Hope Is Gone Now That Change Has Come

Adding to the growing list of companies having to lay people off due to the uncertainty in the economic climate because of all the regulations and seeming indifference from the Obama administration is Piedmont hospital in Georgia, which will now lay off 464 people.

The move is, in part, a reaction to hurdles many hospitals are facing, including a growing number of uninsured patients, a new state hospital bed tax, anticipated cuts to Medicare reimbursements and the Medicaid expansion in 2014, Day said.

This comes on the heels of the recent announcement from an energy company which is forced to lay off 600 people in order to meet new rules and regulations from the EPA.

American Electric Power on Thursday announced it plans to shut down several coal-fired power plants, convert or retrofit others, and cut as many as 600 jobs in the next few years to comply with regulations proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The really disturbing trend in the employment picture in this country is how companies after initially laying off thousands of employees in the previous years have simply chosen to not fill those jobs. Those were jobs still on the books that companies were still taking applications for in the hopes of the economy turning around and then being able to hire. Those jobs will now be gone forever.

The other side effect is that those that have managed to retain their jobs are being worked to death and now after two years of this administrations misguided, inept, and total indifference to the plight of the worker are approaching the burn out stage which will no doubt lead to further issues with people simply giving up. Depending on the individual this continued burn out of the workers will manifest itself in one of two ways. A resignation that this is the way life is going to be and either refusing to let a job get the better of you and slowing down to do what is required to keep your job and nothing more, or trying to keep up with the demands of the job and risking serious physical harm along with damage to any personal relationships outside of the workplace.

In either case it paints a very bleak picture for the future prospects of counting on the spirit of the American people to be able to turn around and succeed in spite of the odds.

I don't think this is the fundamental change that most Americans had in mind when they voted for Obama.

Americans United For Change, Except When They Are Against It

The old legacy media is hard at work trotting out various trial balloons in their support of the Democrat campaign efforts for 2012. There is the obvious of their promoting Donald Trump, while having to go in to deep denial that he is playing them like a fiddle. One thing Mr Trump has learned from his Apprentice days is that controversy equals ratings and attention. When was the last time you saw a commercial for a reality show, any reality show, that showed the contestants getting along like one big happy family? By having the media seize upon his latest attention grabbing headline whether it is the birth certificate or Obama's grades, he has managed to take attention away from others and promote himself. This is also further proof of the liberal media mindset which dictates they only going to promote the person they think their liberal guy can beat like they did with McCain.

In what has been a continuing narrative now is the shift from identifying Republicans as Republicans. Instead they are labeling them as Tea Party backed. There is a reason for this. They have invested much time and effort in painting the Tea Party folks as just a bunch of crotchety old racist white folks living on the fringe of the political spectrum.

This article caught my attention for a couple of reason. First of course is the headline. Tea Party Lawmaker Frank Guinta Draws Ire Over Medicare Vote. Rep Guinta is a Republican from New Hampshire. The next thing that got my attention was the photo accompanying the article. Anytime you see pre printed mass produced signs it is a good sign that the folks holding them are part of a larger organization such as a union or a liberal front group. That is the case here. If you look at the bottom of the signs you will see the group these folks represent is Americans United For Change dot org.


My blogging experience has taught me that if a group ends with dot org designation there is a very high probably that it is a liberal/progressive group.

I surely can't be the only one who is struck by the irony of a group with change in their title that is against change. The simple fact is the current Social Security system and Medicare program just are no longer viable. They were fine for the WWII crowd, but folks we are 70 years down the road and the realities in American in the 21st century simply don't reflect the conditions that existed in the 1940's.

I have never forgave AARP for being instrumental in killing former President Bush's attempt at overhauling Social Security. I will never be a member of their organization for that reason but then they compounded the problem by participating in the Obamacare legislation to such a degree that they managed to kill all the successful Medicare Advantage programs EXCEPT for the one they offer that is underwritten by United Healthcare. It is just another example of this administration rewarding their supporters and picking winners and losers in the private sector, and at the same time punishing the American people.

Then there is this exchange during the meeting.

"Why Congressman Guinta, why in the world, did you ever vote for the Paul Ryan Medicare plan," asked, Gary Patton, who posed the first question at an often raucous town hall meeting the congressman hosted at a local high school here.

Patton, 73, told Guinta that he was concerned that the plan introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the chairman of the House Budget Committee, would "end Medicare as we know it."

"The proposal that was in the House last week, again, does not affect anyone who is 55 or older," Guinta assured. "I want to try to allay some fears about the proposal, I want to make sure that people have the proper information. If you don't like the plan, let me know that."

It is the same thing that was going on with the Social Security reform efforts. The liberal/progressives have managed to scare senior citizens once again. Just like the Social Security reform this Ryan budget proposal will make no changes to those receiving Medicare currently.

What I am getting tired of is senior citizens getting worked up into a tizzy, and since so many of our legislators fear this crowd and are closer in age to them then they are me, wind up continuing to punish me.

Hey Geritol crowd here's a news flash. It is my benefits they are trying to change, not yours.

