My Health Insurance

Financial tips for college grads: Watch the credit cards, get health insurance

2008-05-20T13:42:00.000-07:00

This article explains one more thing that graduating seniors need to learn before graduating. They will now have to buy their own health insurance if they do not have benefits with a new job. There are affordable plans for healthy young individuals. But they will likely need to get their own apart from their parents' plans that they have used for their childhoods. This article is from the Boston Globe and not an insurance agent so I'll link it here.

Financial tips for college grads: Watch the credit cards, get health insurance

May 20, 2008 12:03 PM

By Peter Schworm, Globe Staff

Diplomas in hand, college graduates are heading off into the “real world," where a daunting economy and sluggish job market await. Smith College economics professor Randall K. Bartlett, who teaches in the college's Women and Financial Independence program, said recent graduates need to make a concerted effort to manage their finances well as they enter post-college life.

Bad decisions now could haunt the graduates for years to come.

"Money comes in hard and goes out easy," Bartlett said. "How you plan your finances now can have huge ramifications on how your life will play out."

To help grads along their way, Bartlett recently provided a few thoughts on the economic climate and some tips on getting a financial life:

Continue reading the article here.

Google Offers Virtual Filing Cabinet for Health Records

2008-05-20T13:32:00.000-07:00

This is a new Google feature that will revolutionize medical records in America. Many people are concerned about privacy, but they do not understand the waste of time and money involved in getting and transferring doctors records between physicians and facilities. This feature will allow the records to be available online so that timely diagnoses can be made based on the medical history of the patient. The medical industry is on the cutting edge with life saving procedures and drugs, but if you go into an office you will undoubtedly see a receptionist with rows and rows of paper files behind him or her. This Google technology will streamline the effort to keep and transfer records the way that the Clintons did for the Veterans Administration. The cost savings will be transferred to the cost of health care. The medical industry should have done this on their own. But just as the phone companies did not extend their phone directory to the internet, Google did the job for them. This is an excellent achievement and a great use of technology. I applaud this move by Google in the strongest of terms. Enjoy the article.

By Walaika Haskins
TechNewsWorld
05/20/08 12:04 PM PT

Google Health, launched in beta on Monday, is a personal health records aggregator that can provide users with online access to their own medical information culled from several sources. Partners include Walgreens, CVS and Medco. Google says targeted ads will not be involved in the system, but privacy concerns remain.

Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) Latest News about Google launched the beta version of its Google Health personal health records aggregator Monday. The service, according to Google, will put users in control of their own medical records, giving them 24-hour-a-day access to their health records from a variety of sources.

With the introduction of Google Health, the search giant joins other Internet companies including Microsoft's (Nasdaq: MSFT) Free Trial. Security Software As A Service From Webroot. Latest News about Microsoft HealthVault, Revolution Health and WebMD in the business of storing personal health records (PHR). Revolution Health is a startup Over 800,000 High Quality Domains Available For Your Business. Click Here. from Steve Case, AOL's cofounder.

Proponents such as Case contend that making these types of services available to consumers is the key to revolutionizing the healthcare Latest News about healthcare system in the U.S.

Continue reading the article here.

Personal injury lawyers still send health care costs soaring

2008-05-20T13:25:00.000-07:00

This article goes over the argument that medical malpractice lawsuits are causing the costs of health care to increase. The doctors have to get insurance that is more expensive because there is no cap on how much the doctors can sue for. I agree that there needs to be some sort of compensation for a doctor that makes a mistake. But I do not believe that the person needs to be compensated with outrageous sums of money. This issue must be addressed if the cost of health care will decrease.

Personal injury lawyers still send health care costs soaring

By David A. Ridenour
Published: May 19 2008, 10:41 PM

Americans love hospital-based televison shows, ranging from such oldies as “Marcus Welby, M.D.” to today’s “Grey’s Anatomy” — where courageous doctors rush to help victims of car crashes, chemical spills, natural disasters and even terrorism.

In real life, our well-being often resides outside of emergency rooms — dependent on a plaintiff lawyer’s avarice. Some lawsuits, of course, are well-intentioned, but others — guided mostly by greed — play a major role in our nation’s ever-escalating health care costs.

We depend on having a viable safety net for our evolving medical needs. Lawsuits that unnecessarily increase the liability risk of health care providers tend to increase costs and add to the current high cost of health care.

