Georgia Health Insurance 411

Posts Tagged ‘stupid government tricks’

States are having trouble making ends meet and a lot of that is due to mandates from Washington. Funding for expanded SCHIP and Medicaid was supposed to come (at least in part) from D.C., but it seems the folks in Washington are finally realizing they have already spent the money given to us by the Chinese and the corner loan shark is not willing to float them money.

On top of it all, Obama is threatening to kick some B.P. butt and Helen Thomas is off visiting some of her Jewish friends in Palestine.

And now this.

The New York Times reports that at least 30 states are in the hole for Medicaid unless Congress sends them more money. What most folks may not know is the party is about to end. All that is left now is for our children and grandchildren to empty the ashtrays and pick up the left over beer bottles from the Obama celebration of letting the good times roll on someone else’s dime.

COBRA subsidies, funding for Medicaid and SCHIP was paid for with checks kited from Washington. Most states figured they didn’t have to pare back or raise taxes as long as Obamabucks were flowing.

Unless Congress approves more Medicaid spending, which at this point seems unlikely, the states are going to have some serious funding problems. Some of our Congress critters have taken off their party hats and are threatening to sit on their hands should new votes come up for spending bills. This applies to folks with a “D” as well as those with an “R” after their name. The voter revolt is becoming quite vocal over all the spending and heads are already rolling with more to follow.

Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, for instance, penciled $850 million in federal Medicaid assistance into the revenue side of his state’s ledger, reducing its projected shortfall to $1.2 billion. The only way to compensate for the loss, he said in an interview, would be to lay off at least 20,000 government workers, including teachers and police officers, at a time when the state is starting to add jobs.

“It would actually kill everything the stimulus has done,” said Mr. Rendell, a Democrat. “It would be enormously destructive.”

Yes, “stimulus” really has a nice ring to it until the voters realize that (1) it isn’t working and (2) eventually someone will have to pay for this mess. Jobs created or saved sounds good until you realize that 95% of the new jobs were part time Census workers. Toto has pulled back the curtain to reveal the Wizard is a fake.

The Medicaid provision, which would extend assistance first granted in last year’s stimulus package, was considered such a sure bet by many governors and legislative leaders that they prematurely included the money in their budgeting. But under pressure from conservative Democrats to rein in deficit spending, House leaders in late May eliminated $24 billion in aid to states from a tax and jobs bill that was approved and forwarded to the Senate.

This is called betting on the come. If you know your opponent it can work to your advantage in poker, but it doesn’t work so well when the bank is busted and the folks you are playing against decide to call it a night.

Although the federal Medicaid share varies by state, the stimulus act raised it to an average of 66 percent, from 57 percent, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The reimbursement increase was limited to a 27-month period that ends on Dec. 31. Almost as soon as it took effect, governors began fretting about the fiscal precipice they would face when the enhanced payments ended. In February, governors from 42 states and several territories signed a letter to Congressional leaders pleading for a six-month extension.

But with the public alarmed about deficit spending, House leaders found that they could not muster the Democratic votes needed to pass the tax and jobs bill without jettisoning several expensive components.

So what happens now?

Seems that in addition to folks in DC worrying about getting laid off the same fate might await those at the state level. This is not a good year to be an incumbent.

“Old timers” will remember that phrase from a copier commercial years ago when Xerox dominated the copier market. The pitch had a sleazy salesman trying to peddle his no-name copier to a business owner and his assurance that their copier was “just as good as a Xerox”, only cheaper.

The American public has been sold on a health insurance plan that is “just as good as RomneyCare” (the Massachusetts Experience and venture into universal health care).

Obamacare is RomneyCare on steroids.

So how well is this model for the future working?

Barely 4 years after approving RomneyCare the plan is coming apart at the seams.

While 97 percent of Massachusetts residents now have health insurance, actually getting in to see a doctor is a challenge. ABC News reports that patients wait an average of 50 days to see a doctor in Boston, nearly double the next-longest wait time — 27 days in Philadelphia. Some patients are traveling outside the state to avoid the long waits.

The access problem won’t be resolved any time soon.

Sounds like one of those good news, bad news jokes, except without the good news. I guess Obamacare folks will have to travel outside the U.S.to see a doctor.

