So, the House squeaked out enough votes to pass their horrendous healthcare bill against the wishes of the majority of Americans. I had assumed it primarily had to do with the fact that the uber-liberals were just hell-bent on pushing through their agenda based upon their socialistic ideals, or that they were running on the stale "mandate" of 2008 Obama campaign. However, the polls suggest that Americans have changed their mind on Obama's change!
So, that gave me pause to think, why would so-called "intelligent" people and large organizations be in favor of this vastly aggressive bill. I happened on to an article that Dick Morris and his wife, Eileen McGann, wrote on The Hill. Now, I'm not necessarily a big fan of Dick Morris. I'm always suspicious of someone who changes political allegiances, and especially when they change back again. In this case Dick was a republican who went over to the left to work for Clinton, and now is on the right again. In fact, I have about as much respect for him as I do Arlen Specter.
However, in their article, Morris and McGann did shed some light on that nagging questions. They claim that there was some "bribery" involved. I must say that makes sense. But, isn't that "business as usual" that Washington is known for and what Obama vowed to change? Oh, but no, it wasn't that kind of Washington change he meant, was it? He meant that he would have a sub-cabinet that that was neither elected or approved, that wasn't answerable to Congress, and that had no restrictions upon them - but that's for another time. In today's blog I'm dealing with why would groups like AMA and AARP be in favor of Obamacare. Morris and McGann pointed out that there was a little wheeling and dealing in a back room at the White House.
Morris and McGann stated that the AMA,, under the current law, was facing a 21% cut in physicians' Medicare reimbursements that have accumulated over year after year rather than being repealed by Congress. Obama promised to kill the cut if they would endorse his bill. (Ah, now that makes some sense.... and perhaps why the trustees okayed the endorsement without the support of the membership.)
Likewise, AARP apparently got a financial windfall for their support as well. It appears that they are doing like some of the non-banks that are now banks. That is to say, they dabbled in insurance through their subsidiary company, so they are morphing from an advocacy group into a full-fledged insurance. They had their own Medi-gap insurance which is costly for seniors. This Medi-gap picked up where Medicare left off... but Bush passed Medicare Advantage program. It did the same thing, but at a lower cost. (And where was it now that Obama was going to cut Medicare to pay for his plan? Oh, yeah, Medicare Advantage! Hmm. That eliminates competition for AARP, doesn't it?)
But there's one other entity that I had questions about and not a lot has been said about it. That is the negotiated deal between Obama and the drug companies. So, what kind of deal did Obama do for them? Well, let's see... Morris and McGann say in their article that for backing his ObamaCare bill, the drug industry could get a 10-year limit of something in the neighborhood of $80 billion on prescription drug costs, plus there would be a ban on imported Canadian drugs, and the drug industry was to also make their huge advertising budget available to the Obama Administration.
So, who are the other winners? How about the Insurance industry itself. I haven't heard them screaming bloody murder about this governmental competition. Perhaps that because they will have potentially 40 million new customers whose premiums will be paid by the government. But wait, they were perhaps a little premature in their elation. It appears that the honeymoon with ObamaCare ended when the Senate Finance Committee bill lowered the penalty from $3,500 to $1,500. That meant that the penalty was more affordable than their insurance premiums.
Among the losers in this scenario is the industry that makes medical devices. They wouldn't go along with ObamaCare and it's cost them. The BaucuScare bill imposed a tax on their devices. These include arterial stents, prosthetics, hip and knee joints, pacemakers, and automated wheelchairs.
Now that these facts have come to light, people are becoming better informed than ever before and the Senate needs to understand that when Americans say they don't want ObamaCare, they mean it! If they don't listen, the American people will be the real losers here. They will lose the quality of care that is the envy of the whole world. They will lose the right to choose their insurance coverage, to choose their doctor, and to choose the type of medication and/or treatment. Is ObamaCare DOA in the Senate? I hope so!
Showing posts with label AARP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AARP. Show all posts
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Cadillac Insurance Could Apply to Anyone Who Presently Has Insurance!
Okay, I'm being facetious, but as I discussed before, a Cadillac insurance plan is usually described as a high premium policy. Generally speaking, that means an insurance plan that is expensive coverage, and usually defined by the total cost of the insurance premiums, rather than what healthcare coverage the patient actually gets. Let's say some poor Joe was able to get healthcare coverage even with a pre-existing and had astronomically high premiums. Voila! He'd be in the Cadillac insurance category! How fair is that?
I have heard one individual say that it could depend upon what type of coverage you had; in other words, if you had insurance that covered dental and vision, that could be considered a Cadillac insurance plan.