Continue reading the article here.

Tiered Health Care Catches On

2008-04-21T18:52:00.001-07:00

This article goes over an issue that insurance companies are using to deal with the rising cost of prescription drugs. The problem of health care in this country is not that our health care is not good, it is that it costs too much. The most expensive aspect of the health system is prescription drugs. As a result, the copayments are getting higher and higher for drugs that can be as expensive as 1000 dollars a month. If you don't take those drugs, you still must pay for the benefits which raises your monthly premium. To keep the premiums down, insurance companies make the copayments for these drugs higher. This article goes into the discussion on this new issue.

Tiered Health Care Catches On

Health insurance companies are shifting the cost of expensive prescription drugs on to patients, part of a larger trend toward "tiered" private health insurance coverage. Although employers support these measures, vulnerable patients are being exposed to great financial risks.

Health insurers are struggling to adapt to surging health care costs in the U.S. The newest development in private health insurance is the introduction of a fourth tier of cost sharing ("Tier 4") in prescription drug coverage.

Insurance tiering requires patients to bear an increasing share of the costs of care. The system is attractive to employers who sponsor health plans and to employees in good health, but it can be very costly for those who become chronically ill.

Continue reading the article here.

States Look to Tobacco Tax for Budget Holes

2008-04-21T08:05:00.000-07:00

This article from the New York Times talks about the new tax proposed on cigarettes. While the Massachusetts tax is focused on shoring up the health care program, other states are taxing tobacco for other budget shortfalls. The problem is that they would prefer people stop smoking because they ban smoking everywhere except inside your home. This tax should help people who want to quit. But it won't bring in the revenue that the states want or need. The problem is that government is spending too much. I guess nobody should be angry over a tax on such a demonized legal product. But when are people going to get angry that the government is simply spending more money than it has? Why can't government see that they are placing burdens on future generations to pay for their pet projects. If the government didn't spend so much money, they would not need so much money. Here is the article.

States Look to Tobacco Tax for Budget Holes

By KEVIN SACK
Published: April 21, 2008

To keep the state’s landmark universal health coverage plan afloat, Massachusetts lawmakers are looking to tap an increasingly popular source of financing for health-related initiatives: tobacco taxes.

If the state raises its tax by as much as $1 a pack, it will join New York — and possibly a number of other states — in enacting significant increases this year. The speaker of the Massachusetts House, Salvatore F. DiMasi, a Democrat, pushed the increase, to $2.51, through the chamber this month, and the State Senate president, Therese Murray, and Gov. Deval Patrick, also Democrats, have signaled support.

The $175 million in projected revenue would be used to shore up the state’s year-old mandatory health insurance plan. State officials say the plan, which is the first to require that individuals have coverage, is over budget because enrollment has been higher than expected for state-subsidized insurance policies offered to low- and middle-income workers.

Continue reading the article here.

Personal Loans and Credit Cards

2008-04-20T19:27:00.000-07:00

These days finances are always on our minds. There are many ways to save money if you follow simple tips from experts. Personal loans are a necessity these days if you want to buy a car or a house. If you have ever tried to get a loan, you know that there are so many different options that it is easy to choose the most costly one if you have not done your research.

Some people will even use credit cards to pay for things like a mortgage or car payment if they are low on cash. They mistakenly believe that this postpones the payment and saves them time. Instead, this is usually a costly mistake and ends up costing the borrower much more than they should have to pay. It is important to understand the difference between secured and unsecured loans so that you do not fall into the trap of paying more than you should for interest.

If you are in the market for a loan, you should compare loans before you sign on the dotted line. There are many websites available where you can do this for free. Since the economy is still in a questionable state, it is important to cut costs wherever you can. I recommend visiting sites like http://www.thriftyscot.co.uk/ so that you can get all the information you need to make the right choice for you.

