go along - Reid named former Senator Joe Lieberman as a prominent obstacle - so they opted for the next best thing...a cumbersome train wreck in the making which, as an added benefit, provided plenty of pork and contracts for well connected donors as well as 'new revenues' the Democrat euphemism for increased taxes.

Not only that, but it provided funding and employment for President Obama's friends at ACORN as ObamaCare 'navigators', regardless of felony convictions and legal resident status.

That's where things stand now. The next target, especially if President Obama's union allies get the waiver they're screaming for will be an all out assault on employer-sponsored health care, with vast increases on co-pays and employee contributions...except, of course if you're lucky enough to work for someone who has a waiver or is subsidized, like members of congress and their staffers.

Repeal of ObamaCare is the only way to avoid this. 'Reform' just adds another facade to an already corrupt and crumbling structure. And repeal is going to involve electing enough members of Congress in 2014 with the spine to insist on repeal and stick to it, as well as holding their feet to the fire to make sure they don't weasel out in classic DC fashion.

And yes, those really are the only choices available.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Cabela's - It is true….

Medical Excise Tax on Retail Receipts Show How We're Screwed by Obamacare, page 1

Source – h.t to MJ: The receipt (pictured below) spells out what Obama and the feds want to keep secret - the middle class is being heavily taxed despite all the fatuous rhetoric of Democrats who invariably play the class warfare card to sell their confiscatory taxation policies.

"The 2.3% Medical Excise Tax that began on January 1st is supposed to be 'hidden' from the consumer, but it's been brought to the public's attention by hunting and fishing store Cabela's who have refused to hide it and are showing it as a separate line item tax on their receipts," the email states.

clip_image001

Now please hold on and bear with me before you say "OH, another Alex Jones article!" because I did some research and found directly from the IRS's website information that PROVES this to be true and an accurate portrayal of something hidden in Obamacare that I was not aware of!

Now being skeptical of this I went to the IRS website and found this!

Q1. What is the medical device excise tax?
A1. Section 4191 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes an excise tax on the sale of certain medical devices by the manufacturer or importer of the device.
Q2. When does the tax go into effect?
A2. The tax applies to sales of taxable medical devices after Dec. 31, 2012.
Q3. How much is the tax?
A3. The tax is 2.3 percent of the sale price of the taxable medical device. See Chapter 5 of IRS Publication 510, Excise Taxes, and Notice 2012-77 for additional information on the determination of sale price.

IRS.gov  -  So being more curious I clicked on "Chapter 5 of IRS Publication 510" And WALLAH! What do I find under "MEDICAL DEVICES" under "MANUFACTURERS TAXES"?

Manufacturers Taxes

The following discussion of manufacturers taxes applies to the tax on:

Sport fishing equipment;
Fishing rods and fishing poles;
Electric outboard motors;
Fishing tackle boxes;
Bows, quivers, broadheads, and points;
Arrow shafts;
Coal;
Taxable tires;
Gas guzzler automobiles; and
Vaccines.

IRS.govI think we have definitely been fooled, if we believe that the Affordable Care Act is all about health care. It truly does appear to be nothing more than a bill laden with a whole lot of taxes that we the people have yet to be aware of!

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Thanks Obamacare: 83% of Doctors Surveyed Say They May Quit

Kate Hicks – TownHall.com

The Doctor Patient Medical Association has released a new survey of about 700 doctors, and the results are bleak. Scary bleak. Among other dismal figures, Doctors' Attitudes on the Future of Medicine: What’s Wrong, Who’s to Blame, and What Will Fix It found that 83% of respondents are contemplating leaving the industry if Obamacare is fully implemented, owing to its disastrous projected consequences. Indeed, they openly blame the healthcare law for their industry's woes:

KEY FINDINGS

  • 90% say the medical system is on the WRONG TRACK
  • 83% say they are thinking about QUITTING
  • 61% say the system challenges their ETHICS
  • 85% say the patient-physician relationship is in a TAILSPIN
  • 65% say GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT is most to blame for current problems
  • 72% say individual insurance mandate will NOT result in improved access care
  • 49% say they will STOP accepting Medicaid patients
  • 74% say they will STOP ACCEPTING Medicare patients, or leave Medicare completely
  • 52% say they would rather treat some Medicaid/Medicare patient for FREE
  • 57% give the AMA a FAILING GRADE representing them
  • 1 out of 3 doctors is HESITANT to voice their opinion
  • 2 out of 3 say they are JUST SQUEAKING BY OR IN THE RED financially
  • 95% say private practice is losing out to CORPORATE MEDICINE
  • 80% say DOCTORS/MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS are most likely to help solve things
  • 70% say REDUCING GOVERNMENT would be single best fix.