Anyway my advice to everyone is 1) When looking for political candidates look for the ones not getting attention by the media to find a conservative probably more in line with your way of thinking and 2) Realize the Tea Party is not a political party. We still have a predominately two party system in this country, Republicans and Democrats.

When was the last time you saw a Democrat labeled as a Move On backed lawmaker?

Oh yeah and as far as that 'ire' directed at the representative goes, he might actually take it serious if the folks acting like children weren't you know, actually children.

Joe Platte, a middle school student from nearby Stratham, N.H., who took a back-row seat at the meeting, interjected: "What about me? I'm 14, what am I going to do."

Sign of the Apopcalypse #3,673,821

That is what is called a retweet from the official White House Twitter account in which they cite Fox News. I am not sure if that is supposed to be something the TOTUS said today or an attempt by Fox at humor, but I think most clear thinking people by now can recognize satire when they see it. I double checked to be sure that this wasn't something from the fine folks at The Onion News Network.

Still whoever said it, it is funny.

Well ain't I red faced. It appears Barry O said something like that at his sermon, er meeting with the governors today.

"If your state can create a plan that can cover as many people as affordably and comprehensively as the Affordable Care Act does, without increasing the deficit, you can implement that plan and we'll work with you to do it," Obama said.

That's a mighty big if, since not even his plan will reduce the deficit but rather increases it exponentially.

The Devil is Always in the Details

Americans need to start bracing themselves for the coming bloodbath in their healthcare and the manner in which they will be insured. The 2000+ pages of legislation was just the outline, and now the rules and regulations to back up the Democrats blueprint for government takeover of healthcare are starting to make their way out of the various committees and panels empowered to enact them and are coming to light.

The most significant event that will hit most people in the coming years is the fact that their employer will no longer cover their health insurance or help pay the cost. Most businesses have now reached the conclusion that it will be far more cost effective to drop the benefit and pay the fine. The one group that won't make this move of course is government--what Dems euphemistically call public sector--employees. Because of their marriage with the unions, those contracts can't be broken and as a result all of us will be on the hook to not only pay for their continuing health plans but will now have to foot more of the bill for our own health insurance. Remember, government can simply raise your taxes to pay for their lifestyle.

I want folks to remember that slogan "If you like your plan and doctor you can keep them" as these rules come to light.

The rules, released Monday, spell out when plans would lose their grandfathered status, including if they make major increases in premiums, modest increases in co-payments or significantly cut benefits. The administration estimates that half of all employers, including two-thirds of small employers, could lose their grandfathered status by 2013.

What is a modest increase in co-payments? $5. That's all.

If an insurance companies does any of the things cited above they face stiff penalties, which will, of course, cause more and more of the smaller insurance companies to go out of business and gradually it will move to the bigger companies as more and more employers opt out reducing the number of members that a health insurance company can rely on to help defray expenses.

Under the rules, health plans and employers would lose their "grandfathered" status if they:

* Significantly cut or reduced benefits such as eliminating coverage for people with diabetes or AIDS.

* Significantly raised co-payments or deductibles. Co-pays could not be increased by $5 or a medical inflation rate plus 15 percentage points, whichever is greater. Deductibles could not be raised by a percent equal to medical inflation plus 15 percentage points. Medical inflation has averaged 4 percent to 5 percent in recent years. Thus, a family with a $1,000 annual deductible could still see its deductible hiked to $1,200 and the plan keep its grandfathered status.

* Significantly lowered the portion of health coverage premium paid for by the employer. Grandfathered plans would not be allowed to decrease the amount by more than 5 percentage points.

The rules will be coming out little by little and go mostly unnoticed by the general population for a couple of years and then suddenly Americans will wake up one morning and wonder how did we get to this point where everybody is all of a sudden on some sort of government-administrated health plan and have to discover their latent abilities to perform minor surgery and treating their own broken bones since the wait at any healthcare facility will take too long for a plan of treatment to be of any good.


Who has ever heard of a "medical inflation rate"?

Reuters Now An Obama Attack Dog?

Yesterday there was much ado about a story claiming that Wellpoint, a health insurance company which includes the Blue Cross/Blue Shield brand in 15 states, was dropping the coverage of women who were diagnosed with breast cancer.

Wellpoint released a press release citing the inaccuracies in the Reuters report.

So what does Reuters do? What any good news agencies would do, and that is correct the story.

Sorta. When browsing the Reuters web site I found this description of the updated story.

* Corrected: WellPoint routinely targets breast cancer patients
* ... all references to Robin Beaton in first paragraph and throughout to reflect that the insurance company that canceled her policy was not a WellPoint subsidiary). ...
* Thursday, 22 Apr 2010 02:05pm EDT

The funny thing is however when I click on the link to see the correction there is no mention of what was done to correct the story and instead they simply removed the information with no further explanation.

Today our wonderful HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is continuing her assault against Wellpoint. Remember Alinsky's Rule for Radical. Identify an enemy, isolate and attack. It seems in this whole debate over health care Wellpoint has been the designated whipping boy. Partly because last year when the debate over the nationalized health care was heating up Wellpoint had the audacity to provide the administration with exactly what they wanted. The congress and the administration asked Wellpoint to crunch the numbers and project what the cost of insurance premiums would be under the current legislation. Well congress didn't like the numbers but Wellpoint CEO Angela Braly stood firm. We all know how liberals view strong women who oppose them and so Angela and her corporation have now become Public Enemy #1 in the eyes of this administration.