When I was younger, I had insurance coverage based upon what I could afford to pay out of pocket in premiums, co-pays and deductibles. And it was sort of a balancing act between out of pocket expenses and how much coverage I could get. Just getting started in life, I didn't have a much extra cash on hand to pay for the occasional drugs and doctor visits and I certainly didn't have anything that I could save since I was just starting out. So, I had to have low deductibles and co-pays. I could also opt for a policy that would pay a higher percentage of the healthcare cost in the event of hospital visits, etc. - if I could afford it in the additional premium cost. Of course, all that meant was my payroll deducted premium would be somewhat higher than average. So, I guess I had a "Cadillac" policy and didn't know it.
So, just who is it that have these Cadillac plans in the government's estimation? Getting a straight and definitive answer is about the same as asking them if they can say with certainty what is and what is not included in the healthcare bills from the House and Senate... all five versions apparently say different things. And who the heck really knows since they're not reading the darn things???
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee, had set the threshold for most people at $8,000 in annual premiums for an individual and $21,000 for a family. However, the estimate is that only 2 or 3 percent of covered workers and families would hit that benchmark, so there are clearly not going to be enough people to "rob from" through taxes to cover the 40-million-some-odd people who supposedly don't have any coverage. In fact, the Baucus plan still leaves about 15 million without coverage.
So, besides taxing the very tiny percentage of people who fall into the rich category and robbing $500B from the old folks' Medicare Advantage plan (for which they pay extra to have!), there hasn't been any other revelation as to how this healthcare reform is going to be (1) deficit neutral and (2) not increase taxes on the middle and lower income people.
That presents a major problem. So, just how will the politicians decide what constitutes a Cadillac insurance plan? Oh, that's easy. They're going to review the majority of the plans that the 90% of Americans have now. They're going to determine the average coverage and then determine that anything above that average will be considered the "Cadillac".
As mentioned before, the BaucuSCARE bill isn't going to cover everyone. They're still saying that 15 million or more will not be covered. So, the arbitrary number of the 47 million, which had dropped down to something in the high 30 millions (you just pick any huge number) only about half of them will be covered under his plan. How is that so much better than what we have now? We will still have the lawyers skinning doctors and drug companies alive. We will still have drug companies gouging US citizens while practically giving drugs to other countries for pennies on the dollar. We will still have the Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse.... all of which will remain under HR3200 AND the Baucus' bill - as well as any of the others, I'm sure. So, ALL of the problems with our current US healthcare system we'll just carry those over to the next healthcare system, and for the switch we'll have less quality care, but add 15 million "to the rolls" who are basically getting free medical care now.... just check any hospital emergency room!
The other thing of great concern is the fact that when the new healthcare reform act is passed and signed by the president, the changes will not take effect immediately. Paying for the plan will begin immediately, but the actual plan itself will not be implemented until 2013. That means that we will be paying for a healthcare plan over three years before we can utilize its benefits. (Why don't I go buy a real Cadillac right now on a ten-year loan and wait for them to deliver it to me in three years. How smart is that?)
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report last week which claimed the Baucus bill would not add to the national deficit. This was the "plain speak" version not the "political-speak" one with all the confusion - I mean - all the details, either! But this report assumes that those employers who had previously provided healthcare coverage for their employers and who would drop employee coverage in favor of the less costly non-coverage tax penalty as provided under the Baucus bill would increase their worker paychecks by an equal amount which they spent on the insurance coverage. (I'm not sure if this would be less the penalty they would have to pay!) This practice will take a nontaxable event for the employer (the health care provision) and replace it with a taxable one (employee wages). Proponents of the bill say this will produce $83 billion in government revenues. If this revenue doesn't come into the coffers, then the Baucus bill will add billions of dollars to the federal deficit in the next ten years.
So I'm asking, why would a company drop employee coverage just so it could pay more (in fines, taxes, and wages) than it did before? It does seem more likely they'd just drop the expensive insurance, pay the fine, and let the insurance part go! Sounds more logical, doesn't it?
Overall, it would be much more effective and much less expensive if politicians would just address the problems that presently exist in our current healthcare system rather than building a whole new system around those problems. It's like building a new house on a crumbling foundation. And that is exactly what the American people are trying to tell Congress - only they're not listening.
All I can say is any Democrats who supports any final bill of this type should be and will be held responsible for this healthcare mess when premiums rise, taxes increase, deficits skyrocket, and Big Government's power grab reaches farther and farther into the American's wallets and way of life.
I have heard one individual say that it could depend upon what type of coverage you had; in other words, if you had insurance that covered dental and vision, that could be considered a Cadillac insurance plan.
