Et Tu, Brute?

Heath Insurers looked like they were supporting reform, but . . . wait for it . . . OOOOHH, NOOOOO!! On the eve of a historic vote, they are launching a campaign of scare tactics to defeat the bill. 

Awesome, literary, epic and oh-so-trite.

How about this: 

If every insurance company offered the same policy it offers its executives at the same price to everyone, well, then, we wouldn’t need the reform.  How about it, fellas?  

**********************************************************************************

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer 22 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The health insurance industry is warning that a comprehensive Senate bill would increase the cost of a typical policy by hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars a year after lawmakers eased up on the requirement that all Americans get coverage.

The stinging attack came on the eve of a pivotal Senate vote and was a clear message to President Barack Obama and congressional Democratic leaders who have been making headway on overhauling the nation’s health care system. The industry fears that a weakening of the penalties for failing to get insurance would let Americans postpone getting coverage until they get sick.

The industry has worked for months behind the scenes to help shape health care reform. Unlike the 1990s, when it contributed to the failure of President Bill Clinton’s health overhaul, the insurance industry has been attracted by the promise of millions of more people getting coverage. Translation: millions of new consumers buying policies.

The industry wants lawmakers to expand coverage, not lessen the penalties that would reduce the number of people. The Senate Finance Committee is slated to vote on its 10-year, $829 billion bill on Tuesday, but more important to the industry are the steps beyond the panel’s decision.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., will be merging the bill with a companion measure from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, with the goal of a sweeping, affordable bill. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Democratic leaders have been pulling together legislation from three committees.

Angered by the insurance industry’s late-in-coming cost estimate, a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont, questioned the credibility of the numbers.

“It’s a health insurance company hatchet job, plain and simple,” said the spokesman, Scott Mulhauser.

Late Sunday, the industry trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans sent its member companies a new accounting firm study that projects the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions in the bill would be in effect.

Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, the PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis concluded in the study commissioned by the insurance group.

“Several major provisions in the current legislative proposal will cause health care costs to increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system,” Karen Ignagni, the top industry lobbyist in Washington, wrote in a memo to insurance company CEOs.

The study projected that in 2019, family premiums could be $4,000 higher and individual premiums could be $1,500 higher.

Baucus spokesman Mulhauser said the study is “seriously flawed” because it doesn’t take into account provisions in the legislation that would lower the cost of coverage, such as tax credits to help people buy private insurance, protections for current policies and administrative savings from a revamped marketplace.

White House health care spokeswoman Linda Douglass concurred. “This is an insurance industry analysis that is designed to reach a conclusion which benefits the industry, and does not represent what the bill does,” she said.

The Baucus plan faces a final committee vote on Tuesday. It got a boost last week when the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cover 94 percent of eligible Americans while reducing the federal deficit.

But the PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis attempted to get at a different issue — costs for privately insured individuals.

It concluded that a combination of factors in the bill — and decisions by lawmakers as they amended it — would raise costs.

The chief reason, said the report, is a decision by lawmakers to weaken proposed penalties for failing to get health insurance. The bill would require insurers to take all applicants, doing away with denials for pre-existing health problems. In return, all Americans would be required to carry coverage, either through an employer or a government program, or by buying it themselves.

But the CBO estimated that even with new federal subsidies, some 17 million Americans would still be unable to afford health insurance. Faced with that affordability problem, senators opted to ease the fines for going without coverage from the levels Baucus originally proposed. The industry says that will only let people postpone getting coverage until they get sick.

Other factors leading to higher costs include a new tax on high-cost health insurance plans, cuts in Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors, and a series of new taxes on insurers and other health care industries, the report said.

Health reform could have a significant impact on the cost of private health insurance coverage,” it concluded.

Insurers played a major role in defeating then-President Bill Clinton‘s health care plan in the 1990s. Sunday, the industry stopped short of signaling all-out opposition. “We will continue to work with policymakers in support of workable bipartisan reform,” Ignagni said in her memo.

___

Truth is the best fiction

The majority of voters against the Iraq War live in Blue States.

Virtually all terrorist targets are in Blue States.

Most uninsured people live in Red States.

Most people who will be taxed under any Obama plan live in Blue States.

Most tea party goers won’t give up social security, medicare and — if they needed it — food stamps and welfare.  Apparently, these government entitlements aren’t government entitlements government entitlements.  [Imagine the annoying hand motions depicting quotations marks.] OK, you’re not “stupid” stupid. 

Most tea party goers want to repeal the “death tax” even though statisticallyno one in their group other than the heirs of Glenn Beck and other Fox celebrities who will benefit from that tax repeal.  The idea of Glenn Beck progeny has turned this Blue Stater an awful shade of green.

If any RED STATE wishes to secede from the Union, we will throw in free Fox cable channels free for a year as a parting gift.  No, don’t thank us.  Thank YOU.

Health Care Overhaul will reduce Deficit!!!