If this isn't an airtight argument for the repeal of Obamacare, nothing is. When the people providing the actual healthcare are thinking of getting out of the game, the system is clearly broken. Here's hoping the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare this month.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Breaking: U.S. Supreme Court Meeting Today on Health Care/Eligibility Challenge

PURPURA V. SEBELIUS ASKS IF OBAMA WAS QUALIFIED TO SIGN THE BILL

by Sharon Rondeau

Will the U.S. Supreme Court Decide to Hear Purpura v. Sebelius, which challenges Obama's eligibility to have signed the health care law?

(Feb. 17, 2012) — 11:49 a.m. ET – The Post & Email has just learned that the U.S. Supreme Court will be conferencing today to decide whether or not to hear the case of Purpura v. Sebelius, which challenges the constitutionality of the health care bill and Obama’s eligibility to hold office.

Plaintiffs Nicholas Purpura and Donald R. Laster, Jr. call their challenge the “We the People” brief.

Purpura stated that his case is “the best one” to challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in March 2010 by the 111th Congress and signed by Obama. He had submitted a Request for Reargument to the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case on January 17, 2012.

Purpura has stated that “the reason they don’t want to take the case and why they’re most frightened is Count 6,” which claims that if Obama is not eligible to serve as President, the bill is null and void.

A prayer request was put out by Purpura, and today he stated that he is “getting calls from all over the country” in response to it. “People are praying at the Oklahoma Air Force base; people throughout the country…they’re even praying at the Supreme Court! They want their lawsuit heard,” he said.

A new 17-page brief with 15 pages of argument sent to the Supreme Court was dated January 27, with Purpura representing himself. “What I told them flat-out is that you have no choice but to hear this,” Purpura told The Post & Email. “Count 6 is the most important.”

Purpura also said that “Sotomayor and Kagan cannot hear this case” because of their conflict of interest, having been appointed to the court by Obama.

"Count 6" asks how Obama can "exercise the authority of the office of President" if he is not a "natural born Citizen"

Page 7 explains "Count 6," which asks if Obama is a "natural born Citizen" and therefore eligible to serve as President

Count 6 reads:

18. Count 6 Violation Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5; No Constitutional question before this Honorable Court surpasses the importance concerning this issue that must be adjudicated. Petitioner has never stated Mr. Obama is not a citizen of the United States. That being said, the Constitutional question exists: is Mr. Obama a “natural born Citizen”, if not; how can he exercise the authority of the office of President? Failure to address this Count would constitute a desertion from ones [sic] sworn fiduciary duty and betrayal of the United States Constitution. (See Article 6, Paragraph 2). The Court must consider during the years Mr. Obama was developing a power base and running for President Congress 8-times attempted to remove the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen,” suggesting an organized strategy…

19. Therefore, the question still exists whether Mr. Obama was eligible to sign “Act” in law, make appointments, institute regulations or hold the office of president?

Of this new development, Purpura told The Post & Email:

This is really important, because they’re disenfranchising the voters if they don’t hear it. The first three pages, which are the opening statement, will tell you everything, and so will the last page. The only count that really counts here is Count 6. As you know, there are ballot challenges throughout the country, and what I told them flat-out is, “You have no choice but to hear this because we have a constitutional crisis.” I’m believing, that if you read Count 6, because that’s the most important one in the whole brief, they’re sort-of trapped if they’re honest. Kagan and Sotomayor cannot by U.S. statute participate. So we’re in great shape in reality. But will they obey the statutes, or will they do what this administration is doing: ignoring the law that are on the books in the United States.

Purpura then read from the third page of the brief:

It is incumbent upon this Court to settle the issue of ‘eligibility’ post haste to afford those in the Democrat Party an opportunity to choose an “eligible” candidate to be on the ballot in November. To do otherwise disenfranchises all voters and continues the constitutional crisis that has been escalating since the Courts refused to address Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential campaign’s challenge. To ignore this constitutional challenge will have devastating consequence which this Court bears full responsibility for failing to perform its fiduciary duty pursuant to your sworn oath taken by every Member of this Court.

Source: The Post & Email

Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee

Judge Rejects Health Care Law

SCOTAS ObamaCare Hearing

Monday, December 5, 2011

All patients to be barcoded by 2013

All patients to be barcoded by 2013

The barcodes, which will be read by handheld scanners, are to be issued to patients from October next year under the orders of the Information Standards Board (ISB) for Health and Social Care.

By next April trusts have must plans on how they will implement the change-over.

The ISB is imposing the rule to cut down on the number of avoidable errors like patients being given the wrong medication.