When I was younger, I had insurance coverage based upon what I could afford to pay out of pocket in premiums, co-pays and deductibles. And it was sort of a balancing act between out of pocket expenses and how much coverage I could get. Just getting started in life, I didn't have a much extra cash on hand to pay for the occasional drugs and doctor visits and I certainly didn't have anything that I could save since I was just starting out. So, I had to have low deductibles and co-pays. I could also opt for a policy that would pay a higher percentage of the healthcare cost in the event of hospital visits, etc. - if I could afford it in the additional premium cost. Of course, all that meant was my payroll deducted premium would be somewhat higher than average. So, I guess I had a "Cadillac" policy and didn't know it.
So, just who is it that have these Cadillac plans in the government's estimation? Getting a straight and definitive answer is about the same as asking them if they can say with certainty what is and what is not included in the healthcare bills from the House and Senate... all five versions apparently say different things. And who the heck really knows since they're not reading the darn things???
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee, had set the threshold for most people at $8,000 in annual premiums for an individual and $21,000 for a family. However, the estimate is that only 2 or 3 percent of covered workers and families would hit that benchmark, so there are clearly not going to be enough people to "rob from" through taxes to cover the 40-million-some-odd people who supposedly don't have any coverage. In fact, the Baucus plan still leaves about 15 million without coverage.
So, besides taxing the very tiny percentage of people who fall into the rich category and robbing $500B from the old folks' Medicare Advantage plan (for which they pay extra to have!), there hasn't been any other revelation as to how this healthcare reform is going to be (1) deficit neutral and (2) not increase taxes on the middle and lower income people.
That presents a major problem. So, just how will the politicians decide what constitutes a Cadillac insurance plan? Oh, that's easy. They're going to review the majority of the plans that the 90% of Americans have now. They're going to determine the average coverage and then determine that anything above that average will be considered the "Cadillac".
As mentioned before, the BaucuSCARE bill isn't going to cover everyone. They're still saying that 15 million or more will not be covered. So, the arbitrary number of the 47 million, which had dropped down to something in the high 30 millions (you just pick any huge number) only about half of them will be covered under his plan. How is that so much better than what we have now? We will still have the lawyers skinning doctors and drug companies alive. We will still have drug companies gouging US citizens while practically giving drugs to other countries for pennies on the dollar. We will still have the Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse.... all of which will remain under HR3200 AND the Baucus' bill - as well as any of the others, I'm sure. So, ALL of the problems with our current US healthcare system we'll just carry those over to the next healthcare system, and for the switch we'll have less quality care, but add 15 million "to the rolls" who are basically getting free medical care now.... just check any hospital emergency room!
The other thing of great concern is the fact that when the new healthcare reform act is passed and signed by the president, the changes will not take effect immediately. Paying for the plan will begin immediately, but the actual plan itself will not be implemented until 2013. That means that we will be paying for a healthcare plan over three years before we can utilize its benefits. (Why don't I go buy a real Cadillac right now on a ten-year loan and wait for them to deliver it to me in three years. How smart is that?)
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report last week which claimed the Baucus bill would not add to the national deficit. This was the "plain speak" version not the "political-speak" one with all the confusion - I mean - all the details, either! But this report assumes that those employers who had previously provided healthcare coverage for their employers and who would drop employee coverage in favor of the less costly non-coverage tax penalty as provided under the Baucus bill would increase their worker paychecks by an equal amount which they spent on the insurance coverage. (I'm not sure if this would be less the penalty they would have to pay!) This practice will take a nontaxable event for the employer (the health care provision) and replace it with a taxable one (employee wages). Proponents of the bill say this will produce $83 billion in government revenues. If this revenue doesn't come into the coffers, then the Baucus bill will add billions of dollars to the federal deficit in the next ten years.
So I'm asking, why would a company drop employee coverage just so it could pay more (in fines, taxes, and wages) than it did before? It does seem more likely they'd just drop the expensive insurance, pay the fine, and let the insurance part go! Sounds more logical, doesn't it?
Overall, it would be much more effective and much less expensive if politicians would just address the problems that presently exist in our current healthcare system rather than building a whole new system around those problems. It's like building a new house on a crumbling foundation. And that is exactly what the American people are trying to tell Congress - only they're not listening.
All I can say is any Democrats who supports any final bill of this type should be and will be held responsible for this healthcare mess when premiums rise, taxes increase, deficits skyrocket, and Big Government's power grab reaches farther and farther into the American's wallets and way of life.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Obama Administration Censorship on Healthcare
Okay, I mentioned in my earlier article today that two bits of information from this morning’s news popped my eyes open. The second thing didn’t make my feet hit the floor like the first one did, but certainly raised my blood pressure. It’s the old double-standard…. which I abhor… that is so alive and well in the Obama administration. For instance, the left claiming that any attempt to silence them is a violation of freedom of speech, while they (now that they are in control) are trying to do just that to their opposition.
