Health Care Crisis

Read about one of the problems the expansion of Medicaid will cause in the NY Times here. This is not saying that the expansion creates the underlying problem; just that thinking Obamacare will solve the crisis in healthcare is ludicrous. You can't just say, "lets add all these people and make it fair" if you can't take care of those people anyway. Having insurance without doctors doesn't help. This points out only one of many problems with the reform plan. We need to look at all levels. Education, which at this point is mostly focused on getting as much money from the student as possible. This makes it difficult to get doctors and advanced practice RNs in the system. We need to reform the whole system that is broken.

If a person, say an RN has been out of school, and WORKING in healthcare with lots of experience, but she hasn't the credentials to get into an advanced RN program because the education system is set up to deny credits that are too old, or were numbered differently when she went to school, this is a missed opportunity for a health care provider who could enter the system but refuses to do so when it requires so much more education (much of it redundant) that it isn't worth it to her (or him).

We need to reform the education for health care providers - giving credit for on-the-job experience and actual knowledge (think outside the good ol' boys box), the tort/legal system (where the lawyers drive up costs in frivolous law suits), the way care is given (again, think outside the box), and get rid of the ridiculous waste that insurance causes. And, Medicaid is 10 times worse than any insurance you have encountered when it comes to waste and red-tape. So, adding more to those rolls is asking for trouble and adding to the problem, not helping it.

So, that's my two cents worth today.

Truth about the Health Care Bills

Check this out in Snopes.  This scary analysis is correctly attributed; not just an internet hoax.  

by Michael Connelly,  retired attorney,constitutional law instructor

         To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.  


Read the rest of the story here.

        For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html  and another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

OK, more stress

Update:
Ken found the source of the leaking ceiling. It's an upstairs toilet but fortunately it's clean water that's dripping. Will need to check into that further - and then of course there's repairing the ceiling...

The washer is working well but making a very loud noise when spinning. I know, at least it's spinning now - vast improvement. But, it sounds like it's dying some kind of slow death in spite of its new parts. And, not to be outdone, my dryer is screeching like it's lost a bearing. Doing laundry around here requires earplugs.

My second refrigerator quit working. First it was the freezer but after cleaning coils and moving people's junk stacked around it, that is now OK, but the fridge quit keeping things cold the other night. When I realized it at midnight, I cleaned my little undercounter fridge (unused for the past year or so). It had mold growing in it (there's a reason people prop fridge doors open when not in use apparently). So after cleaning it out I moved the perishables over. So much for having room to store extra milk for the clan here. Oh, yeah - basement is still flooding. Apparently it has something to do with the condensation on the A/C and I guess I need some kind of pump.

I canceled my colonoscopy appointment. All this hype about getting screened! I was told I needed to pay $353 up front when I went in. This is because my insurance has now slapped a $250 deductible on these procedures, effectively taking them out of the reach of some of us. How much sense does that make if catching early polyps leads to prevention of cancer and more expenses? Along with the deductible and increased copays they added for prescriptions, it is hard to get well by the simpler means (thus, the $323 charge for the antibiotic they wanted me to take). So, people stop taking meds, stop getting their mammogram and colonoscopy, even when they are insured. This is progress in health care?

No matter what you do, how you do it, or your motive, someone will be upset, angry, or offended. Relationship problems make me crazy. OK, so now I'm ranting...

Health care reform and other economic casualties

Some info on the new plan here.  

From the Washington Post:

How the health-care overhaul impacts your wallet

Like it or not, it's here -- a major health-care law with all its moving parts, some that become effective immediately and others not until 2014.

The March Kaiser Health Tracking Poll found that 46 percent of Americans back the health reform proposals while 42 percent opposed them. The remaining 12 percent said they weren't sure what to think.

So what now? Now that all the screaming, yelling and name-calling is hopefully behind us, what does it really mean for you and me?

Signed into law this week, health-care reform will eventually provide coverage for more than 32 million people who are currently uninsured. Among many other provisions, insurers will be prohibited from denying coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions. People will be eligible for tax credits to help pay premiums, and a dependent child will now be allowed to stay on his or her parent's health insurance until age 26.

The Post has created a very useful interactive tool to help you figure out how the new law will apply to your own health care situation. It looks at what your health coverage and taxes will be based on your income, family size and current insurance status. So for example, let's say you are married, have income of $50,000 a year and you don't have any health insurance. You are a family of four. If you plug that information in, here's what you get back:

-- Beginning in 2014, you will receive tax credits to help afford insurance premiums in the new exchanges as well as assistance with deductibles and co-payments.

-- According to your income and family size, the tax credits will ensure you do not spend more than $3,150 to $4,025 on premiums.

-- Your maximum out-of-pocket costs for deductibles and co-payments would be capped at 27 percent of the total cost.

-- You are required to have health insurance. If you don't, you will pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5 percent of your household income.

To plug in your own information, click here.  Want more reading?