Parties' Split Most Apparent on Health Care

2008-04-20T08:26:00.000-07:00

This Wall Street Journal article goes over the major differences between the 3 major candidates' views on health care. Basically it says that McCain wants more free market solutions, while Clinton and Obama both want a government system set up to insure everyone. The problem here is that no matter what these candidates say, and despite their best intentions at heart, their proposals will have to get through so many different committees in Congress before anything is passed that what one person says about it is fairly insignificant. However the people in the media and news will still hang on to every word and detail that the candidates put out as some type of indicator of how they will lead. The system that we have now is fine except for a few major problems. Our health care system is the greatest in the world, it is just too expensive. State governments are doing things to fix the problems and that is how the system is set up. The federal government can not appropriately address the problems at the local level. It is a good article and people should know the information in it. Enjoy.

Parties' Split Most Apparent on Health Care

Democrats, Republicans Differ
Over Roles of Government
And Market to Revamp System
By LAURA MECKLER
April 19, 2008

Washington

As the presidential candidates respond to increasing economic anxiety about many issues, some of the sharpest differences in this fall's debate are expected to involve health care.

While the Democratic candidates want to use government as a lever to aid the 47 million people in the U.S. without health insurance, Sen. John McCain would rely much more heavily on the free market. The likely Republican nominee has begun charging that his Democratic rivals "want government to take over the health-care system."

With Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama focused on their own contest, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former candidate John Edwards, has stepped in and begun attacking the McCain plan.

Continue reading the article here.

Self employed health insurance

2008-04-19T09:51:00.000-07:00

Our medical insurance system is primarily designed around an employer based benefit to the employees for health care coverage. Self employed health insurance is a growing need because many Americans are opting out of the traditional job environment to start their own business out of their homes or over the internet. These people still need health insurance, but they are not able to benefit from the rates and risk pools that larger companies have.

There are many different plans available like the Highmark Blue Cross plans or Healthamerica plans. You can get programs that have the same benefits as employer plans with low doctor copayments and preventative care benefits. These companies also have more options for those that want to save money with high deductible health plans that operate in conjunction with a tax favored health savings account.

Your best options should be explored with experienced agents or through websites online. You can browse different companies, benefits, and rates to make the decision and apply online on your own. Or you can call an agent for help to get the best value for your health care dollar.

Pa Health Insurance

2008-04-17T23:49:00.000-07:00

Philadelphia health insurance is the most expensive area in the nation except for New York City. These rising costs hamper local business and families to the point where they can not just continue paying whatever they already have. They can not go without medical insurance either. The best option is in finding the right Pa health insurance agent who knows the options and the plans available for each situation.

Low Cost Pa health insurance.com offers several of the leading plans from the area. If you need Pittsburgh health insurance or health insurance anywhere in the state of Pennsylvania, you can get quotes, compare plans, and apply online with this agency. Their motto is "every policy comes with an agent". So you can browse different top plans and rates on your own at your convenience on the website with their state of the art quoting engine. But an experienced agent is just a phone call away should you have questions.

When you need to find ways to cut costs, there are several options available to you through your health insurance. If you use a health insurance agent, it will not cost you more, but you may be able to find a plan that has better value for your dollar. It only takes a couple of minutes to find out whether or not you can save money on the top plans.

Probate Cash Advance

2008-04-17T23:29:00.001-07:00

Many people find themselves in a situation where their inheritance is tied up in a probate account. These things can be hurdles in the heir getting their inheritance when they may need money for taxes or other debt. Probate Cash Advance service helps sooth an otherwise difficult situation. It can take up to twenty four months for probate to be settled. During that time your cash advance probate can help you settle up some other issues within the estate.

These "heir loans" are not really loans. Representatives examine your situation and determine a set fee for the process of getting the cash to the heir while the probate process continues. The payment to the representative only happens when the probate has been settled. At that time the representative collects the amount determined when the loan was originally given.

This process is used all across the country for people who find themselves in a situation where they face a huge hurdle in getting the estate settled. There are representatives available to help your probate and get you the money you need.

Health Insurance California

2008-04-17T06:02:00.001-07:00

Insurance decisions can be difficult if you are not experienced with all of the different plans and companies available. Most of the time you need an insurance agent who can walk you through your options carefully. Insurance is something that is unique to everyone because there is no one policy that is correct for everyone. Health Insurance California has many different quality options. Which one is right for you depends on your situation. Websites like http://www.insurancebyjohn.com offer the best solutions for you to browse online, and when you have a question an experienced agent is just a phone call away.