Recently, private insurer Humana Inc. sent out a letter to its senior customers who were enrolled in the company’s Medicare Advantage plan. In essence, this letter was advising them that under Senator Max Baucus’ Plan, which includes billions in cut to Medicare and Medicaid, their benefits could be in danger of being eliminated if this legislation passed. When Baucus got wind of this letter, whiney-baby Baucus got the Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to try to keep Humana from sending these out letters to its customers.
The CMS in essence issued a gag order and instructed Humana to stop expressing “certain opinions” about healthcare reform. From a letter from the CMS to Humana on this matter: “Please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings of our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions….” CMS has also prohibited any other private insurers from corresponding in like manner with their customers. However, AARP, which sponsors a Medicare Advantage program in addition to its Medigap policies, was somehow (mysteriously) exempted. (Remember there was some “nuzzling” between AARP and the White House a short time ago which resulted in a “Kumbaya moment” between them! Something about an endorsement, only it wasn’t an endorsement when people started tearing up their AARP membership cards and cancelling their memberships! Hmmm.)
Following the letter from CMS to Humana, the secretary of Health and Human Services began an investigation of Humana with the sole purpose of intimidating the company. They further ordered Humana “to end immediately all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your website”.
Here you go! Another example of Chicago-style politics and strong-arm tactics! Dirty politics at its worst! The Obama administration is apparently continuing with its strategy of thuggary by attacking the first amendment rights of anyone or any organization who disagrees with his policies, in particular Obamacare. It just so happens that Humana is one of the latest of the Obama Administration’s victims.
Talk about the AUDACITY of one individual, or that individual’s machine, to try to strip the rights of a company to fully inform their customers of possible changes in their benefits. Baucus’ bill already has over 500 amendments. No one knows where these cuts will come from, but many sources have said that billions will be cut from Medicare and Medicaid, and in particular Medicare Advantage, including the Congressional Budget Office. So, it isn’t out of the realm of possibility for Humana’s senior customers to lose some of their benefits.
This kind of censorship, this violation of one of our basic liberties, has got to stop. Americans believe in their freedom to express their opinions, whether as an individual or a private corporation. That freedom is still in existence – at least for now!
Recently, private insurer Humana Inc. sent out a letter to its senior customers who were enrolled in the company’s Medicare Advantage plan. In essence, this letter was advising them that under Senator Max Baucus’ Plan, which includes billions in cut to Medicare and Medicaid, their benefits could be in danger of being eliminated if this legislation passed. When Baucus got wind of this letter, whiney-baby Baucus got the Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to try to keep Humana from sending these out letters to its customers.
The CMS in essence issued a gag order and instructed Humana to stop expressing “certain opinions” about healthcare reform. From a letter from the CMS to Humana on this matter: “Please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings of our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions….” CMS has also prohibited any other private insurers from corresponding in like manner with their customers. However, AARP, which sponsors a Medicare Advantage program in addition to its Medigap policies, was somehow (mysteriously) exempted. (Remember there was some “nuzzling” between AARP and the White House a short time ago which resulted in a “Kumbaya moment” between them! Something about an endorsement, only it wasn’t an endorsement when people started tearing up their AARP membership cards and cancelling their memberships! Hmmm.)
Following the letter from CMS to Humana, the secretary of Health and Human Services began an investigation of Humana with the sole purpose of intimidating the company. They further ordered Humana “to end immediately all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your website”.
Here you go! Another example of Chicago-style politics and strong-arm tactics! Dirty politics at its worst! The Obama administration is apparently continuing with its strategy of thuggary by attacking the first amendment rights of anyone or any organization who disagrees with his policies, in particular Obamacare. It just so happens that Humana is one of the latest of the Obama Administration’s victims.
Talk about the AUDACITY of one individual, or that individual’s machine, to try to strip the rights of a company to fully inform their customers of possible changes in their benefits. Baucus’ bill already has over 500 amendments. No one knows where these cuts will come from, but many sources have said that billions will be cut from Medicare and Medicaid, and in particular Medicare Advantage, including the Congressional Budget Office. So, it isn’t out of the realm of possibility for Humana’s senior customers to lose some of their benefits.
This kind of censorship, this violation of one of our basic liberties, has got to stop. Americans believe in their freedom to express their opinions, whether as an individual or a private corporation. That freedom is still in existence – at least for now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