 The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care
Sick: The Untold Story of America's Health Care Crisis---and the People Who Pay the Price
Cured! The Insider's Handbook for Health Care Reform
The Innovator's Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Health Care

And in more economic news...

Living Together But Not Loving It
Johnnie Taylor sang it's "Cheaper to Keep Her," but in this economy, that applies to both spouses. With the recent economic mudslide affecting everything from employment to home values, many estranged couples have postponed divorce because they simply can't afford it.
"In the Great Recession, breaking up is hard to do," reports Donna St. George in Estranged spouses increasingly waiting out downturn to divorce.

W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, says some families are pulling together amid the economic turmoil, and others that want to split up are postponing until they see a rebound in the economy and in home values.
Why is it cheaper to stay? A divorce that ends up in court can cost $10,000 to $20,000 or more, St. George reports. Maybe some of the couples delaying divorce will find ways to reconcile, saving not just their marriage but also a lot of dough.

Divorce and Money: Everything You Need to Know
A Judge's Guide to Divorce: Uncommon Advice from the Bench
We The People's Guide to Divorce: A Do-It-Yourself Guide to Reaching an Agreement with Your Spouse and Getting a Hassle-Free Divorce
Dollars & Sense of Divorce

Utah conservative Democrat votes his conscience

I want health care reform in the worst way, but not bad enough to settle for a half-baked job. We need the right reform and it will sadly take more time because so much was put into the wrong plan. If everyone had worked as hard to study countries where universal health care works and did not bow down to insurance company lobbyists, there's a good chance we could be well on our way to the right plan. So, getting some reform may be better than none, but it's the expensive, inefficient, slow (in the long run) way to do it. I still wish we had seen states being charged with it. Put federal tax dollars out for the states with a charge to make a plan that works for them. Those that work will rise and those that don't will fall to the wayside and they will look to their neighbors for a plan that works. It would avoid too much big government while accomplishing the basics we need - control of health care costs and tort reform, coverage for all without exclusion and affordability, provided by tax dollars. It works in Taiwan and other places. For some reason the U.S. has to make it more complicated than it needs to be.

I'm all for bipartisan too - until this becomes an issue we all work toward; not fight about, it will not be successful. I applaud Jim Matheson for voting according to the merits of the bill rather than according to what his party feels he should do. It's daring in this day and age, but exactly what we need to see more of. Parties should not control this country.

WASHINGTON — After high pressure from all sides for weeks, Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, finally said Saturday that he will vote against his party's health care reform bill.

"I am saddened that the yearlong debate on health reform has resulted in legislation that is too expensive, contains too many special deals, does not contain health care costs and will result in increases in health insurance premiums," he said.

"Therefore I will vote against the legislation," he added. The House is scheduled to vote on the bill Sunday.

That leaves him among only a handful of moderate Democrats who are opposing his party and Democratic President Barack Obama. It may cause problems with his party, but it also may preserve his job in conservative Utah.

Where have all the supporters gone?

"Campaigning is fun; watching the person you've elected engage in the long slog of governing, less so." (Washington Post)

Anyone astute in politics knew that Obama's pie-in-the-sky promises were mostly unreachable but many got sucked into the "change" idea and the rah-rah of the campaign swept people up in the rhetoric of the moment. Problem is that's just what it was - a moment. Reality is another whole story. But, when problems are afoot (like they usually are but this has been a particularly stressful time) we grasp at straws and a nice-looking, smooth-talker can convince us of just about anything while in this vulnerable state.

Part of the problem was the rush job. In his efforts to keep the crazy promises of moving quickly, he failed to remember how long it takes to get anything through congress. But, in matters such as health care, the issues should take study and discussion (bipartisan) to achieve a quality product in the end.

Nobody wants another federal disaster to deal with, change, appeal, and learn from. We should study Japan, Germany and Thailand; not just Canada or England for universal health care that works. We should also remember that we are the United States of America; not just America. In that, we can study Massachussetts - what works about their plan; what doesn't. Then we could let states adopt programs with some government grants to launch it and to give it a fair chance to start. Once the pilot proves successful, other states can follow without putting it in the hands of the federal bureaucracy. State government has its problems too, but why not start out on a smaller scale that can be adapted once most of the bugs are worked out. Maybe we really don't want Uncle Sam running it all.

We could also learn that we can't half do this thing. If we're to ever get universally available and affordable health care we need to fix the other problems with the system - tort reform, exclusions, mistrust of the system which backfires (refusal of coverage for certain medical condition such as mental health or harm to other insurance policies due to previous treatment for certain conditions like cancer and depression). We also need to eliminate the gatekeepers in Medicaid/Medicare, private insurance, etc. and, we need to be able to shunt the money saved into the new system so it will actually be affordable. Adding another level or another program to the already existing one, with its own set of differing "regulations" will only cost way more and will dilute the primary advantages to a universal system.