Studies show they can stop such administrative errors by 42 per cent, according to Franck Riout of Zebra Technologies, which makes barcoding systems for NHS trusts.

Peter Walsh, chief executive of the campaign group Action Against Medical Accidents, said: "It's a good move. Patient misidentification is a recurring problem and there is a need for more consistency with wristbands across the NHS.

"Having the same procedures in every NHS hospital will prevent a number of avoidable incidents from causing harm and even worse."

The Patients Association also welcomed them - although the pressure group was a little concerned patients could end up feeling like products rather than people.

Katherine Murphy, its chief executive, said: "Looking for new and innovative ways to improve patient safety should be a top priority for all healthcare providers.

"The introduction of these barcoded wristbands could improve patient safety by making sure that mistakes do not happen.

"However, care must be taken to ensure they do not become a barrier to communication with patients.

"We do not want to end up in a situation where patients are scanned like an item in a supermarket.

"Healthcare professionals using these barcoded wristbands should make sure that they make every effort to talk to the patient and treat them with the respect that all people deserve.”

The project, originally proposed by the Department of Health and the National Patient Safety Authority in 2007, has been put back several times. The original deadline set by the ISB was July 2011

Source: The Telegraph  - h/t to Jean Stoner

Today a wristband… tomorrow an imbedded chip!

Friday, November 11, 2011

WAL-MART AIMS TO BECOME LARGEST PROVIDER OF PRIMARY HEALTHCARE SERVICES

“Wal-Mart wants to be your doctor,” writes Julie Appleby and Sarah Varney of NPR.

Well, perhaps their aspirations aren’t that great. It’s more likely that Wal-Mart sees an opportunity in the market and they want in on it.

In a request sent to the their partners, the retail giant writes that they intend “to build a national, integrated, low-cost primary care healthcare platform that will provide preventative and chronic care services that are currently out of reach for millions of Americans.”

Based on their 14-page request, it appears that Wal-Mart is looking to offer medical services that range from the management of diabetes to HIV infections, reports NPR.

On Tuesday, Wal-Mart spokeswoman Tara Raddohl confirmed the proposal.

But where did this marketplace opportunity come from and why has Wal-Mart suddenly become interested in heavily stepping up its investment in the health care industry?

It’s called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

When the federal health law takes effect in 2014, there will be millions of Americans expecting to have government or private health insurance. Obviously, demand for care and medicine will skyrocket.

Wal-Mart intends to meet that demand.

“We have a massive primary care problem that will be made worse by health reform,” says Ian Morrison, a Menlo Park, Calif.-based health-care consultant. “Anyone who has a plausible idea on how to solve this should be allowed to play.”

Wal-Mart’s in-store medical clinics could also be part of a wider effort by doctors and hospitals to “streamline care and lower costs.”

“Such collaborations [between doctors and hospitals], known as accountable care organizations, might contract with in-store medical clinics,” Paul Howard, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, confirmed in the NPR report.

“In health care, Wal-Mart has already flexed its super-size muscles when it comes to prescription drugs,” says Ed Kaplan, a senior vice president at The Segal Company, an HR benefits firm.

Kaplan went on to say that Wal-Mart could “bring its massive purchasing power to medical supplies, diabetes test strips, just about anything.”

Indeed, their efforts to collaborate with others on health care could actually help lower costs for some patients and increase access to primary care services.

Furthermore, with their impressive shipping network, Wal-Mart may be able to bring an element to the health care industry that could be very lucrative for both itself and its partners.

Nevertheless, their approach has detractors.

Glen Stream, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, says Wal-Mart’s proposal takes health care in the wrong direction by further fragmenting care. The argument is that patients should seek care from physicians who are familiar with the patient and the history of their health.

Aside from the philosophy of the doctor/patient relationship, there are critics who believe Wal-Mart’s newest initiative just won’t work.

“Maybe Wal-Mart can deliver a lot of this stuff more cheaply because it is an expert at doing this with other types of widgets, but health care is not a widget and managing individual human beings is not nearly as simple as selling commercial products to consumers,” says Ann O’Malley, a physician and senior health researcher at the Center for Studying Health System Change.

Currently, Wal-Mart has a number of in-store clinics but it has yet to figure out how to streamline its clinic business model.

NPR explains the current situation:

Until recently, Wal-Mart was the nation’s leader in opening [in-store] clinics, but has dropped to third place with about 140 of them, well behind CVS Caremark‘s nearly 550 Minute Clinics and Walgreens’ 355 Take Care clinics, according to data tracked by Tom Charland, CEO of Merchant Medicine, a Minnesota-based research and consulting firm.

About 1,300 store-based clinics are open nationwide, he says.

In 2007, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott announced the firm would open 400 clinics by 2010.