How does Mexico sound?

A recent study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that 75 percent of non-crisis emergency room visits occurred because a regular physician was not available after hours, and half of these visits occurred because patients couldn’t get a timely appointment with their doctor.

Why doesn’t Gov. Patrick simply require docs to work longer hours? That would solve the problem.

Dr. Lorraine M. Schratz, a pediatric cardiologist in Massachusetts, writes that more than half of all the doctors trained in Massachusetts are leaving the state, and one out of four doctors is considering a career change.

Rather than curb cost increases, post-reform health-care costs in Massachusetts have risen faster than the rest of the nation.

Harvard physicians Rachel Nardin, David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler say the reform has been more expensive than expected, costing $1.1 billion in fiscal 2008 and $1.3 billion in fiscal 2009.

I know the folks in D.C. are currently using all that brain power to stop the flow of oil in the Gulf, but is anyone paying attention to what is happening in Massachusetts? Sounds like Massachusetts needs to borrow Rahm Emanuel to capitalize on this crisis.

So why is RomneyCare falling apart? One is taxpayer subsidies for people earning up to 300% of the Federal Poverty Level. For those of you playing along at home, this is one of the key foundations of Obamacare as well.

Another reason is that some people are gaming the system, buying insurance only when they need it, then dropping coverage.

Gosh, who would have anticipated that? Massachusetts should impose fines on those who fail to comply with the law and don’t buy health insurance.

Oh wait, they do have fines for non-compliance.

So how is RomneyCare any different than Obamacare?

It isn’t.

If a state of 6.5 million people can’t manage a universal health care program why should we expect offering the same kind of plan to 340 million people will work any better?

Just another stupid government trick.

Smaller cars, bigger health care problems, Poppa Washington.

In order to avoid “adding one dime to the deficit”, Obamacare (Patient Protection and Unaffordable Health Care Act) had to play shell games with the funding. One way was to cut pay to doctors who treat Medicare patients by 21%.

In doing so they stripped billions out of the cost of Obamacare by projecting a $200 billion savings by cutting Medicare. The game plan was to add those billions back in via a separate bill termed “doc fix”.

Problem is, they haven’t yet “fixed” the problem and the docs are no longer joining hands with Congress and signing Kum Ba Ya.

Yesterday during a routine doctor visit there was a flyer advising patients to call their Senator and protest the Medicare cuts. If the cuts go through, this practice would have to limit the number of Medicare patients they treat and probably stop accepting new ones.

The folks at myway news have this to report.

For the third time this year, Congress is scrambling to stave off a hefty pay cut to doctors treating Medicare patients – even as the Obama administration mails out a glossy brochure to reassure seniors the health care program is on solid ground.

The 21.3 percent cut will take effect June 1 unless Congress intervenes in the next few days. Recurring uncertainty over Medicare fees is making doctors take a hard look at their participation in a program considered a bedrock of middle-class retirement security.

Don’t mess with the gray panthers. They are a large and vocal group. As baby boomer’s age into the system not only will they grow in number but it will put even more financial stress on an already leaky system.

“We will not have that cut,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., vowed Wednesday.

If Princess Nancy is to be believed, then that means the funding has to come from somewhere. There are only three ways to keep Medicare in play.

Cut reimbursement to doctors.

Increase taxes.

Restrict benefits such as through death squads.

“In the past two years, (lawmakers) keep coming up to the deadline – or a little past it – and waiving the cuts for shorter and shorter periods of time, which makes us uneasy,” said Dr. Susan Crittenden, a primary care physician practicing near Raleigh, N.C.

“The current uncertainty about what the fee schedule will be, and whether at some point there will be a 20 percent cut, makes it harder to accept new Medicare patients,” Crittenden said.

This uncertainty is what is prompting many docs to fire a shot across the bow of Obamacare.

Economist Marilyn Moon, a former Medicare trustee had this observation.

It’s irresponsible” that the health care law left such a major issue unresolved, she said, while at the same time claiming to reduce the federal deficit.

Irresponsible is a good word.

So is liar, as in say anything to gain voter support then do what you want afterward.