Part of what makes government-provided insurance a mess is the requirements such as low income, asset testing, requirements and rules for coverage of procedures - all of which must be screened, evaluated, reassessed periodically, and patients end up in and out of coverage. Then billing is complicated, each doctor or facility must have specialists to sort out the mess. The only way a system can work to cover all is if it is without any billing needs - everything is covered. The way it is done in many other countries could work, but not if they have to sort out the "public option" from the privates, etc. Let's face it: lobbyists will never allow abandonment of the systems they profit from. We need to either provide vouchers for all people to pay for their health care as they choose through private companies in competition, or we have to give everyone the same, eliminate the sorting, billing, etc and go paperless and bill-less.

Again, this is so complex, it makes sense to start on a state level anyway. We're a very large country so adopting some half-baked plan to cover everyone will never work.

I believe there are enough smart Americans to make this work, but they are being paid by those who will make sure it doesn't. That's my opinion

Health Care Debacle

I'm in favor of individual states creating universal health care programs which are transferable between states, but I really don't want the Federal Government to run it. I have good reason to be worried. Anyone who has ever had to jump through the Medicaid boondoggle knows this. Did you know that the Feds do not consider a birth certificate and a social security card valid ID for your children? They are Citizenship verifications but that does not count for Medicaid eligibility. You can get out of and into the country with this document, but you can't get Medicaid with it. So, go get your 2 year old a credit card or driver's license - he may need it.

See related article in SLTrib and in DesNews.

Health Care? The Government Can't Even Run a Railroad

by Barry Goldwater, Jr.
August 28th, 2009

Nowhere in the debate regarding health care has anyone asked if the government is able and qualified to run such a system. Before we ask the government to manage universal health care, let’s check them out.

How successful has the federal government been in managing agencies, programs and businesses?

Let’s look at Medicare. The president and Congress propose to extend Medicare to cover the 47 million people who lack health care coverage.

Did anyone remind Congress that Medicare is broke? It’s rampant with fraud and abuse. It is estimated that Medicare and Medicaid fraud cost taxpayers $60 billion per year. Medicare is required by law to pay full retail prices for drugs that could be obtained for far less in a competitive-bidding system.

Health insurance companies are required by state regulators to maintain a reserve for future liabilities. Every working stiff in this country is required to pay premium taxes into Medicare, which has no reserve. The federal government has been running the largest Ponzi scheme ever created, and it is on the hook for $36 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

And you, Mr. President, want the federal government to run health care?

On Aug. 4, 1977, Jimmy Carter declared war on energy dependence and created the U.S. Department of Energy. Every president since has done the same. Today, 31 years later, the Department of Energy’s budget is $26 billion. It employs 16,000 people and 100,000 contract employees. We are no closer to energy independence than we were in 1977.

And you want the federal government to run health care?

The U.S. Postal Service lost $7 billion last year and is talking about closing hundreds of offices.

And you want the federal government to run health care?

The Federal Reserve was created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to maintain a stable financial system. The Federal Reserve gets failing marks for its direct complicity in the economic meltdown and subsequent recession. The Federal Reserve has failed us.

And you want the federal government to run health care?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by Congress as government- sponsored enterprises to provide low-interest funding for the mortgage industry. These government-run mortgage banks were created to provide competition and cheap loans to those who could not afford normal market rates.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own more than $5 trillion in mortgage paper. On Sept. 7, 2008, they were declared insolvent and were taken over by the Federal Housing Finance Agency and bailed out with more than $400 billion - another government-run mess.

And you, Mr. President, want the federal government to run health care?

Amtrak was created by an act of Congress in October 1970 to run the nation’s railroad system. Amtrak was supposed to reverse over two decades of continuous operating deficits. With a congressional mandate to become profitable, it was given $40 million in initial funding, along with $100 million in loan guarantees. After 38 years, Amtrak has never made a profit and receives a federal subsidy, with no prospect in sight of breaking even.

And you want the federal government to run health care?

The war on drugs was started by President Richard Nixon in 1969. The United States has been spending $69 billion a year worldwide for the past 40 years, for a total of $2.5 trillion, on drug prohibition - with little to show for it. Today, there are more drugs on our streets at cheaper prices than ever before. It is easier for young people to obtain illegal drugs than a six-pack of beer. Why? because sellers of illegal drugs don’t ask kids for IDs.

And you want the federal government to run health care?

The list of government failures is long and telling. I can’t wait for the new “Government Motors” car.

Are you waiting anxiously? Are you holding your breath? That car will be on recall for many years.

And you, Mr. President, want the federal government to run health care?

The government has failed for 30 years to achieve energy independence.

The government has bankrupted the Medicare program. The Postal Service is broke. The Federal Reserve was the primary cause of this economic meltdown and recession. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been taken over and bailed out. We have lost the war on drugs.

Mr. President, our government can’t even run a railroad. How the [hell] do you think the government will ever manage a universal health care system?

Einstein once said, ‘The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.’

-- Barry Goldwater, Jr. is a former Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from California. He is the son of the late Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater.