BluntPolitics.com

Current healthcare system unsustainable: CLHIA

September 22, 2009 | Mark Noble

The president of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association says Canadian healthcare system is headed for a crisis, unless serious reforms are made.

Speaking before the Economic Club of Toronto, Frank Swedlove warned the current Canadian healthcare system is not sustainable.

Swedlove said too many people believe there are just two healthcare options available—a private system like the one in America, or a fully-funded public system. He argued there’s a way to preserve the integrity of Canada’s universal public coverage, while offloading some expenses to private care providers.

"We’re in the midst of an aging population and there are newer and more expensive treatments. If the trend continues, in ten years many provinces will spend 70 cents out of every budget dollar on healthcare, with little remaining for education, infrastructure, and innovation," Swedlove said.

This figure suggests it’s virtually impossible to have a world-class healthcare system under the current model.

Successful private partnerships in certain medical services can reduce the funding burden of the government, Swedlove said. There are homegrown examples of private-treatment offerings—sometimes covered by insurance—that don’t undermine the public healthcare system in Canada.

"A 2006 Conference board of Canada study, comparing 24 leading OECD countries, ranked Canada 11th in terms of overall health. There are more recent studies that rank us even lower," Swedlove noted. "There are plenty of countries for us to learn from. Home-grown success stories can also be studied and built on. For instance, there is the Shouldice Clinic here in Toronto—a leader in privately delivered hernia surgery — and similarly the Calgary-based Gimbel Eye Centre—the first out-of-hospital institution in Canada to offer small-incision cataract surgery."

In fact, Canada actually has an above-average participation of privately covered healthcare versus the global average.

"The average public healthcare spending by partner nations is 73%. Canada’s public spending ranks lower at 70%. The rest comes from private sources, a mixture of private health care providers and directly from your pocket," Swedlove said.

Skyrocketing drug costs account for part of the growing healthcare costs. According to a white paper released by the CLHIA in June, Canada ranks second in total per capita spending on drugs, both prescribed and non-prescribed, out of the 20 leading OECD countries. Total drug spending in Canada reached $26.9 billion in 2007, representing an annual growth rate of 7.2% over 2006. Spending on prescribed drugs grew faster than spending on non-prescribed drugs and reached 84% of total drug costs in 2007.

The cost of drugs is staggering for those who don’t have private drug coverage. Even, generic drugs in Canada are much more expensive than they are in other developed nations.

"Healthcare may be a universal benefit of living in Canada, but it isn’t the same reality when it comes to affordable drugs. Consumers continue to face prescription drug costs that can be staggering. Supplementary insurance provides some drug assistance but not all Canadians have such insurance," Swedlove said. "Our paper calls for catastrophic drug coverage for all Canadians, equitable drug pricing across public and private programs, and a competitive generic drug regime."

Incentives for LTC

Currently, Canadian insurers cover about 220,000 Canadians for long-term health care (LTC). And the number of Canadians needing LTC is growing dramatically, according to CLHIA, and the public system will be unable to support LTC claims as the number of elderly Canadians drastically increases over the coming decades.

The CLHIA white paper says many Canadians hold a "mistaken belief" that all of their long-term care needs are met by the government. The CLHIA says the responsibility to pay for such care remains largely with them. With the number of seniors expected to balloon to 9.8 million by 2036, (according to Statistics Canada), there will be a significant cost burden to Canadians fighting for an LTC spot.

According to Swedlove the CLHIA would like to see the government introduce tax incentives through an RSP-equivalent vehicle such as a Medical Spending Account to allow Canadians to fund LTC.

"Governments need to ensure that people living with a chronic illness receive health care services that are integrated across the primary care system and coordinated by family doctors or clinics," he added. "Tax and financial incentives for Canadians would also help them take greater responsibility for the care of aging or ill family members at home through the purchase of private insurance."

(09/22/09)

Part of the 47 million (which is proven to not be true) are people who are young or don’t wish to purchase insurance. These people according to the Obama administration are irresponsible and  thus must be penalized. This is a direct assault on individual freedoms. And may be unconstitutional. If you are concerned it is now time to let the www.senate.gov and www.house.gov know your opinion for or against this plan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/26/baucus-mandate-penalty-lead-prison-congressional-analysts-say/

This weekend on the pundit shows (except FOX) President Obama pitched the same spiel on health care reform which is chalk full of inaccuracies. For example, a revenue neutral bill. How can you give 30-50 million people health insurance or health care without it costing money? The neutral part comes in taxes or mandates.  A tax is defined as: noun

–verb (used with object)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tax

Thus, forcing people to purchase insurance is a tax. These type of taxes are referred to as mandates. Mandates are the same as forcing someone to purchase insurance and thus is a tax.

On Sunday George Stephanopolus ask President Obama about forcing people who  don’t want to buy insurance if they were being taxed. The President was caught off guard and in typical socialistic fashion debated whether this was a tax or not!!! When you force people to pay for something they don’t choose it is a tax.

Huge middle-class tax increase:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgBzmoo9izw

How can we trust this president?

By Ric Joyner

This is great news. And helps put pressure on the President.

www.dailykos.com

The Baucus Debacle

by mcjoan

Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 10:50:21 AM PDT

It’s finally here, set to go to mark-up next Tuesday. The famous "bipartisan" effort that so far has the support of absolutely no Republicans, including President Sen. Snowe.

You can read the Chairman’s mark here [pdf]. In Finance tradition, the bill is written in narrative form, rather than legislative form. All amendments will also be offered in plain English, and then the plain English mark turned into legislative form.

Start reading, and chronicle the debacle in the comments. Let’s start with this one, on page 2 (page 5 of the pdf), where it establishes that older people could be charged 5 times as much as younger people. You’re reading that right: 

Under the Baucus legislation, private insurers could also charge older individuals up to five times more for coverage. "You’re just using age as a proxy for health status," Uwe Reinhardt, an economics professor at Princeton University told the New York Times. Reinhardt estimates that "Senator Baucus’s age-rating plan would allow insurers to cover roughly 70 percent of the additional risk they’d take on by being required to accept all comers, regardless of health."

Affordability questions remain paramount throughout the mark, not just for older Americans (over 55, not yet eligble for Medicare). Marcy is doing a fantastic job of breaking down the costs for middle America, and the very real possibility that this bill would make American workers captive to their employers:

The individual definition of affordable uses 10% of Adjusted Gross Income. Whereas the employer’s definition of affordable uses 13% of (apparently) total income.

Now, it’s a good thing (sort of) that the affordability rate for individuals is 10% of AGI. That means a family would be able to opt out if there were no health care available at even a lower rate than I thought (for example, it might mean a middle class family could opt out if health insurance cost them $6,000 a year, as opposed to $8,000 a year). It’s a bad thing, though, because it means MaxTax would be far from universal–a lot of middle class families will pretty much have to opt out because they can’t afford coverage.

But if your employer offers health care–even if it covers just 65% of costs–then you can’t opt-out unless you’re paying out of pocket 13% of your total income!! Oh, and to opt-out you have to go to your manager and tell him or her that you’re opting out, which means the employer will be fined; how many people do you think will be fired rather than opt-out?

So far the Baucus debacle is very good for Wal-Mart, very good for AHIP, and not so great for the rest of us. Note as well, there is no employer mandate to provide coverage to workers in this bill. But what happens when you don’t obtain insurance (page 29):

Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI [Adjusted Gross Income] is between 100-300 percent of FPL [Federal Poverty Level], the excise tax for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or an individual claimed as a dependent) is $750 per year. However, the maximum penalty for the taxpayer unit is $1,500. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is above 300 percent of FPL the penalty for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or as an individual claimed as a dependent) is $950 year. However, the maximum penalty amount a family above 300 percent of FPL would pay is $3,800.

Right, that’ll bring us to universal coverage. You can either spend your money by getting trapped in a crappy, expensive insurance policy, or pay the fine. In general, mandates are a key component of reaching universal coverage, but the mandates have to be accompanied by an affordable, sustainable option. Which we don’t get in the Baucus debacle. We get co-ops, that "must not be sponsored by a State, county, or local government, or any government instrumentality."

The Baucus debacle: as bad as we thought it would be. And this is just scratching the surface. There’s plenty more to be had. Read it yourself, and add your thoughts in the comments.

By Ric Joyner, MBA, CEBS, CFCI

Initial analysis:

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG 2009/091609 Americas_Healthy_Future_Act.pdf

Here is an  impact chart from the bill that our Senator Kohl’s Staff sent us. A must read.

http://www.screencast.com/t/spifjWNyY92

Some good news in this for the future is imposing a tax on costly benefits will help to drive higher deductible plans which promotes healthier lifestyles. Imposition of some the caps and taxes don’t start for a few years which is odd. But the impact on FSAs will start 12-31-10.

The bad angels are the reporting requirements, the high taxes and loss of some benefit offerings. This bill, if left intact will fundamentally change how employee benefits are delivered.

Apparently, the GOP (republicans) are not on board with this bill. Conclusion: It is not bi-partisan which is a goal of the Presidents. But my prediction has been and still remains that the Democrats will likely go this alone. They have control.

Remember this is a bill that will need to go into “mark  up” which will change after it is debated.

It appears the President will have a tough fight for this bill. Employers are not going to appreciate the added burden of reporting and the potential for taxes.

I am working as well as others on analyzing the bill which I will post on www.benefitblog.com

Here is an excerpt from the bill that should concern most practitioners and employers. Another burden is the amount of reporting that will be required and the excise taxes imposed.

The amount subject to the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored coverage for each employee is the sum of the aggregate premiums for health insurance coverage, the amount of any salary reduction contributions to a Health FSA for the taxable year, and the dollar amount of employer contributions to an HSA, minus the dollar amount of the threshold. The aggregate premiums for health insurance coverage include all employer-sponsored health coverage including coverage for major medical, dental, vision and other supplementary health insurance coverage. The applicable premium for health coverage provided through an HRA is also included in this aggregate amount.

Under a separate provision (described below), an employer is required to disclose the aggregate premiums for health insurance coverage for each employee on his or her annual Form W-2.

Under the Mark, the excise tax is allocated pro rata among the insurers, with each insurer responsible for payment of the excise tax on an amount equal to the amount subject to the total excise tax multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the amount of employer-sponsored health insurance coverage provided by that insurer to the employee and the denominator of which is the aggregate value of all employer-sponsored health insurance coverage provided to the employee. In the case of a self-insured group health plan, a Health FSA, an HRA or employer contributions to an HSA, the excise tax is allocated to the plan administrator. The employer is responsible for calculating the amount subject to the excise tax allocable to each insurer and plan administrator and for reporting these amounts to each insurer, plan administrator and the Secretary, in such form and at such time as the Secretary may prescribe. Each insurer and plan administrator is then responsible for calculating, reporting and paying the excise tax to the IRS on such forms and at such time as the Secretary may prescribe.

For example, for an employee who elects family coverage under a fully-insured health care policy covering major medical and dental with a value of $28,000, the amount subject to the excise tax is $7,000 ($28,000 less the threshold of $21,000). The employer reports $7,000 as taxable to the insurer, which calculates and remits the excise tax to the IRS.

Alternatively, an employee who elects family coverage under a fully-insured major medical policy with a value of $23,000 and a separate fully-insured dental policy with a value of $2,000 and who contributes $3,000 to a Health FSA has an aggregate health insurance coverage value of $28,000. The amount subject to the excise tax is $7,000 ($28,000 less the threshold of $21,000). 201

The employer reports $5,750 ($7,000 x $23,000/$28,000) as taxable to the major medical insurer and $500 ($7,000 x $2,000/$28,000) as taxable to the dental insurer, each of which then calculates and remits the excise tax to the IRS. If the employer uses a third-party administrator for the Health FSA, the employer reports $750 ($7,000 x $3,000/$28,000) to the administrator and the administrator calculates and remits the excise tax to the IRS. (If the employer is acting as the plan administrator of the Health FSA, the employer is responsible for calculating and remitting the excise tax on the $750 to the IRS).

Technorati Tags: barack obama,spying on americans,whitehouse,collecting americans data on social network sites

(Folks this is an amazing article)

EXCLUSIVE:

Audrey Hudson (Contact)

EXCLUSIVE:

The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama’s promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.

Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.

“The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example,” he said.

Defenders of the White House actions said the Presidential Records Act requires that the administration gather the information and that it was justified in taking the additional step of asking a private contractor to “crawl and archive” all such material. Nicholas Shapiro, a White House spokesman, declined to say when the practice began or how much the new contract would cost.

Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for National Archives and Records Administration, said the presidential records law applies to “social media” and to public comments “received by the president or immediate staff.”

Mr. Obama signed a memo in January stating that his efforts to maintain an open government would be “unprecedented” and “ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration.”

