"Our Children and Grandchildren are not merely statistics towards which we can be indifferent" JFK
Showing posts with label Health Care Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Care Reform. Show all posts

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Money Won’t Buy You Health Insurance...and Health Care CEO's really appreciate your business

Los Angeles Times: The top executives at the nation's five
largest for-profit health insurance companies
pulled in nearly $200 million in compensation last year.

The Wall Street Journal: Health Care CEO's Earn Top Pay,
Median CEO pay was $10 MILLION

Star Tribune: Minnesota's Highest Paid CEOs
Top of the LIst-Stephen Hemsley, CEO United Health Group

By Donna Dubinsky
Op-Ed Contributor
The New York Times
Published: February 19, 2011


THIS isn’t the story of a poor family with a mother who has a dreadful disease that bankrupts them, or with a child who has to go without vital medicines. Unlike many others, my family can afford medical care, with or without insurance.

Instead, this is a story about how broken the market for health insurance is, even for those who are healthy and who are willing and able to pay for it.

Most employees assume that if they lose their job and the health coverage that comes along with it, they’ll be able to purchase insurance somewhere. The members of Congress who want to repeal the provision of last year’s health insurance law that makes it easier for individuals to buy coverage must assume that uninsured people do not want to buy it, or are just too cheap or too poor to do so.

The truth is that individual health insurance is not easy to get.

I found this out the hard way. Six years ago, my company was acquired. Since my husband had retired a few years earlier, we found ourselves without an employer and thus without health insurance.

My husband, teenage daughter and I were all active and healthy, and I naïvely thought getting health insurance would be simple.

Why did we even need insurance? First, we wanted to know that, if we had a medical catastrophe, we would not exhaust our savings. Second, uninsured patients are billed more than the rates that insurers negotiate with doctors and hospitals, and we wanted to pay those lower rates. The difference is significant: my recent M.R.I. cost $1,300 at the “retail” rate, while the rate negotiated by the insurance company was $700.

An insurance broker helped me sort through the options. I settled on a high-deductible plan, and filled out the long application. I diligently listed the various minor complaints for which we had been seen over the years, knowing that these might turn up later and be a basis for revoking coverage if they were not disclosed.

Then the first letter arrived — denied. It never occurred to me that we would be denied! Yes, we had listed a bunch of minor ailments, but nothing serious. No cancer, no chronic diseases like asthma or diabetes, no hospital stays.

Why were we denied? What were these pre-existing conditions that put us into high-risk categories? For me, it was a corn on my toe for which my podiatrist had recommended an in-office procedure. My daughter was denied because she takes regular medication for a common teenage issue. My husband was denied because his ophthalmologist had identified a slow-growing cataract. Basically, if there is any possible procedure in your future, insurers will deny you.

The broker then proposed that the three of us make individual applications. Perhaps one or two of us might be accepted, rather than the family as a group.

As I filled out more applications, I discovered a critical error in my strategy. The first question was “Have you ever been denied health insurance”? Now my answer was yes, giving the new companies reason to be wary of my application. I learned too late that the best tactic is to apply simultaneously to as many companies as possible, so that you don’t have to admit to a denial.

I completed four applications for each of the three of us, using reams of paper. I learned to read the questions carefully. I mulled over the difference between a “condition” and “something for which you have sought treatment.” I was precise and succinct. I felt as if I was doing a deposition: Give the minimum true information, and not a word more. I was accepted by exactly one insurance company. So was my daughter, although at a 50 percent premium over the standard charge for a girl her age. My husband was also accepted by one insurer but was denied by the company that approved me.

Our premiums, which were reasonable at first, have increased substantially over the last six years; the average annual increase has been 20 percent. I now am paying premiums that are more than double what they were initially. And because these are high-deductible policies, we still are paying most of the medical bills ourselves.

The new health care reform legislation is not perfect. Nothing that complex could be. But I have no doubt that the system is broken and reform is absolutely essential. If we are not going to have universal coverage but are going to rely on employer plans, then we must offer individuals, self-employed people and small businesses a place to purchase insurance at a reasonable price.

If members of Congress feel so strongly about undoing this important legislation, perhaps we should stop providing them with health insurance. Let’s credit their pay for the amount that has been paid by the taxpayers, and let them try to buy health insurance in the individual market. My bet is that they all would be denied. Health insurance reform might suddenly not seem to them like such a bad idea.

Donna Dubinsky, a co-founder of Palm Computer and Handspring, is the chief executive of a computer software company.









Thursday, October 14, 2010

Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed

By: Tom Brown
(Reuters) - U.S. states can proceed with their lawsuit seeking to overturn President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare reform law, a Florida judge ruled on Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson had already indicated at a hearing last month that he could not uphold parts of a motion by the Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuit, led by Florida and 19 other states.

"In this order, I have not attempted to determine whether the line between constitutional and extra-constitutional government has been crossed," Vinson, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, wrote in his ruling.

Opponents of Obama's overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system have said it violates the Constitution by imposing, for example, unlawful taxes and requiring citizens to obtain coverage, among other issues.

"I am only saying that ... the plaintiffs have at least stated a plausible claim that the line has been crossed," Vinson said.

The suit was originally filed in March by mostly Republican state attorneys general.

In his formal ruling on Thursday, Vinson said the case would continue as scheduled. He had previously set a hearing for December

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Obama to promote new health care laws while insurance companies decide to stop offering new child-only health plans

Obama to promote new health care laws
USA Today (9/22/10)

The White House calls the provisions a "Patient's Bill of Rights," and provides description of the changes:

Ban on Discriminating Against Kids with Pre-Existing Conditions:
Before reform, tens of the thousands of families had been denied insurance each year for their children because of an illness or condition. Starting September 23rd, plans cannot discriminate against kids with pre-existing conditions. In 2014, no one seeking coverage can be discriminated against because of a preexisting condition. Up to 72,000 uninsured children are expected to gain coverage by banning insurers from refusing them coverage due to a pre-existing condition. Coverage for up to 90,000 children will no longer exclude benefits because of a pre-existing condition.

Memo to: President Obama
From: Vigilant Grandpa
Re:  Please read the following before you once again tout the merits of health care reform and how life will be so much better for our children and grandchildren. They deserve better Mr. President and at the very least, they deserve the truth!

By N.C. Aizenman
The Washington Post
9/20/10

Some of the country's most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.

The companies will continue to cover children who already have child-only policies. They will also accept children with preexisting conditions in new family policies.

Nonetheless, supporters of the new health-care law complain that the change amounts to an end run around one of the most prized consumer protections.

"We're just days away from a new era when insurance companies must stop denying coverage to kids just because they are sick, and now some of the biggest changed their minds," Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, an advocacy group, said in a statement. "[It] is immoral, and to blame their appalling behavior on the new law is patently dishonest."

Three insurers - WellPoint, Cigna and CoventryOne - all cited uncertainty in the health insurance market for their decisions. That incertitude and the resulting decision of other insurers to drop their child-only plans, according to WellPoint spokeswoman Kristin Binns, "has created an unlevel competitive environment."

CoventryOne spokesman Matthew D. Eyles said that the insurer was facing "unique challenges that could undermine our ability to offer value and meet our continued obligations to existing policyholders."

But officials of the Obama administration said the move contradicted a letter from the leader of one of the insurance industry's most important trade groups after the law's adoption in March. Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, expressed support for the law's provisions concerning children with preexisting conditions and promised to "fully comply" with them.

"We expect [insurance companies] to honor that commitment. Insurers shouldn't break their promise and turn their backs on some of our most vulnerable Americans," said Jessica Santillo, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for AHIP, noted that insurers will be accepting children with preexisting conditions in other types of plans.

But, he said, extending such coverage in child-only policies "provides a very powerful incentive for a parent to wait until their child becomes very sick before purchasing coverage."

Zirkelbach added that in 2014, when similar protections kick in for all individuals with preexisting conditions, virtually all Americans will be required to get health insurance.

With no such mandate currently in place, however, the result over the next several years could be that the pool of children insured by child-only plans would rapidly skew toward those with expensive medical bills, either bankrupting the plans or forcing insurers to make up their losses by substantially increasing premiums for all customers. And Zirkelbach said the effect could be compounded if only a few plans remain in the market.

It is unclear how many children will be affected. Child-only plans represent only a small share of the non-group plans available on the individual market - with somewhere between 100,000 and 700,000 children currently receiving such coverage, according to administration officials.

In some states that have separate requirements concerning child-only plans, insurers will continue to offer new policies - New York, Maine, Ohio and Virginia, in the case of WellPoint's Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, for instance.

Most poor children with preexisting conditions already qualify for insurance through programs such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. And those who are not poor will be able to apply to new high-risk pools established by the law.









Monday, April 26, 2010

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska breaks ranks (you remember Ben, he won cash and prizes for a yes vote on Health Care Reform)

CBS News:
Senate Republicans held together Monday afternoon to block efforts by Democrats to officially begin debate on the financial industry reform bill.
No Republicans cast a "yes" vote on the procedural motion, keeping Democrats from the 60 vote threshold needed to move forward. One Democrat, Nebraska's Ben Nelson, voted "no" outright.

Just in case Ben Nelson is not a household name...

Fox News 12/20/09
Nelson also won several other concessions, most notably a commitment from the federal government to fully fund his state's expanded Medicaid population. All states get full federal assistance for the first three years of the bill -- but Nebraska would be the only state getting full assistance afterward. One Democratic official put the cost to the federal government at $45 million over a decade.

The concessions didn't end there. Nelson also got an exemption from a fee on non-profit health insurers -- the language was written in a way that only applies to Nebraska and Michigan.

Democratic senators defended the Nebraska deal. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said all states get a lot of federal aid for Medicaid anyway, and that special treatment is hardly unique to Nebraska. "Personally, every state gets some kind of differential treatment based on their situation," he told "Fox News Sunday."

"People fight for their own states. That's the nature of a democracy," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. GRANDPA: I thought democracy included a faint amount of fairness for all Amy, including what is in the best interest of the entire country. Democracy has become synonymous with racking up debt and pass it along to others for payment...like our grandchildren.

18 months and yet no financial reform. At 15 months, my grandson is walking, early attempts at conversation, displays a pleasant disposition and an identifiable personality and eats solid food. Unlike congress, he has made meaningful and monumental and strides in 5/6th the time. What is your excuse!

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Corporations announcing charge offs due to new healthcare bill

A number of publically traded companies announced this week that they would be taking a charge due to the new healthcare reform bill. Given the fact that the bill was just signed, one can expect additional charge off announcements during the coming weeks.

WSJ: AT&T Inc. said it would take a $1 billion charge against earnings tied to the federal health-care overhaul, joining a number of other companies in reporting an impact from the bill signed into law this week.The charges relate to prescription-drug benefits for retirees. Companies that provide this benefit, as AT&T does, receive a federal subsidy, plus they can deduct the value of this subsidy from their taxes. The health overhaul cancels the deductibility of the subsidy.

CNN: Manufacturer John Deere announced Thursday that it expected the company's expenses to be about $150 million higher than last year. That came a day after Caterpillar predicted a new cost of $100 million, and two days after AK Steel predicted a charge of $31 million.

Most of the new costs will come in a reduction in subsidies that about 1,400 companies receive for providing drug coverage to their retirees. In an effort to raise several billion dollars for implementing the health care package, the law makes those subsidies taxable, just like income.

The subsidies began in 2003, when a prescription drug benefit was added to Medicare. To prevent companies that provided retirees with private drug benefits from dumping them into the new Medicare program, the government began providing an incentive. Giving companies a subsidy to continue their private coverage of retirees costs the government around half as much as covering those same retirees directly with Medicare's drug plan.

The subsidy averages $665 per retiree, according to Roland McDevitt, who has studied the issue for human resources consultant Towers Watson. The new tax would lower that by $233 per retiree. Because each company will have to make up the difference up front for the duration of each retiree's retirement, McDevitt estimates the change will cost companies $2,800 per retiree this year.

"That's a pretty big impact it will have on them," McDevitt said. "Having an additional cost like this is not great timing," Caterpillar spokesman Jim Dugan said.

3M Co Press Release: will record a one-time non-cash charge of up to $90 million, or 12 cents a share, in the first quarter as a result of the U.S. health reform signed into law this week, the company said on Friday.














Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Health Care Reform: In pictures

President Obama is scheduled to sign the Health Care Reform Bill this morning.

Sorry Benjamin, Nancy Pelosi was very specific about
dependent care eligibility. She specified that it is up to age 26
and one needs to start at zero. Your claim is denied.

Pre-existing conditions are waived in 2014, might I suggest
rescheduling your enrollment until...


"Please step away from the file cabinet ma'am, we are here
to audit your employee benefits files".

I am sorry son, your parents received countless notices from
Health and Human Services regarding their lack of coverage.
Please verify the 2% household income penalty and initial.

10% excise tax on indoor tanning salons after 7/1/2010

MN Governor Tim Pawlenty; "Obama's nanny nation
approach" to government.


Medical Device manufacturers purging inventory prior to the
2013 implementation of 2.9% excise tax

Drug companies repackaging program to
reduce the impact of the 2011 imposed annual fee

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Obama's Health Care Summit

Thursday, February 25th, 2010 Mr. Obama is hosting the Health Care Summit. This is an exclusive, invitation only (a.k.a. in congress since junior high) event and will likely produce absolutely NADDA.