Meanwhile, at a Capitol Hill news conference Wednesday, the Obama administration unveiled a brochure explaining the benefits of the new health care law to seniors. The government is mailing it to more than 40 million Medicare recipients, and Republicans are criticizing it as political spin. The law, says the brochure, “keeps Medicare strong and solvent.”

Yeah, and if you like the health care plan you have now, you can keep it.

At least until Congress quits funding it.

Just another stupid government trick.

Health care reform is supposed to guarantee health insurance to roughly 36 million Americans over the next 10 years at a cost of $1 trillion or more.

In simple terms, that is $100 billion per year for 10 years. That averages out to just under $2800 per individual per year . . . IF you believe their numbers.

So how does Professor Obama score on his math abilities so far?

According to Reuters, the Obama administration has spent (or invested, depending on your perspective) $158 billion to create or save 640,329 jobs.

Ignore for the moment that not all of those were real jobs created or saved. Some were only temporary jobs that lasted a few weeks. Some were not jobs at all but rather the money was spent to give raises to people who already had jobs. And it was recently reported that Columbus schools spent $145,000 to rent banquet halls and conference rooms in “high end” hotels to train existing teachers on how to teach.

This in spite of the fact they own 120 buildings that are designed for . . . teaching.

They are also spending $1.4 million to pay speakers for this 3 day session.

But back to the jobs created or saved.

640 thousand jobs.

$158 billion.

That’s $246,000 per job created or saved.

Total compensation earned by the average payroll employee during October, on an annualized basis, was $59,867. If the government had simply used the funds awarded so far to pay for a year’s worth of labor, that would have paid for 2.6mn jobs!

So much for government efficiency.

Will someone please tell me how a government that spends that much money to save or create so few jobs will suddenly become an efficient machine at delivering quality health care for all at a lower cost than what we have now?

Dr. Kleaveland offers his views on health care reform. It is not a pretty sight, but we face off in a battle of dueling public letters.

You can read his complete dissertation by using the link, but here are some lowlights.

Consumer protection in the health industry is addressed as follows:

No denial for pre-existing conditions or gender.

Guaranteed coverage to all individuals and employers and automatic renewal of coverage.

Prohibits premium variance except for reasons of area or family enrollment and sets limits on higher premiums based on age.

Prohibits cancelling of health insurance coverage except for convincing evidence of fraud.

Pious platitudes but this demonstrates how little the good doctor actually knows about the current system. Every state has provisions that allow access to health insurance on a guaranteed issue basis. Every one. Yet this fact is ignored over and over.

Setting premium limits sounds great but as has been demonstrated over and over in states that have attempted to over-regulate health insurance, the result is less competition and significantly higher premiums for almost everyone.

All states have laws that prohibit the cancellation of health insurance except for reason of fraud or non-payment of premium.

Skipping around a bit, we find the following.

Lists required covered services, including hospitalization, prescription drugs, mental health services, preventive services, maternity care, and children’s dental, vision and hearing services.

Payments for primary care services would be increased

These are admirable, but costly. But let’s look at the doctors arguments as to why “health care reform” is needed.

Medical insurance premiums have more than doubled in the past 10 years.

OK, and why is that?

Health insurance premiums are driven by the underlying cost of medical care and the benefits they are required to cover. Most of the things Dr. Kleaveland proposes are built in to the House and Senate proposals. None of the provisions will serve to lower health insurance premiums, so what is really accomplished?

Requiring health insurance companies to take on more risk (banning medical underwriting), covering more items (dental, vision, mental health parity) and compressing the premium spread will result in massive premium increases if this form of health “care” reform passes.

Look at it this way. If Washington required auto insurance carriers to cover tires, brakes and oil changes as well as all routine maintenance and repairs, would auto insurance rates come down under this kind of reform? If you paid little or nothing for maintenance and repairs, but rather used your auto insurance plan to cover these costs, do you think the underlying cost of auto repair would decrease?

If you answered “yes” you are clearly out of touch with reality.

If you answered “no” then you are beginning to understand why health care reform will do nothing to lower health insurance premiums and make coverage more affordable.

Cost of health care have risen to 16 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and is predicted to rise to 20 percent of GDP by 2018. No country can survive or compete in the global market if they spend 20 percent of their GDP on health care.