OBAMA  OBAMA  OBAMA  OBAMA OBAMA

YES WE CAN  YES WE CAN  YES WE CAN

******************************************************************************************

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – 38 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Health care legislation drafted by a key Senate committee would expand coverage to 94 percent of all eligible Americans at a 10-year cost of $829 billion, congressional budget experts said Wednesday, a preliminary estimate trumpeted by the White House and likely to power the measure past a major hurdle within days.

The Congressional Budget Office added that the legislation would reduce federal deficits by $81 billion over a decade and probably lead to “continued reductions in federal” red ink in the years beyond.

Health Care Debate — in diagram form

Whether or not to reform the health care industry comes down to some basic ideas:  what is our collective expectation of our health care options, and how can we lower costs and increase caliber of service over the long term?

1.  Do you think health care is (a) a privilege, (b) a right or (c) regardless of whether it is a right or a privilege, it is a broken system that needs fixing?  If (a), then skip to the bottom.  If (b) or (c), then go to the next question.

2.  Do you think AFFORDABLE, adequate, health care is (a) a privilege or (b) a right or (c) regardless of whether it is a right or a privilege, it is a broken system that needs fixing so those who have it can benefit from it?  If (a), then skip to the bottom.  If (b) or (c), then go to the next question.

3. Do you view health care reform as essentially a political issue?  If yes, then skip to the bottom.  If no, then go to the next question.

4.  Do you agree or disagree: companies should not be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, impose annual or life time limits, or drop coverage for those who develop illness? If you disagree with all or part of the statement, then skip to the bottom.  If you agree with the statement, then go to the next question.

5.  How do you think it is best to keep premiums down? (a) a best practices safe harbor from malpractice claims; (b) cooperatives; and/or (c) public option.  If none of the above, then skip to the bottom.  If any of the above, go to the next question.

6.  How do you reduce the costs to the taxpayers of uninsured people? (a) refuse medical attention to anyone without proof of insurance; (b) require all persons residing in this country to have insurance, (c) tax those who don’t get coverage and/or (d) some other option that induces people to get coverage or at least takes the burden off of taxpayers for those who cheat the system.  If (a), then skip to the bottom.  If (b), (c) or (d), go to the next question.

7.  If you are at this question, then grab a seat at the table and start negotiating.  Let’s assume that the polls are correct and that the overwhelming majority of Americans want some kind of reform.  FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES, ARE YOU LISTENING? 

 Bottom:  Here you are at the bottom.  It is a dog-eat-dog world, huh?  Just some follow-up questions: 

  1. Did you ever see Glenn Beck’s iReporting after his botched hemorrhoids surgery?  (Now he is a raging you-know-what.)  You might not trust his currently analysis after viewing the video. 
  2. Or maybe you are invincible, lucky or just too rich and selfish? 
  3. Or maybe you are delusional, like the actor Craig T. Nelson, who said no one helped him when he was on food stamps and welfare (yes, idiots can be actors). 
  4. You are a patriot, right?  So you aren’t going to leave the country when the deficit rages out of control because health care costs are ballooning out of control and the taxpayers will have to pay a large percentage of their incomes just to meet interest payments on the deficit?   

So Jon Stewart called Sen. Schumer a [censored] idiot

Ok, that may have been a little harsh, but I understand the frustration.

I held my breath during the general election, through the contested senatorial elections, through the swearing in of Sen. Al Franken.  Just as I was about to exhale — because the logjam has been removed — the Republicans hijacked the public dialogue and sent Democrats, fractured, and on the run.

I am not an ideologue; I just want effective financial, health care and government reform to start.  I don’t need Jay Rockefeller’s public option (although I think it is the right thing) right now, but we need to stop talking about what could be and deal with what is possible.

The government once seemed on the verge of great things.  But now it is frozen and ineffectual. The Republicans are doing what they always do; and, unfortunately, the Democrats are doing what they always do — promise big and then crash and burn because of in-fighting and factionalism.

But we gave the Democrats another chance in 2008.  We believed this time that Washington would be different.  We dared to hope and believe in change.

Crazy is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome.  Ok, we were crazy but now, Congress, I think we’re angry.

The Public Option

For my first and last sports analogy — you can’t score if you don’t get on base. 

Reform is a process.  I think many of us would be surprised by the narrow focus of the Social Security Act when originally enacted.  

If the emphasis on the public option defeats the broader reform bill, then that is a bigger tragedy.

I believe that a public option is necessary because insurance companies will now refuse to insure the currently uninsured at a reasonable cost because of the other reform measures that circumscribe an insurance company’s ability to deny coverage to existing policy holders.  

But first we need:

a law that eliminates pre-existing condition exclusions, prevents “dropping” coverage when an insured person gets sick, and eliminates life-time maximums.

a “best practices” safe harbor so doctors aren’t forced into costly, defensive medicine practices.  We need computerized record keeping to reduce costly, tragic mistakes from insufficient information.

If, within a year after bill passage, there is a spike in health care premiums, even the GOP and Blue Dog Democrats will want a public option because their constituents will demand it.