Grandpa is not on the list however given my active imagination, allow me to share my perception via the wonderful world of photographs.
Venue: Blair House (the official state guest house
 and purchased by the U.S. Government in 1942)

Official Inviation sent to 22 of our most illustreous lawmakers
Grandpa could not secure a copy of the entire invitation...
Secret Service has really notched it up since Tareq and Michaele Salahi

The summit is scheduled from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm ET. President Obama will kick things off with an introduction speech and reiterate the overall summit objective and location of restrooms.


The 4 core discusion areas:

                          Controlling Costs


Insurance Reforms

Reducing Budget Deficits

 Expanding Insurance Coverage

Buffet Lunch


Team Building Activity Break Out Session




Update to follow.....

Saturday, February 20, 2010

States battle ongoing recessionary conditions (and can not print their own currency)

Associate Press
"The worst probably is yet to come," warned Gov. Jim Douglas, R-Vt., chairman of the National Governors Association, at the group's meeting Saturday. He called the situation "fairly poor" in most states, adding that it "doesn't look too good.

“Because of the decline in state revenues,” Mr. Douglas said, “43 states cut $31 billion from their budgets in 2009. For fiscal year 2010, even with nearly $30 billion in new revenue, 36 states have been forced to cut $55 billion. Thirty states have cut elementary, secondary and higher education.”

Such uncertainty weighed heavily over the governors' weekend meeting even though health care -- and how states can address skyrocketing costs -- was their intended focus. That's recognized as one of the biggest issues affecting states' long-term solvency.

States face budget holes totaling $134 billion over the next three years, according to the governors, explaining that tax collections keep declining as Medicaid costs soar. High unemployment persists. States cut 18,000 jobs in January alone and more job losses are anticipated. Because states are required to balance their budgets, shortfalls will be made up by raising taxes or fees or cutting services.

While the national economy has grown in recent months, the situation is deteriorating in the states. People are feeling the fallout daily, from fewer services to higher fees. It's a trend consistent with other recessions; states usually experience their worst budget years in the two years after a recession ends.

Governors are hoping for an infusion of cash, perhaps $25 billion, in the latest jobs measure that Congress is debating. The national unemployment rate fell to 9.7 percent in January, but 17 states entered 2010 with double-digit joblessness.

In the coming year, state tax collections are projected to continue to be far lower than expected because real estate values are plunging, people are losing their jobs and consumers are curtailing spending. Demand for services such as Medicaid, food stamps and unemployment benefits is all but certain to keep rising.

People fretting about disappearing jobs and drying up unemployment benefits will feel the effects of whatever governors decide to do. Tough budget times typically translate into new tolls on roads, more prisoners released early to save money, the end of some state welfare programs and steeper tuition at public colleges.

"The governors who raise taxes will be hurt worse than the governors who have cut spending," predicted Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican Governors Association. He said people tend to give leaders credit who make tough choices to tighten their own belts in times of crisis.

Grandpa’s take:
The administration continues to spew the “economic improvement story” however 36 of our 50 states have cut $55 billion from their budgets and cut elementary, secondary and higher education! Is the administration suggesting that the remaining 14 states have adequate growth to make up for the remaining 36? Clearly the private sector is not making up the difference!
 
States cut 18,000 jobs in January and yet Mr. Joe “jolly” Biden states 2,000,000 jobs have been saved or created as a result of the stimulus package.
 
Christina Romer, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors in a 458 page report to Obama declares the U.S. will average +95,000 jobs per month throughout 2010. This is the same Ms. Romer that in last year’s report stated unemployment would be slightly higher than 8% in 2009. The “official” government calculated (a.k.a massaged, tweaked and adjusted years later) unemployment figure hit 8.9% in March of 2009 and spent the balance of the year between 9.5% and 10%. OOPS!
 
Christina recently told reporters at the White house: “The truth is, we don’t have a crystal ball. Every year, we try to do an honest, reasonable, conservative forecast.”
 
The truth is Ms. Romer, you and your three person team are clearly over your heads and forget that mathematical calculations are a left brain function versus the right brain political spew you do so well. Maybe if you and Austan Goolsbee spent less time on CNBC and Fox News, you would have adequate time to substantiate your calculations.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Sunday Comics Part Deux

Just another day of banter between Biden and Cheney

Joe Biden: White House ready and willing to listen
to health care ideas from republicans


Nancy Pelosi after a 12 member bi-partisan (1 republican)
 day trip to Haiti

Happy Valentine's Day Nancy

Happy Valentine's Day Mr. Dimon

Bob Corker and Chris Dodd negotiating regulatory reform