Unless and until the cost of health care is addressed, health care reform will not do a thing to stop this type of inflationary pressure.  None of the proposals in Congress, and none of the items in Dr. Kleaveland’s letter will slow down or control the cost of health care.

The more time the House and Senate bills spend in the light of day, the more insidious they become. Pages 264 – 265 tell us that Indians whose income is below 300% of the FPL will receive free health care.

My wife has some Cherokee in her ancestry if you go back far enough. Suppose she can qualify?

Page 443 of the bill substitutes “legal residents” with the language “those lawfully residing in the United States.”

What is that all about?

Page 369 of the bill protects workers from retribution if they complain that their employer is not providing health insurance benefits.

If you are an Indian does that mean your employer doesn’t have to provide coverage?

Isn’t this fun?

The folks at The Heritage Foundation have nailed it in today’s Morning Bell. This should be required reading of anyone, ESPECIALLY those who will be called to vote on the legislation.

Excerpt . . .

Last Saturday night Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) forced through a vote on her 2,032 page health care bill only a few days after releasing it to the public. Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is poised for another Saturday night cram down, forcing a Senate cloture vote mere days before his 2,074 page bill was given to Senators. Yet again, Congress will be forced to vote on a bill that none of them have actually read. More importantly, as we pour through the details, it becomes obvious that none of them even believe the plan will do what the bill says.

Kills Jobs: All told, the Reid Bill raises taxes by $370.2 billion over the next ten years with many of those taxes starting to be collected this year while unemployment is at 10.2% and rising. Worse, the bill includes a job killing employer mandate which taxes companies for hiring people. Specifically, companies with more than 50 employees that do not offer a health plan approved by federal bureaucrats will be forced to pay a $750 per employee job tax.

Hurts Small Businesses: The Reid Bill acknowledges it is terrible public policy for small businesses and tries to address this problem by including a “small business tax credit” to minimize the impact of the job killing employer mandates and regulation-caused rises in private health insurance premiums. But the tax credit only lasts two years and largely excludes small business owners, small businesses with high-average payrolls, and firms with 25 or more workers. After all exclusions, essentially the only eligible firms are those firms with 10 or fewer workers as well as those with low-income workers—the least likely to offer coverage even with a significant price reduction.

For the rest of the story, click the link above to Heritage.

This is truly another example of a stupid government trick.

When it is your money Congress is spending, there is no limit. Care to guess how much Sen. Mary Landrieu want’s for a yes vote for health insurance reform?

Try $100 million.

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

No kidding.

This falls under the category of saving or creating a health insurance reform bill.

Change you can believe in.

Obamacare promises to cover the uninsured, but not all, only 36 million . . . eventually. The Senate version of health insurance reform carries a price tag of $894 billion over 10 years.

But even that figure is in question since the CBO has not completed their final tally. The $894 billion is . . . just an estimate.

Still, that is the only figure available at this time.

So $894 billion over 10 years is $89 billion per year.

To cover 36 million who currently have no health insurance.

That works out to $2 million per uninsured per year.

Sorry, but this isn’t working for me.

Smaller cars, bigger health insurance premiums, Poppa Washington.

Health care stimulus is coming and I can hardly wait. The folks who gave us Cash for Clunkers, the program that ran out of money in two weeks, are showing us how well health care reform will work.

The folks in Washington are so proud of what the stimulus plan is doing to save or create jobs, they even give us a website where we can watch every detail of where our tax dollars are being spent. The folks at Recovery.gov have given us this information to bolster our confidence in how well they manage our money, and will (I am certain) do just as well when they take over health care.

Your Congressmen spent $3,582,587 in the 86th Congressional district of Florida to save or create 5 jobs.

I have two questions.

How does Florida qualify for 86 districts when California, a much larger and more populous state have only 54? The answer is, they don’t have 86 districts so where did the money go?

The other question is, how do I get one of those jobs? If all the jobs pay equally that means I could earn $716,517. Not bad for a job in a non-existent part of Florida.

Here in Georgia they spent $2,200,000 to create one job in district 00.

We don’t have a district 00 but I still would like to apply for that job.

By the time you read this the site will probably be sanitized.

We can only hope that health care stimulus will be just as promising with physicians receiving $250,000 to perform bunion removal and hospitals getting billions to make them smell less medicinal.