But early efforts backed by venture capital money faltered and the firm failed to reach that number . . . Wal-Mart then switched strategies and began leasing space to hospital systems, and the clinics began to grow again.

Still, last month, the firm appeared to be struggling: Wal-Mart opened three in-store clinics, but closed 10 . . .

“This is an industry where people haven’t figured out how to make money,” said Tom Charland. “My guess is the whole purpose of (Wal-Mart’s) request for information is to find someone to help them because they’ve not been able to pull it off.”

(h/t Newser)

Source:  The Blaze

Friday, August 12, 2011

Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (ObamaCare)

mandate 2

For any one who hasn’t heard… this is a critical win!!

Every GOP Candidate in the debate last night has the full repeal at or near the top of their agenda for their first day office as President of the United States.

Appeals Court Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An appeals court ruled Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the 2010 healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.

The case stems from a challenge by 26 U.S. states which had argued the individual mandate, set to go into effect in 2014, was unconstitutional because Congress could not force Americans to buy health insurance or face the prospect of a penalty.

"This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," a divided three-judge panel said.

Obama and his administration had pressed for the law to help halt the steep increases in healthcare costs and expand insurance coverage to the more than 30 million Americans who are without it.

It argued that the requirement was legal under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. One of the three judges of the appeals court panel, Stanley Marcus, agreed with the administration in dissenting from the majority opinion.

The majority "has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy," Marcus wrote.

Many other provisions of the healthcare law are already being implemented.

The decision contrasts with one by the U.S. Appeals Court for the 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, which had upheld the individual mandate as constitutional. That case has already been appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, has yet to rule on a separate challenge by the state of Virginia.

(Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky and James Vicini; Editing by Eric Beech) 

Related:

Federal Appeals Court Rules":  Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional

500 Billion New Reasons to Invalidate ObamaCare

Van Jones Group Uses Kid Video to Push Universal Health Care, Higher Taxes

Thursday, August 11, 2011

USPS proposes cutting 120,000 jobs, pulling out of health-care plan - Solution or one step closer to single-payer?

By Joe Davidson, Updated: Thursday, August 11, 3:04 PM

In an attempt to stem its financial hemorrhaging, the U.S. Postal Service is seeking to reduce its workforce by 20 percent, including through layoffs now prohibited by union contracts. USPS also wants to withdraw its employees from the health and retirement plans that cover federal staffers and create its own benefit programs for postal employees.

This major restructuring of the Postal Service’s relationship with its workforce would need congressional approval and would face fierce opposition from postal unions. But if approved, eliminating contract provisions that prevent layoffs and quitting the federal employee health and retirement programs could have ramifications for workers across the government and throughout the national’s labor movement.

In a notice to employees informing them of its proposals, with the headline “Financial crisis calls for significant actions,” the Postal Service said “we will be insolvent next month due to significant declines in mail volume and retiree health benefit prefunding costs imposed by Congress.”

The Postal Service plan is described in two draft documents obtained by The Washington Post. A “Workforce Optimization” paper acknowledges “that asking Congress to eliminate the layoff protections in our collective bargaining agreements is an extraordinary request by the Postal Service, and we do not make this request lightly. However, exceptional circumstances require exceptional remedies.

“The Postal Service is facing dire economic challenges that threaten its very existence.. . . If the Postal Service was a private sector business, it would have filed for bankruptcy and utilized the reorganization process to restructure its labor agreements to reflect the new financial reality.”

The USPS says it needs to reduce its workforce by 120,000 career positions by 2015, in addition to the 100,000 it expects through regular attrition. Some of the 120,000 could come through buyouts and other programs, but a significant number likely would be the result of layoffs, if Congress allows the agency to circumvent union contracts.

“Unfortunately, the collective bargaining agreements between the Postal Service and our unionized employees contain layoff restrictions that make it impossible to reduce the size of our workforce by the amount required by 2015,” according to the postal document. “Therefore, a legislative change is needed to eliminate the layoff protections in our collective bargaining agreements.”  (Call in Chris Christy or Scott Walker… they might be able to help you with that?!?)

How Congress will respond to the postal proposals remains to be seen. Many Republicans, including those who have sponsored legislation that labor considers anti-union, may support the plan. Some Democrats probably would back union opposition. But the Postal Service’s critical financial situation could make Democrats have second thoughts.

Two members of Congress who have introduced separate postal reform bills were non-committal on the USPS plan.

A spokeswoman for Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) said “he is particularly interested in learning whether these proposals would be fair to employees and effective in reducing the Postal Service’s costs.”

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said: “These new ideas from the Postal Service are worth exploring. Options for reform and cost savings that will protect taxpayers from paying for a bailout, now or in the future, need to be on the table.”