An Obama campaign document on technology pledged that, as president, Mr. Obama “will strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy.”

In a June 5, 2008, article in PC Magazine, Mr. Obama said, “The open information platforms of the 21st century can also tempt institutions to violate the privacy of citizens. We need sensible safeguards that protect privacy in this dynamic new world.”

The National Legal and Policy Center, a government ethics watchdog, said archiving the sites would have a “chilling effect” on Web site users who might wish to leave comments critical of the administration.

Ken Boehm, a lawyer and chairman of the center, also disputed that the presidential records law applies, because the comments are pasted onto a third-party Web page and not official correspondence with the president.

“If the White House has nothing to hide, why is this cloaked in secrecy? Why won’t they make the dollar amount this is going to cost public?” Mr. Boehm asked. “I don’t think there is an expectation that this is being captured by the government and saved.”

But Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org, called the proposal “a positive development because it demonstrates a commitment from the Obama administration to meet its obligations under the Presidential Records Act.”

“Additionally, I am encouraged to see the administration recognizing that it must find a way to handle the ever-expanding amount of data generated electronically. I hope the rest of the executive branch will learn from the president’s leadership on this issue,” Ms. McDermott said.

Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, called for congressional oversight of the practice of collecting data.

“Given the administration’s disappointing secrecy in other contexts, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee encourages Congress to conduct oversight to ensure compliance with the law, maximize transparency and protect individual privacy,” Mr. Buttar said.

According to the law, the term “presidential records” means documentary materials “created or received by the president, his immediate staff or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the president, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.”

“It includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the president or members of his staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President,” the law says.

David Almacy, who served as President George W. Bush’s Internet director, said the Bush administration did not use the then-fledgling social-networking sites in the same manner as the Obama White House, except to upload presidential speeches onto iTunes. The White House, however, did archive comments posted to its official Web site.

The proposal issued Aug. 21 calls for a contractor to “crawl and archive” social-networking Web sites where the White House maintains an official presence on seven networks: Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo and Slideshare.

The collection will include the comments, tags, graphics, audio and video posted by users who don’t work for the White House.

The White House has more than 333,000 fans on Facebook, and posts updates several times a day that draw hundreds of thousands of comments, both positive and negative. The White House has more than 1 million followers on Twitter and more than 87,000 subscribers on YouTube, where more than 400 videos of the president and White House briefings are posted.

I enjoyed the Tea Party but came away with a conflicting emotions. My observations were that the tea party was eclectic. I saw Libertarians, Democrats, Ron Paulites, Republicans, Conservatives, old, young, black, white and families. I saw angry conservatives that are angry with Republicans who went to the spending trough and democrats who feel that progressives/regressives (left wing marxists that seek big government and Obama leans this way) are taking over the “party of the working man”. Having viewed this, my reflections troubled me but I was not sure why. I knew I had questions about how to coalesce this movement but I was not sure how to frame the question until I saw this article from politico.com. This article says exactly frames the question I had in this article.

I also believe there were about 60,000 participants because this is based on my conservsation with the Capitol Police Chief which  you can see in my pictures on facebook.

Protests present GOP with tricky task By: Kenneth P. Vogel and Alex Isenstadt September 12, 2009 08:14 PM EST

The “Taxpayer March on Washington” proved that conservatives can turn out in impressive numbers to protest the direction of the Democratic-led federal government, but it also presented Republicans with a tricky task in figuring out how to marshal the energy on display on the Mall Saturday.The ability to channel the wide-ranging frustrations expressed by speaker after speaker may determine whether beleaguered conservatives will be able to create a movement rivaling that which liberals used to help power Democrats back into the majority in the 2006 congressional elections and Barack Obama into the White House last year.The sentiments expressed Saturday, however, suggest Republicans can’t necessarily count on the tens of thousands of protesters who turned out in Washington – and at simultaneous rallies in Dallas, Denver, Quincy, Ill., and other cities and towns across the nation – to make inroads in the 2010 congressional midterm elections and, later, to mount a stiff challenge to President Obama’s 2012 reelection effort. Many marchers displayed little allegiance to Republicans, and some were openly hostile, contending that that when the party controlled Washington until 2006, the federal government spent recklessly. “When Republicans were in power, they acted like everyone else,” said marcher Debi Bohannon of Oklahoma City. “Personally, I don’t feel like [Republicans] are standing up and fighting hard enough,” said Jim Bryant, an aviation consultant from Trenton, Georgia. “I want them to stand up for truth, honesty, and personal freedoms.” The protestors, whose numbers were in the tens of thousands, though no definitive estimate was available Saturday evening, aired grievances on issues ranging from the bank and auto bailouts to Obama’s push to overhaul the nation’s health system to concerns about perceived erosion of First and Second Amendment rights. Still, most of their fire was aimed at Democrats, and some of their sentiments bordered on extremist rhetoric that could do the GOP more harm than good. As the march, which began at Freedom Plaza, a park close to the White House, neared the U.S. Capitol, it was difficult to miss the signs protesting Obama’s health plan, declaring “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy” or featuring grisly images of aborted fetuses. And there were widespread accusations from attendees that Obama isn’t American-born – a charge from which the mainstream of the Republican Party has sought to distance itself. But as the last of the protesters scattered Saturday evening, leaving the Mall silent, organizers expressed confidence that the march would help re-center the Republican Party around fiscally conservative themes with widespread appeal. “My message is: your roots are lower taxes, less government, and freedom. Why don’t you lead with those issues?” said Adam Brandon, a spokesman for FreedomWorks, the small-government, anti-tax organization chaired by former House Republican Leader Dick Armey that sponsored the protest. Brandon touted the text-messaging system FreedomWorks deployed on Saturday to gauge protestors’ top issues, explaining the group would use the information to organize activists around those issues by congressional district in the run-up to the 2010 election, a similar technique to one used by Obama’s own tech-savvy presidential campaign. After Saturday’s showing, the grassroots local activists who form the heart of the so-called Tea Party movement hold more of the cards than either the Republican Party or the conservative groups that bolster it, asserted GOP strategist Craig Shirley. “Could the Republican National Committee turn out 50,000 people on the mall?” asked Shirley, who has a forthcoming book, “Rendezvous with Destiny; Ronald Reagan and the Campaign that Changed America,” chronicles how Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign re-centered the GOP around a strong national defense and fiscal conservatism. “Really the tea party is in the position to dictate terms to the Republican Party. So the question for the Tea Party people is do they say, ‘A pox on all their houses,’ and possibly investigate starting a third party – a populist, anti-big government, anti-Wall Street party – or do they try to take over the Republican Party, starting at the county and state level?” Still, Shirley suggested that in order for the movement to have a lasting impact on American politics, it needs to embrace an agenda, rather than just oppose the Democratic one. “At some point, that will come,” he predicted.   Only a handful of GOP lawmakers were on the roster of rally speakers – and those that did were conservatives like South Carolina Sen. Sen. DeMint, and Reps. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Mike Pence of Indiana, and Tom Price of Georgia. The common thread among the speakers, both the politicians and the leaders of various conservative groups, many of them with a libertarian tilt, was an assertion of American decline, and that the assembled protesters were the nation’s best hope of correcting course and reconnecting with its traditional values. But the values varied from speaker to speaker, with many concerned about fiscal failings, while others stressed individual rights and others warned of a descent into Socialism and a loss of the “American way.” Most all of them, though, portrayed the assembled as the first line of defense against these varied national ailments. Rep. Blackburn told the crowd that “You have been called to serve liberty and to defend the futures of our children and grandchildren,” and Rep. Price told them that “”a new generation of patriots has emerged. You are those patriots.” Republican Party leaders seemed optimistic Saturday that they could harness the energy, which first emerged as widespread in February, when tens of thousands turned out to Tea Party protests around the country, leading to a larger turnout at Tax Day Tea Parties on April 15, and attracting even more attention this summer, when angry constituents turned out in droves to during the recently concluded congressional summer recess to voice their displeasure with their federal lawmakers.  “If the Republican Party will carry the banner for the people who are here today, I think the majority of Americans will come with us and I just hope the rest of the Republicans here in congress will be smart enough to see that,” Sen. DeMint told Fox News television host Glenn Beck – who has emerged as perhaps the star of the movement – during a special Saturday afternoon broadcast timed to coincide with the march. DeMint, whose political action committee was a co-sponsor of the march, told Beck before his speech, “I really do believe that in 2006 and 2008, Republicans didn’t just lose our right to govern, we lost our way. I mean, we lost those elections because we walked away from the principles that had drawn hundreds of thousands of people in the nation’s capitol, to the tea parties all across the country and town hall meetings.” But Beck seemed unconvinced, telling DeMint and Rep. Pence, who appeared with DeMint on Beck’s show via satellite before speaking to the rally – that the national Republican Party had yet to reach “a pivot point.” “I’m a recovering alcoholic,” said Beck, “and I can tell you the moment I said ‘enough. I have to change my life or I will die.’ And I have not seen that from the Republican Party.” Americans, Beck said, believe that Republicans have lost their way and that – even when they oppose Obama’s plans – they are doing so for political motivations, not philosophical ones. “I don’t care who you vote for. I really don’t,” Beck said in introducing DeMint and Pence. “Vote for Republicans, Vote for a Democrat. I think, quite frankly, you vote for either of them right now, and you still haven’t gotten it. And, they are both taking us into a land of gigantic government where they control everything through corruption and everything else.” Perhaps nothing better illustrates the difficulty Republicans will have in winning over the Tea Party activists than their adulation of Beck, whose fiery populist rhetoric often attracts controversy.  At Saturday’s rally, some waved “Glenn Beck for President” signs and many activists attribute the idea for – and energy behind – the marches to Beck. During a March broadcast, he unveiled what he called The 9-12 Project  in which he urged viewers to try to recreate the united America that emerged the day after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. “It’s not about politics,” Beck said during the March broadcast. “You actually believe in something. And you thought for a while there your politicians did as well. And now you kind of realize well, maybe they don’t.” As they marched today, the activists — who chanted, “We own the dome,” while pointing at the Capitol — sounded that same note. “We used to be Republicans,” said Helen Benson of Jacksonville, Florida. “We didn’t like John McCain. The media liked John McCain.” “They’re certainly not listening – Democrats or Republicans,” said Steve Cobb, who made it to Washington from Cordelle, Georgia with his wife, Sylvia.

