A few "talking points" from Mr. Obama himself ....

Continuing the prior blog post from Political Chips:

“My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: Fix what’s broken and build on what works” President Barack Obama, June 2009

Question: What’s broken? Answer: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security
* In 1950, there were 16 workers per entitlement beneficiary. In 2009, there are only 3.3 workers per entitlement beneficiary.
* The “Baby Boom” began in 1946. “Baby-Boomers” first became eligible for Social Security in 2008 (age 62) but a majority will begin flooding the entitlement programs in 2011 and beyond.
* These 3 entitlement programs are financially insolvent and unsustainable!

Question: What works? Answer: See bullets below:
* Restructuring health insurance to be an instrument to protect oneself from large unforeseen catastrophic events or protect oneself from financial ruin subsequent to acquiring an unforeseen dread disease.
* Combining the Health Savings Account with a Qualified High Deductible Health Plan and expanding the annual contribution limits so millions of Americans can save more money for healthcare expenses.
* Providing a mechanism whereby consumers can easily compare prices for services PRIOR to having them rendered. There is no other commodity in the USA that Americans purchase PRIOR to knowing the costs.
* Providing real INCENTIVES to Millions of Americans to attain a healthy weight and REWARDS for doing so. The current landscape of healthcare reform proposals does NOTHING to reward the millions of healthy Americans who are leading healthy lifestyles.

“If you like your doctor, you can keep them. If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” President Barack Obama, June 2009

For millions of Americans, this is not going to be the case!
* 150 million Americans currently have employer based insurance coverage. A Public Plan Option will be underpriced and oversold. During the transition to a single payer system, millions of Americans will experience “crowd out” as employers drop their health plans in droves and physicians cater to those with better coverage. Eventually, this will all lead to a single payer system whereby everyone will have universal access to rationed care.

“In the USA, we spend 50% more per person on health care than any other country in the world with poorer outcomes” President Barack Obama, June 2009

This is misleading to say the least!
* The reason the USA spends more than any other country is because other countries DO NOT provide common diagnostic services and lack the funding to provide quality treatment! There are more MRI machines in Wichita KS (population 365,000) than there are in Toronto Ontario Canada (population 4,000,000).
* The USA has the greatest healthcare system in the world as it pertains to access to care and quality of care. World leaders and hundreds of thousands of foreigners flock to the USA for treatment each and every year.

“The free enterprise system and private markets have failed to solve the health care crisis on their own” President Barack Obama, June 2009

Not so fast! We believe the following is true:
* Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are financially insolvent. 56% of every healthcare dollar is spent by the Government. The current system is NOT a FREE ENTERPRISE system NOR is it PRIVATE enough. The Government is the problem, Not the Solution!

The government plan will provide equal treatment to all...

[from Alex Poulter's blog post on Political Chips:]

I found myself agreeing with President Obama last evening when he said “the stars must be aligning just right”. However, the stars I am referring to are the ones that required me to visit the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Drivers License Bureau on the same day! If anyone wants to engage in a meaningful debate about the merits of a government sponsored program, please visit any one of the many fine government establishments in your zip code prior to the discussion. The one thing we can all agree on is that the government will definitely provide everyone equal access to crappy services.

When was the last time you had to renew your driver's license or, heaven forbid, actually visit a Social Security Office? What was your experience like?

Will government ration health care?

The Wall Street Journal (6/26, A14, subscription required) editorializes, "If or when the Administration's speculative cost-cutting measures under universal healthcare fail to produce savings, government will start explicitly limiting patient access to treatments and services regarded as too expensive." Although "Democrats deny this eventuality...health providers will have no choice, given that the current entitlement system is already barreling toward insolvency without adding millions of new people to the federal balance sheet." When asked "if he would subject his own family to the restrictions of a national health plan" during a "TV healthcare forum on Wednesday," President Obama responded that "if it's my family member...I always want them to get the very best care." The Journal concludes, "We suspect most Americans would agree."

Health care funding issues - I'm confused ...

I have been puzzled by a problem in the health care reform debate:

We know that Medicare performs a form of rationing by only paying 71% of the expenses. We also know that as a result of this that the providers (doctors, hospitals, etc.) pass these costs onto people who can pay - individuals & employers who have health insurance. Thus, isn't it ironic/hypocritical/dishonest (circle one) that Congress is trying to find a way to fix climbing health insurance costs by totaling reforming the system when Congress itself refuses to pay the full cost of medical care through the program it already controls? And, isn't this one of the reasons for our situation now? Shouldn't Congress be forced to enter a bill that requires medicare to pay its fair share so that the costs are not passed on to others? Wouldn't this solve at least part of the problem of rising costs? By the way, and to continue the irony, a major part of Obama's plan for raising funds for this new healthcare program is to cut even more expenses out of medicare!

On the other hand, this raises a good question which will, perhaps, cast this issue in a different light:

Who has challenged the provider contention that what Medicare pays is not adequate? Have the providers been transparent regarding their expenses and revenues to lend credence to their assertion? While I'm inclined to believe that the assertion may be true for a small minority, but not for the vast majority of providers. Until I see the numbers from doctors/hospitals (hah!), I'm inclined to be skeptical. Once there is a degree of transparency from providers, the opportunity will then be to address the unnecessary expenses and eliminate the waste. The result may then be that what Medicare pays is more than adequate and a reduction in reimbursements a natural conclusion. Right now, both sides are shooting in the dark and trying to "baffle us with baloney."

{Thanks, and a "tip o' the hat," to the NAHU discussion list & especially to Ric Joyner & Dave Cluley.}

Coming soon!! Canadian health care....

The health care proposals from Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats ultimately will lead to a Canadian style socialized medicine -- and with its consequences:

* A 16% higher cancer death rate in Canada

* An eight week wait for radiation therapy for cancer patients

* 42% of Canadians die of colon cancer vs. 31% in the US

* Cutbacks in diagnostic testing

* The best meds for chemo therapy are not available

* No way out of the system; you can't even pay for services yourself!

Why is health care so bad north of the border? Because there are too few doctors to treat everybody and cost savings measures by bureaucrats -- which slice medical incomes -- drive doctors out of the profession. When the President calls for a 21% cut in Medicare fees to physicians and a $2500 cut in health costs per capita, that is exactly the kind of downward spiral in medical care quality he'll bring to the United States. By making too few doctors cover too many patients, he'll cut the quality of care to everybody.

As the Democratic proposals make their way through Congress, it is vital that we all get up to speed on what is happening in Canada, so we can stop it from happening here. It's through word of mouth that we need to spread the information to undermine public support for the changes that Pres. Obama would bring.

Do I really need health insurance?

If you're one of the millions in America that doesn't have health care insurance, you're not alone. Many people have cost considerations or take issue with the type of coverage, or if they even need it. While all those issues are definitely valid, everyone will need health care coverage at some point in time. It's like death and taxes – inevitable. Educate yourself about the plans on the market. Some of them are extremely reasonable - so reasonable that you may change your mind. Talk to a local health care insurance agent who is an expert, and you might find you actually are able to save money on insurance premiums. To learn more, visit www.acforrest.com.

A "level playing field?"

Some are claiming that consumers need to know they can buy the same health plan anywhere in the country. By having a public plan offering coverage nationally they would be able to change jobs, move to a different state and still keep their current coverage. I accept that this would be a nice situation, but it certainly isn’t a strong reason for a public plan, given the risk that step entails. The temptation to tip the playing field in favor of government programs is simply too tempting for lawmakers. Already on the table is allowing tax credits to make premiums more affordable (incredibly, even for families earning up to 500% of the poverty level, or about $110,000/year).

The simple fact is, without a level playing field, a government-run plan will eventually — not the first year, maybe not the fifth, but eventually — drive private carriers out of the market. If that’s what Congress and the Obama Administration want to do, they should just say so. But if they are sincere about preserving private options for Americans, then they need to tread carefully. Creating a public plan just so consumers can keep the exact same plan when they move to a new state is simply not worth the danger.

Plublic health care and the "level playing field"...

We're hearing an increasing amount of talk, blather, and "propaganda" (er, news coverage) about health care and the need for reform (ABC News will be broadcasting Mr. Obama & the Democrats' position all day today, even hosting their nightly news show from the White House). We also hear a lot about the "public plan" competing with your private plan, etc. As Alan Katz stated a few days ago on his excellent blog, "The Alan Katz Health Care Reform Blog"...

Advocates of government-run plans insist that “If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and it will help keep their prices down.”

However, a government health plan can have severe consequences to private carriers. Current government programs like Medicaid and Medicare pay doctors and hospitals less than their actual costs. They make up the difference by increasing what they charge private health plans. But Medicaid and Medicare don’t compete directly with private carriers. The government-run health plan advocated by President Barack Obama and many Democrats would. The cost shift there would result in an ever increasing pricing gap between the public plan and private carriers. Eventually private carriers would become uncompetitive and leave the market.

President Obama hears these concerns, but rejects them. In Wisconsin, The Huffington Post reports him as saying, ”So, what you’ve heard is some folks on the other side saying, I’m opposed to a public option because that’s going to lead to government running your health care system. Now, I don’t know how clearly I can say this, but let me try to repeat it. If you’ve got health insurance that you’re happy with through the private sector, then we’re not going to force you to do anything.”

People can keep their private coverage if they want. Well, maybe. If the public plan behaves like Medicare, then this argument becomes a bit disingenuous. Medicare pays roughly 19 percent less than the actual cost care. Senator Edward Kennedy has proposed a public plan that pays providers 10 percent more than Medicare {but still less than "actual cost"}. This underpayment would force even more dollars to be shifted to private insurance companies. Not a recipe for those private plans you have the right to stay in to last very long.

President Obama is optimistic a compromise can that avoids this inevitable result can be found. “And I think that we can come up with a sensible, commonsense way that’s not disruptive, that still has room for insurance companies and the private sector, but that does not put people in the position where they are potentially bankrupt every time they get sick.” Maybe he can. If so, it would be nice for him to describe what this compromise might look like.

Term Life Rates on the Rise?

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal reports that term life insurance rates are on the rise.

P recent arremium increases averaging about 5% to 15% started in January and are sweeping through the industry. One reason is that higher capital and reinsurance costs for insurance companies linked to tighter credit markets are making it more expensive for insurers to maintain needed cash reserves. Another is that insurers are receiving lower returns on their investments, putting additional pressure on them to raise money.

For consumers, that means the era of counting on lower rates five or 10 years down the line could be over for a while. It also means locking in premiums before they go up.

The increase in rates is due in large part to the fact that insurance companies have been hit hard by the economy and have seen their investment holdings diminish in value.

The article also points out that it is wise to comparison shop because not everyone is increasing rates at this point. The term life industry is fairly competitive, so it is helpful to work with someone who can shop your coverage with a variety of companies. At AC Forrest Insurance Group, we'll do just that. We believe that everyone needs term life coverage (we rarely suggest or sell other life insurance products as we don't believe they're generally good investments). We'll be happy to help you find the best rate and policy. Contact us soon before rates go up!

"The same coverage as Congress?" I don't think so...

From the Wall Street Journal:

Last September Sen. Barack Obama promised that under his health-care proposal "you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves." On Monday, President Obama repeated that promise in a speech to the American Medical Association. It's not true.

The president is barnstorming the nation, urging swift approval of legislation that is taking shape in Congress. This legislation -- the Affordable Health Choices Act that's being drafted by Sen. Edward Kennedy's staff and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- will push Americans into stingy insurance plans with tight, HMO-style controls. It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).

Members of Congress "enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country," according to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. They "can choose from among consumer-driven and high deductible plans that offer catastrophic risk protection with higher deductibles, health saving/reimbursable accounts and lower premiums, or fee-for-service (FFS) plans, and their preferred provider organizations (PPO), or health maintenance organizations (HMO)." These choices would be nice for all of us, but they're not in the offing. Instead, if you don't enroll in a "qualified" health plan and submit proof of enrollment to the federal government, you'll be tracked down and fined (sections 3101 and 6055).

Would a "public plan" destroy private health insurance?

From an op-ed piece in the Miami Herald :

"As work begins in earnest on health reform this week on Capitol Hill, Democrats are hoping" to create "a government-run insurance plan to compete against private insurers." If that happens, "private plans will soon find themselves in the same perilous predicament as Ford Motor Co.: the federal government has stacked the deck against them." Gingrich and Merritt say that the "main argument for a government plan is that private insurance is too expensive, and in order to expand coverage, Americans need an affordable alternative." Therefore, "a government plan would have to dramatically under-cut private plans on price." They also maintain that "destroying the private sector in health would replace competition and consumer choice with bureaucratic power and planning. There would be no incentive to improve quality or increase efficiency -- but every incentive in the long term to control costs by restricting access and choice."

I'm not convinced the insurance companies are completely unhappy; someone has to "run or administer" the health insurance itself (under the over-all direction, of course, of government bureaucrats). But, long term, it's hard to see how a gov't-run plan doesn't restrict choices & options for most folks. Government plans already account for over half of health insurance (Medicare, MediCaid, & government employee plans): if the government would be so much better at controlling costs, why haven't we seen it yet?

Another (potentially) mandated benefits....

The health families act, introduced by Ted Kennedy, would require employers to provide employees with up to 56 hours of paid sick leave. As taken from a report put out by SHRM (The Society of Human Resource Professionals), "the Healthy Families Act (HFA) would require public and private employers with 15 or more employees to allow employees to accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. An employee begins accruing the sick leave at commencement of employment and is able to begin using the leave after 60 days. The paid sick time could be used for the employee’s own medical needs or to care for a child, parent, spouse, or any other blood relative, or for an absence resulting from domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking."

Once again we have government dictating a one-size-fits-all "solution" to every employer, with no provision for individual selection by employers or employees. Like much other micro-managing by our congressmen (most of whom have never run a business or had to meet a payroll), this bill will force many businesses, especially small employers, to spend their limited money on this instead of raising wages, adding or increasing other employee-desired benefits, or even hiring more people. Seems to me that allowing independent business owners the flexibility and means to meet the unique needs of their own workforce would be preferable .