Although what Congress will do is unknown, the response of postal unions has been certain.

American Postal Workers Union President Cliff Guffey said, “The APWU will vehemently oppose any attempt to destroy the collective bargaining rights of postal employees or tamper with our recently-negotiated contract — whether by postal management or members of Congress.”

National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association President Don Cantriel: “We are absolutely opposed” to the layoff proposal. “We are opposed to pulling out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Our advisers are not advising us at all to even consider it.”

National Association of Letter Carriers President Fredric V. Rolando: “The issues of lay-off protection and health benefits are specifically covered by our contract. . . . The Congress of the United States does not engage in contract negotiations with unions and we do not believe they are about to do so.”

Source:  Washington Post

They have two big problems… the unions are killing them and the country in general and the WH wants everyone to end up in a single-payer system… it was always their plan!

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Understanding the House Democrats’ health care bill

Posted Tuesday, June 9th, 2009, at 10:30 am

Yesterday I posted and described the draft Kennedy-Dodd health care bill. Today I would like to do the same for an outline produced by House Democrats.

Here is a three-page outline of “Key Features of the Tri-Committee Health Reform Draft Proposal in the House of Representatives,” dated yesterday (June 8, 2009).

The three committees are:

  • The House Ways & Means Committee, chaired by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY). The Health Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA).
  • The House Energy & Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). The Health Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ).
  • The House Committee on Education & Labor, chaired by Rep. George Miller (D-CA). The Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ).

The document suggests this is a joint product of the three committees and/or their subcommittees. My sense, however, is that it is Speaker Pelosi who is driving the bus. This is in contrast to the Senate, where the committee chairmen (Kennedy/Dodd and Baucus) appear to have the pen, in less well-coordinated efforts.

Kennedy-Dodd and the House bill outline are remarkably similar. Whether this represents House-Senate coordination or parallel thought processes is unclear.

I think the easiest way for me to present the House bill outline is in comparison with the Kennedy-Dodd bill. So here my description from yesterday of the Kennedy-Dodd bill, with today’s comparison to the House bill outline in red. I hope it’s comprehensible and useful this way. If you read yesterday’s post, you can skim the text in black and focus on the new text in blue.

Here are 15 things to know about the draft Kennedy-Dodd health bill and the House bill outline.

  1. The Kennedy-Dodd bill would create an individual mandate requiring you to buy a “qualified” health insurance plan, as defined by the government. If you don’t have “qualified” health insurance for a given month, you will pay a new Federal tax. Incredibly, the amount and structure of this new tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), whose only guidance is “to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).” The new Medical Advisory Council (see #3D) could exempt classes of people from this new tax. To avoid this tax, you would have to report your health insurance information for each month of the prior year to the Secretary of HHS, along with “any such other information as the Secretary may prescribe.”

    The House bill also contains an individual mandate. The outline is less specific but parallel: “Once market reforms and affordability credits are in effect to ensure access and affordability, individuals are responsible for having health insurance with an exception in cases of hardship.”

  2. The Kennedy-Dodd bill would also create an employer mandate. Employers would have to offer insurance to their employees. Employers would have to pay at least a certain percentage (TBD) of the premium, and at least a certain dollar amount (TBD). Any employer that did not would pay a new tax. Again, the amount and structure of the tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and HHS. Small employers (TBD) would be exempt.

    The House bill outline also contains an employer mandate that appears to parallel that in Kennedy-Dodd: “Employers choose between providing coverage for their workers or contributing funds on behalf of their uncovered workers.”

  3. In the Kennedy-Dodd bill, the government would define a qualified plan:
    1. All health insurance would be required to have guaranteed issue and renewal, modified community rating, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime or annual limits on benefits, and family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.

      The House bill outline is consistent with but less specific than the Kennedy-Dodd legislative language. The House bill outline would “prohibit insurers from excluding pre-existing conditions or engaging in other discriminatory practices.” I will keep my eye on what “other discriminatory practices” means in the legislative language. Does that mean that a health plan cannot charge higher premiums to smokers?

      Like the Kennedy/Dodd bill, the House bill outline would preclude health plans from imposing lifetime or annual limits on benefits: “Caps total out-of-pocket spending in all new policies to prevent bankruptcies from medical expenses.” This would raise premiums for new policies.

      The House bill outline “introduces administrative simplification and standardization to reduce administrative costs across all plans and providers.” I don’t know what this means, but suggest keeping an eye on it.

    2. A qualified plan would have to meet one of three levels of standardized cost-sharing defined by the government, “gold, silver, and bronze.” Details TBD.

      Same: “… by creating various levels of standardized benefits and cost-sharing arrangements…”. It also contains this addition relative to Kennedy-Dodd: “… with additional benefits available in higher-cost plans.”

      But note the “various levels of standardized benefits.” This appears to be more expansive government control of health plan design than in the Kennedy-Dodd draft.

    3. Plans would be required to cover a list of preventive services approved by the Federal government.

      This is unspecified in the House bill outline. We’ll have to wait to see legislative language. The House bill would require plans to “waive cost-sharing for preventive services in benefit packages.”

    4. A qualified plan would have to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.

      This appears parallel but is less specific for now: “Independent public/private advisory committee recommends benefit packages based on standards set in statute.” I find the “standards set in statute” interesting. It suggests that provider and disease interest groups will have two fora in which to lobby for their benefits to be mandated: Congress, and the advisory committee.

    5. The MAC would also define what “affordable and available coverage” is for different income levels, affecting who has to pay the tax if they don’t buy health insurance. The MAC’s rules would go into effect unless Congress passed a joint resolution (under a fast-track process) to turn them off.

      The House bill outline is silent on this.

  4. Health insurance plans could not charge higher premiums for risky behaviors: “Such rate shall not vary by health status-related factors, … or any other factor not described in paragraph (1).” Smokers, drinkers, drug users, and those in terrible physical shape would all have their premiums subsidized by the healthy.

    The House bill outline says it would “prohibit plans [from] rating (charging higher premiums) based on gender, health status, or occupation and strictly limits premium variation based on age.” If the bill were to provide nothing more, this would appear to parallel the Senate bill and preclude plans from charging higher premiums for risky behaviors.

  5. Guaranteed issue and renewal combined with modified community rating would dramatically increase premiums for the overwhelming majority of those Americans who now have private health insurance. New Jersey is the best example of health insurance mandates gone wild. In the name of protecting their citizens, premiums are extremely high to cover the cross-subsidization of those who are uninsurable.

    The House bill outline is silent on guaranteed issue and renewal. I’m going to make an educated guess that the bill includes these provisions as part of “other discriminatory practices,” and they have just left them out of the outline. Given the philosophy behind this outline (with which I disagree), it would be a striking omission. But for now, the outline says nothing specific on these topics.

  6. The bill would expand Medicaid to cover everyone up to 150% of poverty, with the Federal government paying all incremental costs (no State share). This means adding childless adults with income below 150% of the poverty line.

    The House bill outline “expands Medicaid for the most vulnerable, low-income populations,” so we have no specifics other than that there’s an expansion. I cannot tell if this is expanding eligibility or benefits. The outline also “improves payment rates to enhance access to primary care under Medicaid.” I assume this means the bill would expand the Federal share paid of each dollar spent by a State Medicaid program on primary care, rather than the Federal government actually mandating specific payment rates to be implemented by States. Federal micromanagement of specific Medicaid provider payment rates was eliminated in the mid 1990’s.

  7. People from 150% of poverty up to 500% (!!) would get their health insurance subsidized (on a sliding scale). If this were in effect in 2009, a family of four with income of $110,000 would get a small subsidy. The bill does not indicate the source of funds to finance these subsidies.

    The House bill outline has a sliding scale up to 400% of poverty. If this were in effect in 2009, a family of four with income of $88,000 would get small subsidy.

  8. People in high cost areas (e.g., New York City, Boston, South Florida, Chicago, Los Angeles) would get much bigger subsidies than those in low cost areas (e.g., much of the rest of the country, especially in rural areas). The subsidies are calculated as a percentage of the “reference premium,” which is determined based on the cost of plans sold in that particular geographic area.

    The House bill outline is not specific on this point. I would not expect it to be – this is something you can tell only from legislative language.

  9. There would be a “public plan option” of health insurance offered by the federal government. In this new government health plan, the federal government would pay health care providers Medicare rates + 10%. The +10% is clearly intended to attract short-term legislative support from medical providers. I hope they are not so naive that they think that differential would last.

    The House bill outline “creates a new public health insurance within the Exchange … the public health insurance option competes on ‘level field’ with private insurers in the Exchange.” There are no specifics on how the public plan would work, or on provider payment rates.

  10. Group health plans with 250 or fewer members would be prohibited from self-insuring. ERISA would only be for big businesses.

    The House bill outline is silent on this point.

  11. States would have to set up “gateways” (health insurance exchanges) to market only qualified health insurance plans. If they don’t, the Feds will set up a gateway for them.

    The House calls it an Exchange rather than a Gateway. While the Senate bill would tell each State, “Create a Gateway or we’ll create one for you,” the House bill outline says to each State, “We’re creating a single new national Exchange. You’re in it unless you develop your own State or Regional Exchange.”

