The Maritime Sentry: Dems Be Warned - We Know What You Are Doing To America And We Will Have Your Seats In November
Not being able to say it any better,(at least not without indulging in unladylike language and scurrilous insults) I have provided a link to The Maritime Sentry's blog where SR has outdone herself.
Showing posts with label Health care reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health care reform. Show all posts
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Cadillacs Anyone?
Insurance companies use a number of criteria for determining how much a policy will cost. Among these are the occupation of the applicant, the services that applicant wants covered, the applicant's age and location. This is not to give them an excuse for denying coverage. Businesses want to serve you-that's how they make money. It is rather to determine how much they will be likely to have to pay out during the course of a year's coverage. Jobs like carriage driving, construction and custodial work are far riskier than a typical office job. Higher risk = higher premium. Older people tend to have more claims than younger people. The body wears out. Older = higher premium. People who live in large cities have a higher risk of things like auto accidents or violent crime than those who live away from people. Living in a high risk area= higher premium. If an applicant wants to cover every conceivable medical test and procedure known to man, that's also going to cost more.
Unfortunately, Congress has decided to use the cost of any given insurance policy as a guide to what that policy covers. They have declared that a policy that costs ~ $23,000/year for a family or ~$8,500/year for an individual must be a "Cadillac plan". By which they mean to imply that such a plan is only purchased by the evil, greedy people who have "played the system" to be better off than "ordinary" people. They are using the cost of the policy as an easy button to convince the American people that those who can afford such policies, ought then to be fined so that everyone can get coverage. In addition to ignoring the risk factors that go into the pricing of health insurance policies, they are lying to the American people for yet one more power grab. One more huge shift towards collectivism.
The truth is that someone who works at a risky job in a big city will pay far more for the same coverage as someone who works at a low risk job in a small town. For Congress to ignore this, and penalize the high risk worker, essentially for taking a high risk job, is going to cost America yet more jobs and make it that much more difficult and expensive to get anything done that requires a high risk worker.
America is all about risk. We value the freedom to take risks and the freedom to fail. That includes failing to have adequate coverage. It includes the risk of incurring a lifelong debt to pay for the medical services that one would receive in extremis, regardless of one's ability to pay.
Our medical system is not broken. I have read that the real impetus for this legislation is that doctor after doctor and clinic after clinic are refusing to take Medicare/Medicaid patients on a non-emergency basis anymore, because those patients are served at a loss to the doctor/facility. That, rather than being conspiracy theory, type collectivism pushers, Congress is just so stupid as to think that by providing no way out for healthcare providers and insurers, and taxing the dickens out of the rest of us to pay for it, it will solve the problem.
If that's the case, I wonder what they will do when, in 3-4 years, all the baby boomers are retired and aging and the 45% of healthcare providers polled retire because they don't care to be forced to work under the provisions of this bill. How will Congress "fix" the healthcare system then?
The unions who supported this Congress and this administration into office suddenly realized that many of their members have healthcare plans that put them into that "Cadillac" category by price. Upon realizing this, did they throw their weight against the legislation? Did they have a sudden revelation of patriotism to impel them to protect their members through opposing this unconstitutional and unconscionable legislation that will destroy the American health care system? No, they paid to play, so they just went to their pet legislators and collected their payoff.
It is time and past for America's Union workers to remember that they are the power behind the unions and that they are Americans first. Congress isn't the only place that needs a change of personnel.
"Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it. " ~Duet 1:17
Unfortunately, Congress has decided to use the cost of any given insurance policy as a guide to what that policy covers. They have declared that a policy that costs ~ $23,000/year for a family or ~$8,500/year for an individual must be a "Cadillac plan". By which they mean to imply that such a plan is only purchased by the evil, greedy people who have "played the system" to be better off than "ordinary" people. They are using the cost of the policy as an easy button to convince the American people that those who can afford such policies, ought then to be fined so that everyone can get coverage. In addition to ignoring the risk factors that go into the pricing of health insurance policies, they are lying to the American people for yet one more power grab. One more huge shift towards collectivism.
The truth is that someone who works at a risky job in a big city will pay far more for the same coverage as someone who works at a low risk job in a small town. For Congress to ignore this, and penalize the high risk worker, essentially for taking a high risk job, is going to cost America yet more jobs and make it that much more difficult and expensive to get anything done that requires a high risk worker.
America is all about risk. We value the freedom to take risks and the freedom to fail. That includes failing to have adequate coverage. It includes the risk of incurring a lifelong debt to pay for the medical services that one would receive in extremis, regardless of one's ability to pay.
Our medical system is not broken. I have read that the real impetus for this legislation is that doctor after doctor and clinic after clinic are refusing to take Medicare/Medicaid patients on a non-emergency basis anymore, because those patients are served at a loss to the doctor/facility. That, rather than being conspiracy theory, type collectivism pushers, Congress is just so stupid as to think that by providing no way out for healthcare providers and insurers, and taxing the dickens out of the rest of us to pay for it, it will solve the problem.
If that's the case, I wonder what they will do when, in 3-4 years, all the baby boomers are retired and aging and the 45% of healthcare providers polled retire because they don't care to be forced to work under the provisions of this bill. How will Congress "fix" the healthcare system then?
The unions who supported this Congress and this administration into office suddenly realized that many of their members have healthcare plans that put them into that "Cadillac" category by price. Upon realizing this, did they throw their weight against the legislation? Did they have a sudden revelation of patriotism to impel them to protect their members through opposing this unconstitutional and unconscionable legislation that will destroy the American health care system? No, they paid to play, so they just went to their pet legislators and collected their payoff.
It is time and past for America's Union workers to remember that they are the power behind the unions and that they are Americans first. Congress isn't the only place that needs a change of personnel.
"Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it. " ~Duet 1:17
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Dr. Zimmermann at the Sheboygan TEA Party
Dr. Zimmermann talks about health care. Unfortunately, I ran out of batteries where this cuts off. I will attempt to find another video so you can see the whole speech, because it was quite good.
I was not able to film any of the speakers following Dr. Zimmerman. I also was a bit late so I missed the opening speaker, Scott Sidney. Bob Basso as Thomas Paine was well covered and I have provided links in an earlier post. Mark Block and Linda Hanson were the final speakers and, if I can find video of their presentations, I will post links here.
"Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?" ~ Jer 8:22 ( I was tempted to put the entire chapter here.)
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Health Care
I've been reading a lot about the health care legislation of late, which is not surprising, given that it is one of Mr. Obama's priorities. I'm thinking there are some things that need to be said that aren't being said with regard to this legislation.
First and foremost is "What's the hurry?" Our health care system could use some improvement, I'll grant you, but a complete overhaul with over 1000 pages of legislation that some of our elected officials, like Mr. Conyers, will not even read before casting their vote? (A notion I find appalling as, in my understanding, that is the job of our elected legislators, to read and understand proposed legislation before voting on it. Mr Bilbray is with me on this one.) I understand that the republicans (not to be confused with conservatives) have come up with a different health care reform plan that is unlikely to even see the light of day, thanks to the changes in procedures enacted shortly after the democrats took control of both houses.
It seems to me that we are not even framing the debate in correctly. First one must define the problem. All I am hearing in the MSM is that the problem is that health care costs too much and that the free market didn't work for health care. In my experience we don't have a free market system in health care so how could it affect anything?
I recall shortly after moving about 10 years ago that I was incensed that I could not get a straight answer to a few simple questions when I was looking for a new doctor. Those questions? "How much does it cost for an office visit with each of the doctors who are currently accepting new patients?" and "How much does it cost for a throat culture?" Only one of the health care businesses I called could answer those questions. They were a family practice. (By which I mean a family of doctors who had set up their own offices.) and I only called them because they they were mistakenly on the list of local in-network providers given to us by my husband's new employer.
How can we call this a free market? How would you shop if the salesclerk in a grocery store refused to tell you how much anything cost until after you had purchased it, taken it home and consumed it? That's essentially what most in-network service providers do. They say they have no choice, because different insurance plans cover different things at different percentages and the prices are set by someone else and on and on and on. (Gov.'t regulation plays a part in that as well.) Even when I provided them with the name of my husband's new employer and the insurance carrier, these clinics were unable to provide that basic level of consumer information. (The private practice didn't deal with insurance and made a point of saying that they would have to charge me more because it would cost them more clerical time to get their payment from my insurance - and they were able to tell me how by how much my cost was increased.)
I think if we made clinics publish their prices for various services (Please note I did not say have the government set their prices), that consumers could bring down health care costs pretty quickly through informed decision making and free market competition.
The second issue that really has an affect on health care prices is tort reform. By this I mean that the cost of malpractice insurance has become so prohibitive that many doctors simply cannot afford to continue to practice. If we limit the damages that can be awarded for liability, this would have a huge affect on the cost of health care.
Neither of these solutions would require the federal government to have a mandatory medical database containing the medical records of each and every American citizen with no opt out for those who don't care to share that information with whatever government employee has access and time on their hands. They would not require government rationing of health care or government guidelines on who can be treated or for which treatments are allowable for which people. (Wouldn't want to waste money treating old people or people with incurable diseases-they're going to die soon anyway-right?) Nor would they require huge tax increases or affect current medicare or medicaid programs.
Our form of government is designed to let our legislators deliberate, slowly and carefully before voting on legislation that affects the American people. What crisis is requiring such a push now? Why in the world should a bill this size and this costly to the American people be voted on virtually without review and debate, much less passed?
"To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste." ~Deut 32:35
First and foremost is "What's the hurry?" Our health care system could use some improvement, I'll grant you, but a complete overhaul with over 1000 pages of legislation that some of our elected officials, like Mr. Conyers, will not even read before casting their vote? (A notion I find appalling as, in my understanding, that is the job of our elected legislators, to read and understand proposed legislation before voting on it. Mr Bilbray is with me on this one.) I understand that the republicans (not to be confused with conservatives) have come up with a different health care reform plan that is unlikely to even see the light of day, thanks to the changes in procedures enacted shortly after the democrats took control of both houses.
It seems to me that we are not even framing the debate in correctly. First one must define the problem. All I am hearing in the MSM is that the problem is that health care costs too much and that the free market didn't work for health care. In my experience we don't have a free market system in health care so how could it affect anything?
I recall shortly after moving about 10 years ago that I was incensed that I could not get a straight answer to a few simple questions when I was looking for a new doctor. Those questions? "How much does it cost for an office visit with each of the doctors who are currently accepting new patients?" and "How much does it cost for a throat culture?" Only one of the health care businesses I called could answer those questions. They were a family practice. (By which I mean a family of doctors who had set up their own offices.) and I only called them because they they were mistakenly on the list of local in-network providers given to us by my husband's new employer.
How can we call this a free market? How would you shop if the salesclerk in a grocery store refused to tell you how much anything cost until after you had purchased it, taken it home and consumed it? That's essentially what most in-network service providers do. They say they have no choice, because different insurance plans cover different things at different percentages and the prices are set by someone else and on and on and on. (Gov.'t regulation plays a part in that as well.) Even when I provided them with the name of my husband's new employer and the insurance carrier, these clinics were unable to provide that basic level of consumer information. (The private practice didn't deal with insurance and made a point of saying that they would have to charge me more because it would cost them more clerical time to get their payment from my insurance - and they were able to tell me how by how much my cost was increased.)
I think if we made clinics publish their prices for various services (Please note I did not say have the government set their prices), that consumers could bring down health care costs pretty quickly through informed decision making and free market competition.
The second issue that really has an affect on health care prices is tort reform. By this I mean that the cost of malpractice insurance has become so prohibitive that many doctors simply cannot afford to continue to practice. If we limit the damages that can be awarded for liability, this would have a huge affect on the cost of health care.
Neither of these solutions would require the federal government to have a mandatory medical database containing the medical records of each and every American citizen with no opt out for those who don't care to share that information with whatever government employee has access and time on their hands. They would not require government rationing of health care or government guidelines on who can be treated or for which treatments are allowable for which people. (Wouldn't want to waste money treating old people or people with incurable diseases-they're going to die soon anyway-right?) Nor would they require huge tax increases or affect current medicare or medicaid programs.
Our form of government is designed to let our legislators deliberate, slowly and carefully before voting on legislation that affects the American people. What crisis is requiring such a push now? Why in the world should a bill this size and this costly to the American people be voted on virtually without review and debate, much less passed?
"To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste." ~Deut 32:35
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