The Reuters story is falling apart but one has to wonder what would have started them on the path to doing an investigative piece against Wellpoint. The basis of the story is relevant and one that I think should be looked into. All I am asking is that when you do your reporting do it factually and leave your pre-conceived notions at home. Also before you single out a business for abuse you just might want to make sure you have the right company.

For healthcare the enemy is Wellpoint and for the financial reform it is Goldman Sachs. One has to wonder who is in the crosshairs for the Cap and Trade imperative and who can they make an enemy out of on immigration. The pattern is pretty clear though. Attack the heavy hitters in a certain sector of the business world. Class warfare at it's best and the private sector had better start getting some skin in the game or it is going to be game over for the private sector.

H/T to Politico for the HHS letter

Can't Wait For This Healthcare System To Take Root Here

If you follow the news on BBC or read the Times Online, the European newspaper, you know that hardly a day goes by without a story of the latest lunacy from the British National Health System (NHS).

Today's story is about a woman suffering from back pain who went to a private doctor and paid for it out of her own pocket to get a second opinion. The NHS is now denying her surgery because she went to private doctor.

A woman has been denied an operation on the NHS after paying for a private consultation to deal with her severe back pain.

Jenny Whitehead, a breast cancer survivor, paid £250 for an appointment with the orthopaedic surgeon after being told she would have to wait five months to see him on the NHS. He told her he would add her to his NHS waiting list for surgery.

She was barred from the list, however, and sent back to her GP. She must now find at least £10,000 for private surgery, or wait until the autumn for the NHS operation to remove a cyst on her spine.

Everybody who thinks having a nationalized healthcare system really need to read the constant string of stories coming from the European media detailing the mess that it is, and quit watching Michael Moore propaganda films.

But don't worry. If you like your insurance and doctor nothing will change. By that they mean if the insurance company or doctor try to change any of the terms of the current services you are receiving they will be forced to comply with the government mandates or do business elsewhere. For the individual citizen, no change also means no keeping up with current treatments, diagnosis methods or modifications to your coverage. By no change you need to think about what it would be like to receive medical treatment using the methods from 50 years ago. You see, that is the "no change" they were talking about.

Single Payer Supporters Threatening Members of Congress?

Might as well make an attempt at a pre-emptive strike here since we all know the spin and accepted conventional wisdom will say about these alleged threats that members of congress. Those allegations were made by Democrat house member Steny Hoyer today and of course the implication is that all of those right wing, Tea Party, talk radio listening, DHS watch list folks are behind it.

This sort of behavior is mostly reserved for the far left. They, after all, are the ones who vandalize military recruiting stations, try to smear fake blood on government officials, and leave a path of destruction in the wake of all of their "peaceful" protests. They viciously attacked people in California who supported a ban on gay marriage, causing some to lose jobs, and even their elected officials tried, convicted and sentenced members of our military before the facts were known.

No, I don't think these threats are coming from the right. Sounds more like the folks issuing these threats are those progressives who didn't get their single payer system. It would explain why so many Democrats, since passage of the bill, have made statements meant to reassure the far left folks that they will get to a single payer system, just give them some time.

Well, it looks like time for the Dems will run out in November and then we will see if this monstrosity of a government takeover can be reversed.

Uh Nancy, About Those J-O-B-S

Remember Nancy Pelosi coming out and saying 4 million,gazillion, zillion jobs were going to be created by the passage of their healthcare bill? Well the inclusion of the federal takeover of student loans in the reconciliation portion of the package is going to have the exact opposite effect.

Under the measure, about $9 billion from education will go to offset health-care costs. Mang said this means about 1 million students won’t get loans for education.

Locally, Sallie Mae’s 700 employees would be reduced because between 50 percent and 60 percent of the work there is loan origination.

Heckuva a job Nancy.

The Reconciliation Bill is a minefield for the Republicans. On the one hand it seeks to correct a lot of the problems with the original legislation, but it seems neither Republicans or Democrats really want this legislation to be passed. The Dems hope it goes down in flames to allow them to pin the blame squarely on the Republicans, while at the same not wanting to have any of their sweetheart deals like the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase to be cut. Without the reconciliation part all of those sweetheart deals stand.

The Dems can say we tried, but those evil Republicans from the party of no defeated it, when the truth is the Dems don't want the reconciliation part to pass anyway.

Minimum Essential Coverage

Yesterday I wrote about how military personnel and veterans were concerned about some of the language contained in the Shut Up and Die Already plan passed by the congress over the weekend. Well it seems that some of those fears may have been unwarranted, but by allaying those fears they have created a whole new set of issues. According to the language contained in a separate resolution, TRICARE, the health insurance plan for the military will be exempt from any of the rules contained in this legislation.

House lawmakers over the weekend voted to protect TRICARE and Defense non-appropriated fund health care beneficiaries from unintended consequences of national health reform.