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

By Ric Joyner

Senator Max Baucus says he is moving with his committee to push out a health care reform bill next week. Look for final language this week.

Meanwhile I predicted that Obama would come out swinging at the joint session speech. Here is an excerpt of my prediction.

Obama is now “taking over” the agenda with a new health care speech  to a joint session of congress. If I were looking at this “battle” for the hearts and minds of people, and healthcare reform with a government run program was the foundation signature of my presidency I would steel myself to the critics and do what was necessary to get what I believed was in the best interest of the nation

This approach has played out exactly. The day of the 9-12 tea party in DC which I attended.

The bills (4 of them) will be discussed and debated until one finally emerges later in the fall. At this time we will know exactly what our “fight” will look like. Stay tuned….

cnn.com 

The facts:

The bill, HR 3200, would set up a health insurance “exchange,” in which consumers could compare policies and choose a plan. It would create a government-run health plan to compete with private insurers in that exchange, and extend subsidies for coverage to people who aren’t already covered by employers or federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid. It specifically bars illegal immigrants from receiving those subsidies. Section 246, which is included in the part of the bill that sets up the exchange, forbids payments “on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

But when Cardin said undocumented workers “will not be in this bill,” he appears to have missed one point: It may require them to buy their own coverage.

That’s the conclusion of the Congressional Research Service, which issued a report on the topic. According to the CRS, noncitizens who can be considered “resident aliens” under U.S. tax law would have to buy insurance — and unlike immigration laws, the tax code doesn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.

“Thus, legal permanent residents, and noncitizens and unauthorized aliens who qualify as resident aliens … would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance,” the new report states.

Critics say there is no way to enforce the ban on subsidies for undocumented workers, since the Democratic majority in the House turned back a Republican effort to explicitly stiffen citizenship checks. But Medicare and Medicaid already require those enrolled to provide “a substantial number of documents” to show they’re U.S. citizens or legal residents, said Henrie Treadwell, a professor of community and preventive medicine at Atlanta’s Morehouse University medical school.

Treadwell calls the issue a “red herring,” since many of the estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States are getting treatment at emergency rooms already. Doctors are obligated to treat people who show up regardless of citizenship, and most of those costs are being absorbed by hospitals and state and local governments, Treadwell said.

“It is certainly not just something that disappears,” she said. “We are paying now for care that is not preventive, and we are paying millions.”

Some Republicans argue that the measure has left a loophole for undocumented relatives of legal residents to be covered. But Treadwell disputes that, telling CNN that based on her reading of the bills, “There is no loophole currently.” The language in Section 242 of the House bill limits benefits to family members who are citizens or legal residents, she said.

In addition, a widely circulated e-mail critical of the bill states that a non-discrimination clause in Section 152 would require illegal immigrants to be covered by a public health insurance plan. But the first line of that provision forbids discrimination “except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this act.”

The verdict:

False. A new report finds the bill could require illegal immigrants to buy coverage, but it clearly restricts subsidies to U.S. citizens and legal
residents.

By Ric Joyner, CEBS, CFCI

This piece is a synopsis of health care at he Congressional recess break. I like to describe the  health care reform or insurance reform as a maze. As I read the various news reports and political sides I start to get a picture painted with a variety of colors. I will describe the form of art as impressionistic. Hazy, varied in color, unclear images but the sense I get from the painting is frustration and anger.

Space Shuttle View

The economy is sputtering along. The stimulus package, although touted by President Obama as having an impact on the declining economy only $60,000,000,000 has been spent thus far! A great deal of the stimulus dollars were for pork projects that paid back those who helped get Obama elected. For the Obama Administration to declare the stimulus package is working strikes me as premature and harkens to President Bush’s “mission accomplished” in the early days of the Iraq war. This is important because President Obama needed the hurry up stimulus bill to stop the bleeding in the economy and this hasn’t worked. To add fuel to the fire the White House Budget Office just released they were $2,000,000,000,000 off target! This amount is about the same cost as the health care plan!

Nation will be mired in deepest pool of red ink since the end of World War II, the Congressional Budget Office and White House report.

When a health care bill  is looking for funding because President Obama wants a revenue neutral bill, in my opinion the money was just “miscalculated away” and now there is no money. If they miscalculated on the budget can’t we suppose they will miscalculate on the health care reform costs? This is a legitimate question that people are asking in the town halls. Another is how can the nation absorb another 1.5 trillion with unemployment at 9.4%? The tax man requires payment in the near future!

The public is angry and reacting. Some democrats are firing back and demonizing their opinions. The DNC is gathering their paid minions to go to town hall meetings and now they are going to have their own town hall meetings. This is another puzzling question for me is why if you disagree with the left wing position you are instantly labeled as ignorant, uninformed and the anti-christ? Oh yes the reason for the attacks is to minimize your opponent. That strategy is out of the Saul Alinsky playbook.

Ideology

I have yet to understand the left wing logic  (fairness for all using the government) of people who are pushing to have the government involved in health care when we have 85% insured and 15% who aren’t. The democrats could easily find ways to fix those who are not insured.The cost is estimated at $24,000,000 to $49,000,000 depending on the coverage offered. My conclusion, and those who are protesting this intrusion into our lives, is that the decision of the democrats to create a government plan. To reiterate this goal Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House said today, “We will have a public option”. Thus, it must come down to ideology. Otherwise why spend money we don’t have to create a government run program that isn’t working in other countries except creating lines not health care.

The Future

As the recess comes to a close after labor day our Representatives hit the bargaining tables. Obama wants a bill

Summary

What knowledge is on the table to find our way through the maze? We know that the budget is 2 trillion dollars miscalculated. We know the CBO scored HR 3200 well above 1.5 Trillion (note this is $1500 billion). We know that the democrats have control of both houses and can decide to push a bill through and most likely will. We know that ideology versus covering the uninsured is driving the move to a government plan. We know that in most countries that have a government plan the citizens are demanding changes and so are some of the practitioners. We know that in HR3200 Congress has exempted itself form a government option, instead choosing their private health insurance programs! We know that cutting Medicare reimbursements means slicing services because a doctor or hospital will refuse to provide care that is not adequately funded.We know that health insurance is obsolete by 2012 according to the bill. We can see the push for a government run system at the expense of other fiscally sound strategies. We know that local protesters that opted to voice their opinions have been marginalized.

Obama is now “taking over” the agenda with a new health care speech  to a joint session of congress. If I were looking at this “battle” for the hearts and minds of people, and healthcare reform with a government run program was the foundation signature of my presidency I would steel myself to the critics and do what was necessary to get what I believed was in the best interest of the nation.

That is why we must stop this socializing of American…now!