  12. Health insurance plans in existence before the law would not have to meet the new insurance standards. This creates a weird bifurcated system and means you would (probably) be subject to a different set of rules when you change jobs.

    The House bill outline appears to parallel the Kennedy-Dodd draft: “Phases-in requirements to benefit and quality standards for employer plans.” This means that new plans will be more expensive than old plans. It also means they’re creating a bifurcated system with all sorts of perverse unintended consequences for employment flexibility.

  13. The bill does not specify what spending will be cut or what taxes will be raised to pay for the increased spending. That is presumably for the Finance Committee to determine, since it’s their jurisdiction.

    The House bill outline lists specific topics for changes to Medicare reimbursement:

    • Changing (how?) the Medicare reimbursement for doctors, called the “Sustainable Growth Rate” (SGR).
    • “Increasing reimbursement for primary care providers”
    • “Improving” the Medicare drug program. I won’t be surprised if, when I see the specifics, I disagree that their changes are “improvements.” In the past this has meant having the federal government mandate specific prices for drugs.
    • Cutting payments to Medicare Advantage plans.
    • Expanding low-income subsidies for seniors and eliminating cost-sharing for all preventive services in Medicare.

    The House bill outline also uses positive language to describe things that might generate budgetary savings from Medicare and/or Medicaid. The hospital readmissions point is specific. The first two points could increase or decrease federal spending, depending on the specifics.

    • “Use federal health programs … to reward high quality, efficient care, and reduce disparities.”
    • “Adopt innovative payment approaches and promote[s] better coordinated care in Medicare and the new public option through programs such as accountable care organizations.”
    • “Attack the high rate of cost growth to generate savings for reform and fiscal sustainability, including a program in Medicare to reduce preventable hospital readmissions.”
  14. The bill defines an “eligible individual” as “a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or an alien lawfully present in the United States.”

    The House bill outline is silent on this point.

  15. The bill would create a new pot of money for state gateways to pay “navigators” to educate people about the new bill, distribute information about health plans, and help people enroll. Navigators receiving federal funds “may include … unions, …”

    The House bill outline is silent on this point.

This would have severe effects on the more than 100 million Americans who have private health insurance today:

  • The government would mandate not only that you must buy health insurance, but what health insurance counts as “qualifying.”
  • Health insurance premiums would rise as a result of the law, meaning lower wages.
  • A government-appointed board would determine what items and services are “essential benefits” that your qualifying plan must cover.
  • You would find a tremendous new disincentive to switch jobs, because your new health insurance may be subject to the new rules and would therefore be significantly more expensive.
  • Those who keep themselves healthy would be subsidizing premiums for those with risky or unhealthy behaviors.
  • Far more than half of all Americans would be eligible for subsidies, but we have not yet been told who would pay the bill.
  • The Secretaries of Treasury and HHS would have unlimited discretion to impose new taxes on individuals and employers who do not comply with the new mandates. (The House bill outline is not specific on this point.)
  • The Secretary of HHS could mandate that you provide him or her with “any such other information as [he/she] may prescribe.” (The House bill outline is not specific on this point.)

I strongly oppose the Kennedy-Dodd bill and the House Tri-Committee bill.

If this topic interests you, I highly recommend Jim Capretta’s blog Diagnosis.

Source: Keith Hennessey.com /Daily Thought Pad

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Related Resources and Posts:

Sunday, June 7, 2009

HERE COMES HEALTH CARE RATIONING

The photo op was too good to be true. Health care providers trooped out of the White House and trumpeted their goal of saving $1.7 trillion of costs over the next decade in health spending.

Now these drug companies, hospitals, insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, labor unions and doctors have laid out their plans in more detail.

And right there, in plain print, is the beginning of medical care rationing. Now that the cameras have been put away and the media is no longer watching, their secret emerges: They are going to cut medical costs by cutting medical care. Right now, they cite four targets. They plan to:

1. Cut diagnostic imaging tests like MRIs and CAT scans.
2. Reduce the use of antibiotics. (This might not be a bad thing!)
3. Perform fewer Caesarean sections.
4. Cut care for management of chronic back pain

These decisions will not be medical but financial. They will not be based on a doctor's opinion of what his or her patient needs, but a bureaucrat's and an accountant’s opinion of what the new health care system can afford.

And you will not be able to bypass their rulings and pay for this care yourself. The rules laid down must be followed and private payments will not be permitted to override them. What we now call a private fee for service will metastasize into a bribe.

But this is just the very beginning of rationing. The total of health care spending now runs about $2.3 trillion a year in the United States. Over ten years, that's likely to reach $30 trillion. So a cut of $1.7 trillion is a mere drop in the bucket.

More rationing is coming, and coming soon.