The exemption (H.R. 4887) applies to the health care coverage provided by the Defense Department to military service members, retirees and their families. It clarifies the tax code to stipulate that coverage provided by Defense is treated as minimal essential coverage, ensuring that service members and their families will not need to purchase additional coverage to meet new health insurance requirements.

The legislation was introduced late Friday by Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. The full House approved it by a vote of 403-0 on Saturday afternoon.

Folks it is time to be very worried. I have Tricare. If Tricare is what the government considers as "minimal essential coverage" then their plan sucks.

I find it odd that in their legislation they want to cover things like sex change operations, which to the best of my knowledge Tricare doesn't and other such politically correct items. Tricare is definitely the definition of minimum coverage.

Let me be clear, I understand no insurance can cover everything, but my biggest issue with Tricare has been finding providers who will accept it. The reasons are varied. The low reimbursement rate, the special rules they have for filing claims, creating administrative headaches for the providers, and the generally slow processing of the claims. Providers have to quite often file the claims multiple times to get it through the system.

Other veterans in other parts of country no doubt have different experiences with the system, so my example can not be taken as the standard everywhere. Some veterans in different places may have excellent results with Tricare, but for me I had to go get additional private insurance simply to be able to find the providers.

Tricare has an excellent prescription drug program, but folks if my experiences with Tricare are a foreshadowing of what health care will be like under this reform plan, a whole lot of people are suddenly going to be very pissed off.

People will find themselves unable to find providers to accept the plan, providers who would rather not deal with it, slow reimbursements and reimbursements far lower then that offered by other insurers, and all kind of arcane rules that only the Imperial Federal Government can come up with.

Want to know why their is so much fraud, waste and abuse in the Medicare system? A provider almost can not file a claim without it being wrong in one way or another because of the volumes of rules and regulations, often contradictory and confusing that apply to Medicare claims. It is this very bureaucracy which makes Medicare such a juicy target for scammers. The same is true with Tricare.

Oh by the way the Tricare system in large parts of the country is administered by Humana. You know one of those big old bad private insurance companies. By administered, I mean Humana provides the infrastructure to process the claims which are then sent on to Tricare proper for disposition. Humana does not set the rates or rules simply the hardware and personnel to get the claims to them.

So while I am glad veterans got some sort of protection, you have to understand we have a much higher threshold for frustration then the average civilian, since our years of military service have conditioned us to such levels of bureaucracy and red tape, that I ain't too sure most folks will tolerate, although I could be wrong since everybody gripes about the DMV when it comes time to renew your drivers license, but nothing is ever done about it.

H/T to Crush over at Blackfive

If You Like Your Insurance....

You can keep it. On the other hand if you DON'T like your health insurance, you have to keep it. That is the rest of the sentence that the Dems leave out.

With the passage of this bill, control over your private insurance plan has now passed from the company that issued it to the Health and Human Services Chairman, Kathleen Sebelius, and a committee which is still to be formed. In the Senate version which was passed, if the insurance companies want to raise your rates, they must first get approval from this oversight group.

Want to change your policy? Say you want to add baby coverage since receiving news that a young one may be joining your family, you can't do it unless this committee says it is okay for your insurance company to change your policy.

Can't wait to get on that 'free' government insurance plan? Well first, the government needs to put the infrastructure in place to handle such a thing. That will take a couple of years. What's that you say? There is no provision in the bill for the government to issue health insurance? Actually there is. It is contained in these much bally-hooed cooperatives that they are talking about setting up.

Did you know the government will now tell your insurance company which procedures they must cover? So while the insurance companies will have to cover more things they will, on the other hand, be forbidden from raising rates. If they can't raise rates, that means they can not reimburse the medical providers as much, which will lead providers to either quit accepting some insurance plans, like they do Medicare and Medicaid today, or simply leaving the practice of medicine all together.

People in Tennessee will no doubt be thrilled to discover that the premiums they pay will now go to fund drug and alcohol rehab for celebrities in California. Want a sex change operation in Oregon? No problem, the few remaining employed people in Michigan will foot the bill.

The Law of Unintended Consequences will be in full effect with the passage of this legislation. There was an old saying that said you get what you pay for, so if something is free there ain't a whole lot you can complain about now, can you?

There is certainly going to be more and more fallout from the passage of the Progressive health care bill, and with each increasingly bad outcome the Democrats are going to insist the only answer is to have more government involvement, since their thinking always revolves around the mantra that programs fail not because of less government involvement, but rather because of a lack of control.

The businesses that will be hardest hit are those wishing to move up the food chain from a small company to a big company. As long as you stay at 99 employees you can avoid many of the penalties your bigger competitors face, but should you wish to grow you had better be prepared to go big or stay at home. You see, that big area of medium sized companies, those employing between 100-499 employees, are going to be hard hit. The net effect is companies will need to make the tough choice.

The key to all of this seems to be the timeline for the phase-in of the various components of this legislation, a schedule driven more by political considerations then by any sort of real world concern for how this will affect the economy or the average American. The good stuff is up front along with a few of the fees, but a big chunk won't happen until after 2012. The Dems probably realizing they will no longer be in power have set a time bomb for whoever is in charge after 2012 and, quite frankly, God help us all then.

Our health care system will now join the pantheon of other federal programs which have such stellar records like Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office, Amtrak, and even the Senate cafeteria. They all have one thing in common: They operate at a deficit.

The motto of any government program seems to be We may be inefficient, but we do it slowly.

You might say I have a little bit of knowledge on the subject since I do work for a health insurance company, and I have been so busy in the last few weeks answering requests for information from the HHS and various Democrat lawmakers, all designed to just put pressure on us, and reports which no doubt landed in the garbage without even being looked at and were little more then attempts at intimidation, which explains why I haven't posted much. I needed to avoid appearing to be a shill for the health insurance companies since it is obvious I had a big conflict of interest, something Congressmen are not bothered by. I am very far down the food chain, so don't get the idea that I was sitting on board meetings or anything remotely close. I am not in the inner circle. Just like I was in the Army, I am simply a grunt doing the work. I will probably have a lot of free time on my hands soon.

How long can I collect unemployment for again?

UPDATE: The always reliable guys over a TAH provide a link to how the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) were expressing concern about how veterans and the military in general are going to get screwed in this bill.

At issue is H.R. 4872 does not fully protect the healthcare programs provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the military’s Tricare system. Specifically, the bill covers Tricare For Life but not the other Tricare programs that serve millions of beneficiaries; it does not cover children suffering from spina bifida as a result of a parent’s exposure to Agent Orange; and it does not cover dependents, widows and orphans who are served by CHAMPVA, the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

A Message From The Citizens Who Wind Up Paying For ObamaCare

Normally these commercials with the babies kind of weird me out, but the Republican Study Committee, led by Rep. Tom Price, has managed to put together a cute take on the health care debate using the little guys.

Obama Now In Full Blown Chavez Mode

Barry O appears ready to kick it into full blown Chavez mode when it comes to punishing Americans for speaking out against the Democrat health care reform.

For Immediate Release March 3, 2010

EXCERPTS FROM THE PRESIDENT'S REMARKS ON HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM TODAY

Please find below excerpts from President Obama's remarks this afternoon as prepared for delivery:

"I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it's time to give the American people more control over their own health insurance. I don't believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors and nurses like the ones in this room should be free to decide what's best for their patients.

The proposal I've put forward gives Americans more control over their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. It builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because I can tell you that as the father of two young girls, I wouldn't want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor."

***

"So this is our proposal. This is where we've ended up. It's an approach that has been debated and changed and I believe improved over the last year. It incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans - including some of the ideas that Republicans offered during the health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform and curbing waste, fraud, and abuse in the health care system. My proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that had no place in health care reform - provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans."

***

"At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it's still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don't know how this plays politically, but I know it's right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law."

America will have to wait until November 2010 to try and undo the damage, if indeed the Dems manage to ram this down our collective throats. There is no time table for passage although the rumors are flying that they have a self imposed Easter break deadline. Barry O said after his much ballied hoo televised meeting that he gave it six weeks at the outside.

I don't claim to know all of the minutiae of congressional procedures, but my basic understanding is that the Nancy Pelosi led House of Representatives has to basically pass the Senate version. They are going to try to with guarantees from Harry Reid that he will incorporate the necessary changes wanted by the progressives in the House in the final version. Harry will then use the reconciliation process to get the 51 votes needed to send it the presidents desk.

Elections have consequences. In the case of this latest one, not just for the current generation, but for about the next two generations if this thing becomes reality.

Queen Nancy Answers Your Questions on Healthcare Legislation

I don't know which is creepier, the condescending smile which never leaves her face as she tells us that some government bureaucrat will decide which medical tests and procedures are necessary or her stance on a single payer system, which she admits she advocates for.



After the Democrats pathetic showing at yesterday's summit, in which all they seemed to want to do is tell one sob story after another without engaging in any sort substantive discussion of the issues, and the nuts and bolts of what this legislation actually does and doesn't do, and a meeting which was dominated by Obama taking up most of the time I guess she felt the need to actually try and answer some questions. Too bad they didn't do that yesterday.

After listening to the session yesterday, I came away with one thought. Let's scrap what they have done, break it down into small chunks and pass one piece at a time to see what works and what doesn't and get away from this idea of go big or go home. The only problem with that sort of thinking is that any government program once started is never stopped.

If I were the Democrats I would quit bringing up Medicare and Social Security as some sort of triumphal trophy since it is apparent to all Americans that those programs have now also outgrown their intended purposes and are saddling the workers and taxpayers with more and more debt and programs that most people under the age of 50 will never see a return on. They have turned into the black holes of government excess and inefficiency. It is time to scrap the programs designed and tailored to a generation of the 20th century and move into the 21st century.

The makeup of the country has changed mainly from one of large families with an agrarian and industrial base to one of information technology and small families. We now have fewer people paying into programs than we have receiving benefits and, in fact, one of the main arguments for the Dems plan is to force everybody to purchase health insurance to fund it, but as the Republicans pointed out yesterday there is some shady accounting in the bill which basically says some of the money paid for health insurance would be siphoned off to fund Social Security and Medicare. It all smacks of some sort illegal money laundering and Ponzi scheme type activity that put people like Bernie Madoff in jail.

Anyway, try not to pay attention to her sickly sweet, grandmotherly type smile as she explains why death panels are necessary and why the same folks who bring you such great services as the TSA and DMV will do a far better job making your healthcare decisions. Oh, and Nancy, how many of those industrialized countries with national healthcare plans are as big and diverse as America or have 300 million citizens? Maybe you ought to read a British newspaper from time to time or go visit the Canadian big wigs while they recover in our hospitals.

ABC News To Obama - You Lie!

Earlier today during the so called healthcare summit there was a back and forth between the TOTUS and Sen Lamar Alexander on whether health insurance premiums would actually go up or down under the Obamacare plan.

Well, it seems that Sen Alexander was right and your premiums would go up 10 - 13% and Barry O was once again, well, lying.

Both cite a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the Senate bill done at the request of Senator Evan Bayh.

Who is right?

Well, the CBO analysis does say, flatly, that “the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.”

Why are premiums going up? CBO cites the combination of three factors:

1. Premiums would be 27-30% higher because coverage would be better. The law, for example, requires that all policies cover maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health & substance abuse and no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.
2. Premiums would be 7 to 10 percent lower b/c of changes to the way the individual market is structured.
3. Premiums would be 7 to 10 percent lower b/c of an influx of more people, many of them healthy, into the insurance market.

The net effect of those three factors: Premiums would be 10 to 13 percent higher for the average policyholders.

President Obama’s claim of premium reductions of “14 to 20 percent” comes from adding factors two and three. The problem: You can’t ignore factor one.

The Dems need to stick with their constant telling of sob stories, which any of us could probably tell, because when it comes to citing facts and figures they fail miserably.

Hey Congress, States May Still Have The Last Word

Georgia is not sitting idly by waiting on congress to pass their political payback and ransom to the unions bill, which started out as a supposed health care reform bill. Our legislature is once again back in session and one of the pieces of legislation being talked about is a change to our state constitution which would allow us to opt out of the federal monstrosity. Whether it ever actually ever sees the light of day is something that remains to be seen.

Georgians could have a say this fall on whether to sidestep the proposed federally-mandated health care plan.

The bill from state Sen. Seth Harp would pre-empt the federal healthcare proposal currently being considered by Congress that has not yet received final approval.

Harp's constitutional amendment would allow Georgians to opt out of federal coverage. It needs to be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature and would then be on the 2010 ballot for Georgians to vote on.

Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue this week also criticized the federal health care proposal, saying it would create a financial burden for states. He urged Georgia lawmakers to find ways to get around the federal plan.

No doubt as word of this starts to spread Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will go into another one of their famous closed door, super secret sessions and draft language, probably involving some sort of civil rights/racism language to punish any state that takes such action.

Ray Stevens Streaks By Congress

Some of you younger whipper snappers may not be too familiar with Ray Stevens, but back during the 70's and 80's he was widely known for his, say we say "novelty" songs.

Well Ray is still around, and here he takes up the issue of the health care legislation and our imperial federal government in general as only Ray can.

And you might want to start looking for another line of work. How ’bout the medical profession? Ha ha. Yeah, they’re gonna need every one that can put up with the red tape and the pay cut. Hey, why don’t you kill every last job, tax every last penny, and infringe on every God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?! ‘Cause let me tell you, ain’t NOBODY happy with you!

Assurance is Not Insurance

The Wall St. Journal finally points out something those who work in the health insurance industry have known for quite awhile. Under the proposed Reid Bribery Act of 2009, private insurance companies will essentially be driven out of business.

This is of course the long range goal of the Democrats. They are willing to drop the public option language for now, and instead have substituted regulations and requirements on private insurance companies which will cause them to raise rates. They really can't pick and choose who they will cover under this legislation. By taking on all customers, coupled with all of the minimum coverage provisions contained in the bill the insurance companies have only one option. That is to raise rates.

Wait a minute. There is language in the bill which punishes insurance companies who raise rates.

Initially, all insurers have to take all comers and to renew all policies except for nonpayment of premiums. Insurers are not allowed to take into account differential risks based on pre-existing conditions. And the premium differentials based on such matters as age and tobacco use are smaller than the market spreads. If too many customers demand coverage from a given insurer to insure efficiently, it's the government that will decide how many they have to keep and who they are.

Next, it's the government that requires extensive coverage including "ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance abuse disorder services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative and habilitative [sic!] services and devices, laboratory services, preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management, pediatric services, including oral and vision care." The price squeeze gets even tighter because in every required area of care a collection of government standards will help set the minimum level of required services.

Ostensibly, the Reid bill does not impose any direct price controls on what health insurers can charge for this veritable cornucopia of services. But the bill's complex, cooperative federalism scheme authorizes state regulators, after recommendations from the federal government, to exclude insurers from the exchanges if their prices are too high, which would again be a competitive death knell. Exile from the exchange does not, however, restore traditional underwriting controls, as the Reid bill and other federal and state regulation continue to apply to these firms.

There is also language which punishes the companies if their administrative costs exceed 10%.

The perils of the Reid bill are made evident in a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that focused on the bill's rebate program, which holds that once an insurance company spends more than 10% of its revenues on administrative expenses, its customers are entitled to an indefinite statutory rebate determined by state regulatory authorities subject to oversight by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Defining these administrative costs is a royal headache, but everyone agrees that they are heaviest in the small group and individual markets, where they typically range between 25% and 30%, without the new regulatory hassles.

The CBO concluded that this one restriction turned the Reid bill into "an essentially governmental program." In other words, the targeted health insurers would become de facto public utilities whose profits are gutted when the huge compliance costs under the Reid bill are piled on top of the hefty costs inherent in running a labor intensive health-care insurance business.

I don't know how many people out there who read this blog run a business or handle the books for a business, but I am willing to bet that administrative costs account for more then 10% of your expenses.

This bill is not about helping the American people get health insurance or improved health care. It is about setting into motion the mechanism by which the federal government can assume total control of your healthcare.

Their hope is that within a few short years, as insurance costs rise in response to keeping up with what no doubt will be growing list of government mandates the public will cry out for government intervention.

And then with a big smile on their face and a pat on the head to suffering masses they will unload their government option to appease the angry crowds and at the same time no doubt remove so many of the mandates that they required the private insurance companies to meet.

Somehow. Someway. This bill must be killed.

'Insurance is Not Assurance'

Yesterday the AMA stood shoulder to shoulder with the Democrats and announced their support of the Senate healthcare bill. The Dems are taking that endorsement along with that of AARP to bolster their arguments, which is falling on the deaf ears of the increasing number of Americans who are not buying into the shuck and jive tactics for taking over the healthcare in this country.

"Americans are about to be in for a massive, massive shock," said Dr. Michael Stechison.

Stechison is a neurosurgeon at Gwinnett Medical Center. He's also a Canadian. In 1989, he moved his practice to the United States to get away from nationalized health care. "I'm here to tell you, as a refugee from a socialized system in Canada, that it is just not a system that people are happy with or serves the people well," Stechison said Tuesday.

Where will the doctors go after our federal ruling elite pass this legislation?

The passage of this 2000+ page Frankenstein package of bribes and payoffs will require an increase of doctors, not a decrease. Would you spend all of the money it requires to attend medical school or go so far in debt that you may never be able to pay it off, just to enter a profession where the government is going to dictate how much you can charge for your services or tell you which tests you can pursue to best serve your patient?

It seems the Democrats have fallen in love with limiting the income of the citizens, and taking government bailout money is not a prerequisite to having your salary capped. Sure, they did it to the financial institutions, only to make exceptions apparently for those who were members in good standing with the Socialist, er sorry Democrat party. It soon extended to health insurance execs, who haven't taken a dime of federal money and now by sleight of hand they will do the same thing to doctors.

It seems the only folks who don't have to worry about pay caps are union workers, lawyers, and ACORN employees.

Doctors in opposition to the currently proposed reforms claim the ironic result of those reforms would likely be less access to health care. They point to Medicare and Medicaid as prime examples of the shortcomings of health care funded by the government. "Those poor older patients can't get in to see the doctor because the doctors can't afford to see them because they're operating at a loss to take care of them. So, that is not a solution," Stechison said.

"Insurance is not assurance. Just because you have a card that says 'Medicaid' on it, doesn't mean you're going to be able to get in and see a doctor," Williamson said.

Why Did Governors Wait So Long To Speak Up on Democrat Healthcare Bill?

Jammie wrote earlier about how suddenly even the blind governor of New York can see what a debacle for the states the current healthcare legislation stalking the halls of Congress like a zombie that can't be killed is going to be.

Georgia's governor Sonny Perdue has added his voice to the chorus, but my question is, why did they wait so long? The deed appears to be done. We are all facing the executioner's axe and his arms are about to begin the downward arc that will sever the body, leaving it's victim unable to proclaim its innocence any longer.

Governor Perdue issued the following statement today regarding the latest version of the U.S. Senate’s healthcare reform legislation.

“I am utterly dismayed and disappointed by the vote buying that has occurred in the United States Senate in order to pass a measure that most citizens are against. If this reform was truly the right policy for our country, we wouldn’t see waffling Senators lining up like game show contestants hoping to win today’s jackpot of a special deal from Harry Reid.

"This bill places an unsustainable burden on the backs of Georgia’s taxpayers, and will lead to either higher state taxes or massive cuts to basic state services in years to come. I join governors from around the country of both parties in asking our representatives and senators to listen to the public outrage against this bill and stop this mistake before it occurs.”

Harry Reid and the Democrats in Congress are no more interested in what governors say then they are any other citizen of this country. They have a bill to pass, dammit, and nothing will prevent them.

I don't belong to the camp that tries to see some sort of victory because by passing this bill the Dems will be made to pay in the next elections for one simple reason.

Name me just one government program, that once enacted, was ever stopped? Once the deed is done there is no going back, and the next election is not going to change that.

AP Tries to Sell Congressional Health Care Plan: Fails Miserably

This is going to be a lengthy post, but what else do you have to do on a Saturday while you are waiting for the arrival of Jolly Ole St. Nick.

AP has an article today and in it they use five examples of Americans and how the proposed health care package, which nobody has seen and nobody knows what is in it or not, may benefit them. They are touching stories that tug at your heart strings and attempt to make the case that nationalized health insurance will be the answer to all of your problems. I decided to read the cases and see just how great and glorious the AP thinks this legislation will be.

First case

Age: 28

Employment: Student, working part time, receiving unemployment benefits.

Household income: about $15,000.

Coverage: Insured, but struggling to afford it.

Solution: The health care overhaul taking shape in Congress would require her to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. She could pick a plan offered through new state-based insurance exchanges and she would qualify for a subsidy to help pay her premiums because she makes less than 400 percent of the poverty level ($43,320 for an individual in 2009). But all those benefits wouldn't kick in until 2013 in the House bill (2014 in the Senate legislation). Because of her medical problem, she may be able to qualify for coverage during the transition period by going through high-risk insurance pools called for in the legislation.

That's right, honey. Hang in there until 2013 or 2014, help is on the way. The simpler solution of course is to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. No taxpayer dollars involved. So no immediate help for this individual is available.

Second case:

Age: 60

Employment: Consultant to nonprofit groups.

Household income: $55,000, including wife's earnings.

Coverage: Uninsured since COBRA expired in May. He has been turned away by insurance companies because of pre-existing medical conditions he has.

Solution: The Medicare buy-in proposal considered in the Senate could have helped Nishimura get insurance, as would portions of both the House and Senate bills that would ban denials for pre-existing conditions. But opposition from moderates and a few liberals is forcing Senate Democratic leaders to scrap the idea of a buy-in to get a bill completed.

The simple solution is to eliminate the pre-existing conditions clause. This is somewhat of a red herring, by the way, since under current law if you are covered by medical insurance and you lose your coverage because of losing work you must be allowed to purchase another insurance policy regardless of pre-existing conditions, provided you had coverage in the previous 12 months. But once again simply doing away with the restrictions on pre-existing conditions wouldn't cost the taxpayers a thing; however, it would probably raise everyone's premiums as the insurance companies take on these people.

Case three:

Age: 47

Employment: Owner of BrownPartners, an advertising and marketing agency. Seven employees. $336,000 in annual wages paid.

Household income: $150,000, including wife's earnings.

Coverage: Provides health, dental and vision coverage to employees.

Solution: Both bills provide tax credits to help small companies with average wages of less than $40,000 provide health insurance. But pay levels in Brown's agency are above that cutoff.

So, sorry, this bill does nothing for you. Of course you could cut the salaries of your employees to get assistance. Try that and let me know how it works.

Case four:

Age: 58

Employment: vendor, Real Change street newspaper.

Household income: $12,000, including tips.

Coverage: Uninsured.

Problem: Hansen used to work selling beer and peanuts at Seattle's now-demolished Kingdome. "Age caught up to me, running up and down the stairs, the physical labor," said the 58-year-old Seattle native.

Hansen has been homeless since 1994. A top-selling vendor of a weekly newspaper called Real Change, he makes about $1,000 a month. He eats his evening meal and finds a bed at a Catholic Community Services shelter.

Solution: In the leading Senate proposal, people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($14,404 for an individual in 2009) could enroll in Medicaid. The House bill makes the cutoff 150 percent of the poverty level ($16,245 for an individual in 2009).

First, let's start with person in question. He has been homeless since 1994 when he lost his job selling beer at the Kingdome. You mean to tell me that in 15 years this man has been unable to find any sort of meaningful employment? That's your first problem. Second off, once again this proposal wouldn't take effect until 2013 or 2014, and lastly, somebody needs to check into what kind of welfare state they have in Washington that allows what appears to be an otherwise able-bodied individual to live off of the taxpayer teats for so long. His story is a prime example of somebody who has learned it is easier to be a sponge then a productive citizen, and now that he needs something he is once again turning to the producers in this country to continue his slovenly lifestyle. Work is for chumps appears to be his motto.

Last case:

Age: 68

Employment: Retired payroll coordinator

Household income: About $39,000 from Social Security and some earnings by husband as mattress salesman.

Coverage: Medicare Advantage policy administered by AvMed Health Plan

Problem: Congressional legislation is designed to do away with the Medicare Advantage plans.

Solution: McKenna and her husband, Morty, who turns 78 on Sunday, are in private Medicare Advantage plans, which many Democrats have called wasteful and which have been made a prime target for major cuts. But Morty McKenna also falls in the coverage gap in Medicare's prescription drug program — the "doughnut hole" — that the health bills have promised to close. More than 3 million Medicare beneficiaries a year hit this gap and start paying the full cost of their drugs until they qualify for catastrophic coverage.

Well, actually, the Democrats don't have a solution for you. In fact, they plan on punishing you. Sorry, you are over the age of 65, here is your wonderful parting gift.

So in the five cases cited by the AP two of them can be addressed by simple legislation that would be at no additional cost to the taxpayers and does not require a government-administrated health care plan. One is an example of a case that is covered by current law, but one which is not widely known in regards to pre-existing conditions and continuing insurance coverage. One is an example of somebody who has gamed the system for 15 years and wants yet more freebies from the government and the last in which the people would actually be punished.

None of the Congressional answers offer any immediate relief.

Gee, AP, I think you just made the argument for the Republicans.

Sorry AARP.