There are two other reasons to wait a year: 

one, the cost of creating a public option may be more than our economy can handle right now.  Do I know for sure?  No.  No one can know for sure.

two, we need to see how identifiable changes affect the system.  The law of unintended consequences may yield a different set of problems or a different set of options when we see how the reforms actually affect the economy.  And we need some room for tinkering.

I applaud those who recognize that a public option is necessary.  But, please, don’t hold up the other reforms that the nation needs. 

No-where-istan is a country, too (just in my head)

Our President gave an excellent speech today at the UN.  If only words could make wishes come true.

Libya’s leader’s, Qaddafi’s, speech was, well, nuts.  I know maniacs have been leaders of countries, but his speech made me think that anyone could be a head of state whether or not there is electricity firing in your brain. 

So, I could run a country.  I have always wanted to.  That’s it!!

I hereby establish a sovereign nation run by me. 

I think I would be quite good at it until I deposed myself. Hey, sometimes a person changes her mind and MY country is a free country where change is always possible.

Of course, given the logistical constraints of owning a box in the sky in New York City, this newly-formed nation must exist for now in my brain, until I can buy a townhouse on the East Side for my embassy and then renounce the debt under the theory of sovereign immunity. 

Since the nation (until I buy the townhouse) is not easily depicted on a world map, it will be called:

No-where-istan. 

We will have a constitution.  I will be all three branches of government.  We will have debates over issues, but only when I don’t take my meds.

We will have three-day weekends, naptime everyday and one hour daily of singing and dancing to music from the 1960s to the 1980s.  Cell phones must be turned off in restaurants and other places of assembly.  We live in luxury homes, with really nice bathrooms, because life is short — see below for my health care mandate.  (How about that tent for Qaddafi? Nice tent, but I would have gone for living in the house already on the grounds of the estate in Bedford.  So much easier than schlepping your summer home to another country.)

So I need a new name as leader of a new sovereign nation.  How about, “Her Eccentricity, the Blogger Formerly Known as 40andover”. 

Transfats will be permitted because no health care system can afford people living to their tenth decade.  So, for the good of the nation and the economic futures of our children, we will live less than 100 years.  But if, try as he or she might, a person still lives to 100 and beyond, we will still love him or her because we No-where-istanis are tolerant and loving people. 

I haven’t figured out the prickly issues of immigration in, and emigration out, of my head.  There are so many logistical problems. 

But, Glenn Beck, you are hereby denied a visa to my country. 

Anderson Cooper, you can come for short times but no “digging deeper,” or else you’ll give me an unintended root canal.

According to the Huffington Post, Bill O’Reilly Supports the Public Option

According to the Huffington Post, FoxNews psycho-in-chief Bill O’Reilly supports the public option.

WHAAAAAAAAT?

I got nothing to say because my mind cannot comprehend and my mouth cannot speak and my fingers are about to stop typing. . . right after . . . .

WHAAAAAAAAT?

An Outsider’s Perspective of US (and Us)

Yesterday, I spent almost two hours talking with a friend who is a businessman from the Cayman Islands.  He is in New York on business.  Since his business is somewhat US-dependent, he makes it his business to keep up with the news in the States.  He is a Libertarian and a pragmatist.  I am Democrat and (I like to think) a pragmatist.  We agreed on many things, such as the need to compromise and get incremental reform because it is a matter of conscience that people have affordable access to health care.  And I agreed with him that the public option will not pay for itself and should be phased in later if other measures don’t rein in the insurance companies.  We simply cannot afford to institute this option at this point, given the deficit.

We disagreed on two points.  The points of disagreement fascinate me. 

First, he thought that death panels could be read into the legislation because it was not expressly disclaimed.  My friend is an intelligent, well-read man; he is not Todd Palin.  So I had to think about this more.  Here is what I have deduced:

  • if a person distrusts “government” enough to believe that it would kill its own citizens, well, then you can make that argument. 
  • if a person doesn’t believe that our government would kill its own citizens, you might argue that the panel of experts represented a disguised government take-over of health care. 
  • if a person believes that our government is not trying to kill us and trying to cut down on defensive medicine by setting forth safe harbor protocols, then you think the concern is ill-conceived and politically motivated. 

I guess what I am learning is while I am firmly in the third camp, not all of the concern may be politically motivated.  Sarah Palin must have hit a chord with many, many people who have a deep, abiding distrust of government.  Hey, I was scared of government under Bush/Cheney, so I guess I have to be more open to the fear that this legislation unleashed.  Interestingly, it took my Cayman Islands friend — an outsider —  to help me start to understand the perspective of  blog commenter “Jordana”.  We still disagree, but now I understand that we may not be starting from the same point of trust.  That changes the dynamics of the conversation considerably. 

The other point was related to torture.  Some torture is understandable under some circumstances.  I have never met someone who held that view.  While I can see not prosecuting the CIA, I believe that torture is not understandable under any circumstances.  I don’t want to be tortured and I would probably make stuff up just to make it stop. So, I don’t see how it helps get to the truth.