In our new book (coming out on June 23rd) Catastrophe, we explain exactly what rationing will mean and what it has done to patient care in Canada.

It's not a pretty picture and Obama will bring it here soon unless we stop him. Forewarned is forearmed!

By: DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

Source: Daily Thought Pad

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Related Resources:

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look

Levy Viewed as Way to Reduce Deficits, Fund Health Reform

With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.

Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.

At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.

"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.

Liberals dispute that notion. "You could pay for it regressively and have people at the bottom come out better off -- maybe. Or you could pay for it progressively and they'd come out a lot better off," said Bob McIntyre, director of the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, which has a health financing plan that targets corporations and the rich.

A White House official said a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" as a means to pay for health-care reform. "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.

Still, Orszag has hired a prominent VAT advocate to advise him on health care: Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and author of the 2008 book "Health Care, Guaranteed." Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, chairman of a task force Obama assigned to study the tax system, has expressed at least tentative support for a VAT.

"Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we're going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate," said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, who testified on Capitol Hill this month about his own VAT plan. "It's common to the rest of the world, and we don't have it."

Seeking New Revenue

The surge of interest in a VAT is testament to the extraordinary depth of the nation's money troubles. While some conservatives have long argued that a consumption tax would provide a simpler and more efficient alternative to the byzantine U.S. income tax code, this time it's all about the money.

The federal budget deficit is projected to approach $1.3 trillion next year, the highest ever except for this year, when the deficit is forecast to exceed $1.8 trillion. The Treasury is borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it spends, largely from China and other foreign creditors, who are growing increasingly uneasy about the security of their investments. Unless Congress comes up with some serious cash, expanding the nation's health-care system will only add to the problem.

Obama wants to raise income taxes for high earners and impose new levies on business, but those moves would not generate enough cash to cover the cost of health care, much less balance the budget, and they have not been fully embraced by Congress. Obama's plan to tax greenhouse-gas emissions could raise trillions of dollars, but again, Congress is balking.

Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol and employer-provided health insurance. The last proposal could raise a lot of money -- nearly $1 trillion over the next five years, according to White House budget documents. But options on the table would raise a fraction of that sum. And while it might pay for health care, it would barely dent deficits projected to total nearly $4 trillion over the next five years and to grow rapidly in the future, as baby boomers draw on Social Security and Medicare.

Enter the VAT, one of the world's most popular taxes, in use in more than 130 countries. Among industrialized nations, rates range from 5 percent in Japan to 25 percent in Hungary and in parts of Scandinavia. A 21 percent VAT has permitted Ireland to attract investment by lowering its corporate tax rate.

The VAT has advantages: Because producers, wholesalers and retailers are each required to record their transactions and pay a portion of the VAT, the tax is hard to dodge. It punishes spending rather than savings, which the administration hopes to encourage. And the threat of a VAT could pull the country out of recession, some economists argue, by hurrying consumers to the mall before the tax hits.

A VAT's Bottom Line

What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.

And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.

Sales Tax Gains Momentum

Burman, who helped House Democrats craft an unsuccessful 2007 plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax, said he's received a number of phone calls from lawmakers interested in his idea, though "they can't quite imagine how to make it happen politically." Burman said the 25 percent rate has caused some sticker shock, and he's trying to figure out how to bring it down.

Graetz's proposal drew an endorsement from Volcker, who last year called it "a sensible plan for reform." (Volcker did not respond to a request for comment.) It also has piqued the interest of Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman who argues that it could be modified to accommodate Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on families who make less than $200,000 a year.

"I think interest is quietly picking up," Graetz said. "People are beginning to recognize that the mathematics of the current system are just unsustainable. You have to do something. And a VAT has got to be on the table if you want to do something big and serious."

Still, the Senate Finance Committee declined to include a VAT among the options it is considering to pay for health reform. And even VAT supporters doubt the tax will find a place among the tax-reform proposals the Volcker panel has been asked to produce by Dec. 4.

Though the nation's fiscal outlook is grim, Burman said "the situation will have to get more desperate" before lawmakers are likely to consider a new levy aimed directly at the pocketbooks of every one of their constituents.

Most lawmakers are still looking for "a painless source of revenue" to overhaul the health-care system and dig the nation out of debt, Burman said. "Who knows?" he added. "Maybe the tooth fairy will bring that to them."

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Don’t be fooled… a possible 25% across the board VAT in addition to Federal Income Tax for a mediocre nationalized (or socialized… pick your word) medical program, where you will stand in line for care and wait on lists (often until it is too late) for major treatments and surgeries, while the government manages and has access to your and your family’s entire medical records… us use for whatever they eventually see fit.

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Related Resources: