Healthcare Power Grab

I am definitely not a quitter, but I am a realistic sort when it comes to federal politics. Don't get me wrong, I still have some type of idealistic hope for state and local politics...but the federal level people still want a big federal government, no matter what ideology they profess. Their policies are self-perpetuating and self-important. That kind of power is intoxicating and a hard one to give up....once again, that intoxication is on both sides of the fence.

So I guess I am resigned to the fact that some type of HR 3200 will pass the federal legislature and be signed into law by our callowly persistent (or deviously groomed) President. We have given that power to people who have the tenacity and perverse tactical warfare mentality to make it happen...at all costs and against the wishes of the majority of their constituents. When you pull that lever at election time, it does have its consequences.

So now what...

Although this will not be the final product, I have read over the initial HR3200 (all 1018 pages of it) and it took my breath away. I see beautiful, feel good prose with great big holes left for interpretation and power grabbing opportunities. As I have always said about legislation of any type, the devil is in the details. I have seen state entities take seemingly "good" legislation and use it for their own dynastic purposes. "Legally" they can do it because of how the legislation is written and let me tell you, process reversal is a hell of alot harder than you think. I guess that is why there are so many lawyers in office or in positions of power. The person who knows the most rules(or knows how to use the rules)wins.

I received an email yesterday from a doctor who took the time to review HR3200 as I did. This is how he perceived the legislative double-speak. And yes, I double checked the references and they are dead-on in the bill.

Whatever we Americans finally end up with in this Healthcare Power Grab debacle, I can bet the farm we will see similiar storylines emerge.

Is he right?

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued!

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.

Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!)
Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid.. (No choice.)

Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)
Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that!)

Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)

Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)

Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)
Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.)
Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)

Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)

Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!)

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')

Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)

Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

The Cost of "Free" - Part 2

When I listen to the libs talk about the Public Option as the end all be all solution for the healthcare reform movement, I am reminded of all the reasons why I don't trust government to do the job...Unfortunately, I also don't trust big business for almost the same reasons.

From Wikipedia:

Lack of economic freedom explains 71% of corruption. Below is a list of examples of governmental activities that limit economic freedom, create opportunities for corruption (incentives for individuals and/or companies to buy privileges or favors worth of money, from politicians or officials) and have in recent economic history also lead to corruption:

Licenses, permits etc.

Foreign trade restrictions. Officials may then, e.g., sell import or export permits.

Credit bailouts.

State ownership of utilities and natural resources. 'In analyzing India's state-run irrigation system, professor Shyam Kamath - - wrote: Public-sector irrigation systems everywhere are typically plagued with cost and time overruns, endemic inefficiency, chronic excess demands, and widespread corruption and rent-seeking.'

Access to loans at below-market rates. In Chile, '$4.6 billion was awarded to government banks in direct subsidies through "soft" loans' between 1940 and 1973.

Size of public sector

It is a controversial issue whether the size of the public sector per se results in corruption. As mentioned above, low degree of economic freedom explains 71% of corruption. The actual share may be even greater, as also past regulation affects the current level of corruption due to the slowth of cultural changes (e.g., it takes time for corrupted officials to adjust to changes in economic freedom).[17] The size of public sector in terms of taxation is only one component of economic un-freedom, so the empirical studies on economic freedom do not directly answer this question.

Extensive and diverse public spending is, in itself, inherently at risk of cronyism, kickbacks and embezzlement. Complicated regulations and arbitrary, unsupervised official conduct exacerbate the problem. This is one argument for privatization and deregulation. Opponents of privatization see the argument as ideological. The argument that corruption necessarily follows from the opportunity is weakened by the existence of countries with low to non-existent corruption but large public sectors, like the Nordic countries.[18] However, these countries score high on the Ease of Doing Business Index, due to good and often simple regulations, and have rule of law firmly established. Therefore, due to their lack of corruption in the first place, they can run large public sectors without inducing political corruption.

Like other governmental economic activities, also privatization, such as in the sale of government-owned property, is particularly at the risk of cronyism. Privatizations in Russia, Latin America, and East Germany were accompanied by large scale corruption during the sale of the state owned companies. Those with political connections unfairly gained large wealth, which has discredited privatization in these regions. While media have reported widely the grand corruption that accompanied the sales, studies have argued that in addition to increased operating efficiency, daily petty corruption is, or would be, larger without privatization, and that corruption is more prevalent in non-privatized sectors. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that extralegal and unofficial activities are more prevalent in countries that privatized less.

There is the counter point, however, that oligarchy industries can be quite corrupt ( "competition" like collusive price-fixing, pressuring dependent businesses, etc. ), and only by having a portion of the market owned by someone other than that oligarchy, i.e. public sector, can keep them in line ( if the public sector gas company is making money & selling gas for 1/2 of the price of the private sector companies... the private sector companies won't be able to simultaneously gouge to that degree & keep their customers: the competition keeps them in line ). Private sector corruption can increase the poverty/helplessness of the population, so it can affect government corruption, in the long-term.

In the European Union, the principle of subsidiarity is applied: a government service should be provided by the lowest, most local authority that can competently provide it. An effect is that distribution of funds into multiple instances discourages embezzlement, because even small sums missing will be noticed. In contrast, in a centralized authority, even minute proportions of public funds can be large sums of money.

The Cost of "Free" - Part 1

Boy, I certainly didn't realize how long it has been since my last post. A trip to the coast and a temporary move to Chicagoland can certainly put a crimp in a person's schedule.

But no matter how little I have been able to follow news etc., you can't escape the Health Care Reform discussion (and boy do I love the Town hall clips!).

As I have mentioned previously, I am very fortunate to have some brilliant friends on both sides of the aisle. In fact, if this reform issue were hashed out in a think tank with all of them in the room...I would be confident in the results and would vote "yes" for their solutions. In a perfect world, I would imagine our President would have that same thought process.

Unfortunately, the flaw in this current administration's solution is the "government" factor. Government structure is like the human body. Most everything has a purpose, functions don't have options (and if you come up with one, it usually messes up something else) and when you add weight to it...everything starts going to hell.

Case in point. I just finished a two-day ordeal getting an $18 PO Box. I did the transaction online two months ago then called and asked them to give me a PO Box # so that I could forward appropriate mail (which it appears is not a normal option). Got into town, stopped in to get my key...didn't have the required paperwork. Came in the following day with what I thought was the right paperwork (it wasn't)...was sent away again. At this point, I walk outside and said to myself "to hell with it" and walked back in to ask for another box and deal with the refund later or eat it because of the paperwork involved with that process. Time is money and the insanity of the process wasn't worth my own sanity.

Folks, I was dealing with an $18 PO Box in a relatively small town in BHO's backyard. Why in the world would I want to deal with a government-run health care system when the stakes are higher?

So I guess those people who are advocating for "Free" healthcare are either used to people messing with their time and money, they color in the lines and never ask for "options" on anything or they have so much time and money that they don't worry about those silly little things.

Me, I have to earn a living and I have never colored inside the lines. "Free" doesn't work for me when the government is involved in the process. Let's start thinking of other solutions.

Health - Personal Responsibility

Star Parker is usually dead-on with her assessments. I respect her opinion even more because she has pulled herself up by her bootstraps and has seen both sides of the spectrum. She is a black woman who tells it straight.

Want to know what troubles our American health care system?
by Star Parker

Consider the thoughts of psychiatrist and Nazi death camp survivor Viktor Frankl.

After spending time in our country as a visiting professor, he saw the looming dangers of freedom without responsibility. He observed: "Freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast."

We as Americans accept that health care is an individual right, even if someone else is paying for it. The truth that every personal right must have an accompanying personal responsibility is now lost in our self-absorbed materialistic culture. We have only rights, entitlements if you will. Few have any idea what the costs are of the health care they receive. Many get it tax subsidized through their employer, many get it through Medicare in a now bankrupt Ponzi scheme in which those working pay taxes to pay for care of those retired, and more than sixty million Americans do not pay at all through Medicaid and SCHIP programs.

Hundreds of millions receive health care the costs of which have little or nothing to do with their own personal realities and then we wonder why those costs are out of control.

Now Ted Kennedy has introduced his solution to all of this, which also captures the thinking of our president. Set up a new government health care plan, subsidized of course by taxes, and call this choice because you are not forced to take it (although you are forced to pay taxes for it).

As Senator Kennedy announces more free health care -- meaning one group of Americans will get what another group of Americans will pay for -- the disconnect between who gets health care services and who pays for them will grow even greater.

Costs will be controlled, according to Senator Kennedy, by setting up a new army of bureaucrats who will get rid of proverbial "fraud and abuse," will decide for doctors how to treat their patients, and will decide for us how we should behave by dictating the preventative measures we must take for our own good.

To put on a show for what this all might look like, a few weeks ago President Obama "invited" representatives from the major sectors of the health care business -- doctors, insurers, hospitals, pharmaceutical firms, medical device manufacturers -- to the White House to tell us all how much they would commit to lowering costs.

The result was a supposed commitment by these groups to cut costs by 1.5 percent per year.

Aside from the fact that shortly after the White House announcement, industry representatives began issuing statements denying that they made any such commitment, let's assume it's accurate. That these groups do not know how to run their own businesses and that they can deliver the same products and services annually for 1.5 percent less if the president threatens them.

At our annual health care bill of about $2.5 trillion dollars, savings of 1.5 percent would be about $40 billion.

Let's consider how much of our $2.5 trillion health care bill are costs resulting from behavior that individuals choose.

Googling around and totaling up, I come up with about $240 billion, about ten percent of our total health care bill. This is roughly the total reported health care costs associated with obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS and sedentary life styles.

Worth noting is that these occur disproportionately in low income groups who get their health care free. More than half our spending on HIV/AIDS, for example, is out of Medicaid. Can it be accidental that the huge health care costs related to lifestyle issues are most pronounced where individuals do not personally bear the costs of how they behave?

How can our health care problems be solved by more entitlements and bureaucrats when this is what is causing the problem to begin with?

Viktor Frankl had it right. At the heart of the solution for our health care crisis is personal responsibility. This means more freedom and more markets.

Healthcare - Intro

Besides Nukes and SCOTUS, Healthcare seems to be the topic du jour. I am going to stay away from the first two topics for the time being because I would probably be labeled a militant constitutionalist...and then the discussion would devolve from there.

But Healthcare is a topic that can be rationally discussed these days because noone really has the answer...and I think even the most radical left or right thinkers will admit that premise.

Fortunately, I have some very dear friends and family members who come from different sides of the equation. They hold learned viewpoints from the private, public, political and educational sectors. I look forward to future discussions with all of them as well as hearing the viewpoints of those who are on the ground dealing with these issues either personally or professionally.

Three points I am going to make upfront:

I believe that personal responsibility is the cornerstone for any successful program that we adopt. It is not mine nor my neighbors responsibility to fund your unhealthy lifestyle choices.

A total government run program is not an option. Government has NEVER run anything successfully. Accessibilty, Quality and Affordability will be out the door before the game starts.

Throwing money at anything just doesn't work. We (TN) threw $61 million dollars at a state-of-the-art Switchgrass program in 2007 with nothing to show for it. Government LOVES throwing money at things. Businesses want results. Somewhere the two shall meet.

Now that we have gotten the ground rules out of the way, let's talk.

BTW, thanks Eric, Damian and Richard for getting the topic going in my head. You know I am OCD!