California home insurance also can be expensive. You need to make sure that the policy you have gives you the right coverage at the right price. Maybe you need earthquake insurance, maybe you need flood insurance, maybe you just need apartment insurance. No matter what you need, you will need to speak to a licensed and experienced agent to help you through the process.

Most people think that the agent gets extra fees from you that you would not have to pay if you were to go directly with the company. That is not the case. Agents get paid from the company that you buy insurance from and it costs the same to you whether or not you use an agent. The agent can help you if problems arise with your insurance company. Most agents also will help you because they want you to come to them with all of your insurance concerns. You are more than just a number, you are a member of a long term relationship with your interests at heart when you use an experienced and respected agent like John Tesoriero at this helpful website http://www.insurancebyjohn.com. California Health Insurance is available for individual & families, small groups, seniors and kids. And they can help you pick the best auto, home, life, and health insurance plans for you with no brokerage fees.

A query: Are health-care mandates constitutional?

2008-04-14T06:22:00.001-07:00

This article goes over the main issue in the Universal Health Care debate. At some point in our nation's history, people have come to consider health insurance to be a 'right'. All of the politicians are clamoring to out mandate the other person so that everyone has insurance. The problem here is that the government won't set the insurance rates, private insurance companies will. So basically the question is should the government be allowed to require citizens to purchase a product under the law? It would be like mandating that you can only buy a hybrid car. But actually that is not even true because it is more like you are FORCED to buy a hybrid car whether or not you wanted or needed a car in the first place.

Proponents of government mandated health care say that it is OK because government mandates car insurance or homeowners insurance if you have a mortgage. The difference is that I don't have to purchase auto insurance unless I drive or have a car. I don't have to purchase homeowners insurance unless I have a house. Health insurance would be an unfunded mandate passed on to every citizen by the government. That is not what I would consider to be 'free citizens'. This article talks about whether or not universal health care required by the government (as it is in Mass.) is constitutional or not. Enjoy the article.

A query: Are health-care mandates constitutional?
Perhaps not. Candidates should get clear answers

By KARL MANHEIM and JAMIE COURT

An important element is being overlooked in the health-care debate between the Democratic presidential candidates: Namely, whether the plans they propose are constitutional.

The largest difference between their health-care plans is that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would "mandate" that everyone (with limited exceptions) purchase private health insurance. Although Sen. Barack Obama's plan also contains a mandate, it is much narrower — it is only required for children. Obama principally relies on subsidies, economies of scale and regulation to voluntarily achieve his version of universal coverage.

Are health insurance mandates constitutional? They certainly are unprecedented. The federal government does not ordinarily require Americans to purchase particular goods or services from private parties.

Continue reading the article here.

The Health Insurance Mafia

2008-04-14T06:11:00.000-07:00

This is an interesting article, and most of it is true. This article goes over the idea that the cost of health care would be less if nobody had insurance. He bases this assumption on an anecdotal experience he had when an MRI was not covered by the insurance company and he was billed - by the facility - $3000. When he told the provider that insurance would not pay the bill, they allowed him to settle for less when he paid out of pocket.

He goes over the idea that the health insurance companies don't really do anything but facilitate the transaction between patient and doctor. But actually health insurance companies do play a vital role in our health care dollars. They negotiate prices with the hospital and doctors before anyone is sick. Usually the negotiated prices are lower for the insurance companies than they would be for the patient alone. The reason this is important is because when you need the health care service is not the best time for you to bargain for the best price. It's like selling umbrellas. If it is not raining, umbrellas are one price. But as soon as the rain starts coming down, the price of the umbrella triples because the demand is greater.

If you don't need a service, it is not worth anything to you. But if a service will save your life, it is worth everything you have. I agree that health insurers go a long way beyond what they actually need to in order to make a profit. I agree that insurance companies should not make huge profits off of the health care industry. But they do play a vital role in the health care system.

I like this article from the Wall Street Journal. Enjoy the article.

The Health Insurance Mafia

By JONATHAN KELLERMAN
April 14, 2008

Most discussions about the rising cost of health care emphasize the need to get more people insured. The assumption seems to be that insurance – rather than the service delivered by doctor to patient – is the important commodity.

But perhaps the solution to much of what currently plagues us in health care – rising costs and bureaucracy, diminishing levels of service – rests on a radically different approach: fewer people insured.

You don't need to be an economist to understand that any middleman interposed between seller and buyer raises the price of a given service or product. Some intermediaries justify this by providing benefits, such as salesmanship, advertising or transport. Others offer physical facilities, such as warehouses. A third group, organized crime, utilizes fear and intimidation to muscle its way into the provider-consumer chain, raking in hefty profits and bloating cost, without providing any benefit at all.

The health insurance model is closest to the parasitic relationship imposed by the Mafia and the like. Insurance companies provide nothing other than an ambiguous, shifty notion of "protection." But even the Mafia doesn't stick its nose into the process; once the monthly skim is set, Don Whoever stays out of the picture, but for occasional "cost of doing business" increases. When insurance companies insinuate themselves into the system, their first step is figuring out how to increase the skim by harming the people they are allegedly protecting through reduced service.

Continue reading the article here.

Costs soar for Mass. health care law

2008-04-12T18:03:00.000-07:00

The problem with health insurance like this is that it makes costs go up. The only way that most lawmakers ever can figure out how to raise money is by raising taxes. This law has been in place for less than 4 months and they are already proposing a dollar tax on a pack of cigarettes to pay for the shortfall. This program is a disaster according to most everyone in this article. Liberals don't like it because it doesn't go far enough. Conservatives don't like the mandates by the government enforced by fines and penalties of nearly 1000/month per person. It was supposed to give everyone better coverage at a lower cost, but it doesn't work that way. Nothing does. Enjoy the article.

Costs soar for Mass. health care law

By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - Two years after the state's landmark health law was signed, the cracks are starting to show.

Costs are soaring and Massachusetts lawmakers are weighing a dollar-a-pack hike in the state's cigarette tax to help pay for a larger-than-expected enrollment in the law's subsidized insurance plans.

But that hasn't dampened enthusiasm at the Statehouse. Leaders there boast that in the two years since former Gov. Mitt Romney signed the law with a choreographed flourish at historic Faneuil Hall, the number of insured residents has soared by nearly 350,000.

Along the way the law has been scrutinized by other states, sparked the ire of critics on the right and left, and drawn the attention of presidential candidates.

Continue reading the article here.

Former House Speaker Gingrich Says Democrats Will Not Overhaul Health Care

2008-04-11T07:30:00.000-07:00

I always enjoy hearing what Gingrich has to say about America and our government. He could be wrong, but it is comforting to hear his take on whether or not the government will be able to pass a massive and unsustainable government bureaucracy to control health care nationally.

Former House Speaker Gingrich Says Democrats Will Not Overhaul Health Care

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) on Tuesday said before an audience of hospital executives that Democrats in Congress will not be able to overhaul the U.S. health care system if they are successful in the fall elections, CQ HealthBeat reports. Gingrich is the founder of the Center for Health Transformation.

Gingrich said, "On health policy, we are partly blocked down because on the House side, the two senior health people are" Energy and Commerce Committee Chair John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chair Pete Stark (D-Calif.). Dingell is "a smart guy," but health care "is not a topic he has thought about much," according to Gingrich. He added that Stark, who represents the California district that includes San Francisco, "has a perfectly San Francisco attitude towards profits and towards the economy, which is that he doesn't understand why either of those is necessary and that a nice government-run bureaucracy could take care of all this." Gingrich said House members will "discover that a Dingell-Stark model of the world is not sustainable."

Continue reading the article here.

'06 income for hospitals, health insurers surges

2008-04-11T07:21:00.001-07:00

This article shows where a lot of the rising cost of health care is going. The hospitals, HMO's, and insurance companies are making a lot more money now than they were. I don't want to demonize people for making a profit in a capitalistic society. But when and if there is a crisis, the solution can be found in areas like this. If the government were to take over the health care industry by giving everyone health insurance, the doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies would still increase their profits. If we don't address the rising cost of health care, we won't fix the solution. In this article, the medical providers said the same excuse that if they don't make these huge profits they wouldn't be able to provide the new and latest technologies to improve health care. That is the excuse that pharmaceuticals use to say that they need to continue their patents longer and have no price controls. I don't believe any of them. While I can appreciate their need to make a profit. I do believe that the government should be able to regulate non-profit organizations (as most hospitals are) on how much excess income they should be allowed to maintain their non-profit and tax preferred status. This is a good article. Enjoy.

'06 income for hospitals, health insurers surges

Premiums for the 973,000 Coloradans in health maintenance organizations rose in 2006 and so did the dollars flowing to insurers and hospitals, according to a new analysis.

Coloradans enrolled in HMOs paid an average monthly premium of $271 in 2006, up about 2.5 percent from the previous year and nearly twice what they paid in 2000, reported Minnesota health-care analyst Allan Baumgarten.

The HMO insurance companies across the state reported nearly $172 million in pretax income, more than double the 2005 figure.

In 2006, the 22 Denver-area hospitals earned pretax net income of $476 million, Baumgarten reported.

Denver-area hospitals reported a net income of $384 million in 2005, Baumgarten said.

"There's mostly unhappiness in these numbers," said Baumgarten, who compiles the figures on Colorado HMOS and hospitals annually.

"Consumers are unhappy because they're paying more out of pocket," Baumgarten said. "Employers are unhappy too, and the percentage of employers providing health insurance continues to drop. They're throwing up their hands and saying, 'I cannot sustain these increases.' "

Continue reading the article here.

Celebrity Medical Records Hacked: Are You at Risk?

2008-04-10T06:38:00.000-07:00

This is a part of our new laws that never really made sense to me. I don't understand why we have a need to keep medical information private. The only real reason that I can think of to have legislation concerning this is that people who have AIDS don't want to be discriminated against. I have always thought that having other people know your medical history was a good thing. . . especially in cases where you might be unconscious and in need of medical care. After all don't they have those medical ID bracelets for just that purpose? What difference does it make if I have high blood pressure or high cholesterol and other people know it? It seems more like people knowing if I have blond or brunette hair (not something that is really private). If I have cancer, I would not mind if people knew. If I was hospitalized, what difference would it make if other people knew I was there. But alas, this is where we are for whatever legislative reason. And everyone seems to be in agreement that people shouldn't know that you have asthma or seasonal allergies because that would be an invasion of privacy. This article plays on the fears of other people actively trying to get that particular information without your consent. The horror.

Celebrity Medical Records Hacked: Are You at Risk?
By Jessica Ryen Doyle

It’s not surprising that hospital employees would be interested in the medical records of celebrities like Maria Shriver, Farrah Fawcett, Britney Spears and George Clooney.

But famous names may not be the only ones whose medical files are being snooped through, according to two medical experts.

Essentially, all medical records — including the average Joe's — are up for sale to large corporations, research facilities and drug companies, said Dr. Deborah Peel, founder and chairwoman of Patient Privacy Rights, a non-profit advocacy group in Austin, Texas.

By signing a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act consent form, she said, you not only are giving your doctor and insurance company access to your medical records, but you may be giving them permission to sell your information, as well.

"The privacy rule requires health care providers to give patients a notice of privacy practices to provide them with important information on how their health information may be used and disclosed, as well as what their rights are with respect to their information and how the individual can exercise these rights," says Linda Sanches, senior adviser for HIPAA Privacy Outreach, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Continue reading the article here.

Fewer Primary Care Physicians Take Medicare Patients

2008-04-09T09:29:00.000-07:00

This is the 800 lb gorilla that the universal health care advocates don't want to tackle. Doctors can't take Medicare patients at the Medicare reimbursement rates and make enough money to stay in business. They rely on private health insurance patients to pick up the loss that they get in treating Medicare patients. Recently a report came out that Medicare as it is will go broke by the year 2019. So if you are 54, you won't likely get the benefits that are available now. I admit that for a patient, Medicare is the best possible insurance that you can get. But from a doctors standpoint, they need private insurance reimbursement rates to keep their practice open. If we create a new bigger government program expect this to be more common. Doctors simply won't be reimbursed enough to provide the services that the community needs. Sure universal health care sounds like a good idea on the surface, but it will never work. The supply is not available to meet the growing demand. And the cost for giving away health care for "free" is way too expensive. Enjoy this enlightening article that neither Hillary nor Obama will want to discuss.

Fewer Primary Care Physicians Take Medicare Patients

By DIANE LEVICK | Courant Staff Writer
April 9, 2008

When 65-year-old Anne-Marie Russo of Wethersfield went looking for a new internist late last month, she didn't expect to end up so frustrated, after attempts failed with seven physicians.

"This is a real nightmare," said Russo, a retired business manager at A.I. Prince Technical High School in Hartford who's now on Medicare.

It can be difficult for people on Medicare to find a new primary care physician, and it will soon get even harder, doctors say.

Finding a new doctor can sometimes be tough for consumers under 65, too, as some overloaded primary care doctors aren't taking any new patients. An increasing number of primary care doctors in Connecticut and around the nation aren't accepting new patients who are on Medicare.

Though not a crisis yet, it's a kind of "perfect storm" in health care. Doctors have complained for years that the federal Medicare program's reimbursements to them are too low, and deep cuts in pay are coming in July unless Congress takes action.

Continue reading the article here.

Should physician decisions be constrained by costs?

2008-04-09T09:24:00.001-07:00

This is the problem with health care in the first place. How much is health worth? If you had a disease, and there was a cure, and only one cure, how much should the person with the cure be able to charge? And if there was a cure to one disease, would it be worth the cost of the cure if you had other issues that might take your life anyway? In other words, if you are 100 years old and need a heart transplant, should insurance be responsible for paying for the surgery even though your life expectancy might not be more than a year or two even with a healthy original heart?

This is a good article and it brings up the important questions. However, it brings them up in the context that insurance companies are evil. If we ever get universal health care, you can bet that the government will be making these same judgment calls as the insurance companies do now concerning who gets treatment and who doesn't. How much is health worth? That is the question that is very difficult to answer. Enjoy the article that hits on important points.

Should physician decisions be constrained by costs?

President-elect, St. Louis Metropolitan Medical Society
COST-SAVING EFFORTS MADE BY INSURANCE FIRMS CAN TURN 0UT COSTLY TO PATIENTS.

Physicians routinely make clinical decisions for their patients. These decisions are based on many variables, including efficacy, safety, disease-to-disease, drug-to-disease interactions, outcome desired and, of course, cost.

The patient's best interest — the best possible outcome for the condition evaluated or treated — remains the pivotal and most important focus point of each and every decision.

Physicians often prescribe less-costly therapies, as is the case with some generic substitutions, when these therapies are determined to provide similarly optimal outcomes for the patient.

Moreover, when physicians prescribe a costly test or treatment, they have often determined that the optimal outcome for the patient certainly outweighs the expense, and is worth the cost.

Continue reading the article here.

Universal Health Insurance: Just Don't Get Sick

2008-04-08T07:33:00.001-07:00

I have rarely found an article that I agree with more than this one. This says the exact same thing that I have been saying about Universal Health Care, but the article says it more eloquently than I could. Basically it goes over the different ideas about the current entitlement spending programs. It explains that we are saddling our children with debt to pay for these enormous and overly expensive government programs. I highly recommend this article as it is a good read.

Universal Health Insurance: Just Don't Get Sick

By Alan Caruba (04/06/08)

Okay, let’s say that President Obama or Hillary is in office and Congress has passed a bill that requires everyone to have health insurance. Gas is up over $4.00 a gallon, food prices are sky high, and, if you’ve recently graduated from college, you are paying off loans at $1,000 per month.

If you’re a homeowner, you have a mortgage, property taxes, and a stack of other bills. You’ve got to decide between paying the mandated premium or being able to drive to work, buy food, holding onto your home, or keeping the bill collector from your door.

All of a sudden, mandatory health insurance doesn’t seem like such a great idea. In fact, your big worry is that Social Security will be able to send you a monthly check and that Medicare and Medicaid won’t go flat broke before you die. Trustees for these massive entitlement programs just announced Social Security will be depleted by 2041, while Medicare goes bust eight years from now in 2019.

According to a March 18 Policy Analysis published by the Cato Institute, health care consumers are annually spending “more than $1.8 trillion dollars for overall health costs, more than what Americans spend on housing, food, national defense, or automobiles.”

Continue reading the article here.

Wasteful spending raises questions about universal health plan

2008-04-07T05:47:00.001-07:00

Most of the articles out today talk about how we need government provided health insurance. They say how many people die because they don't have health insurance. I think this is actually silly because 100 years ago nobody had health insurance and everyone seemed to be fine enough to establish the great American democracy that we enjoy today. But this article is different in that it looks at an actual government provided health insurance plan in New Jersey. The problem is that it is a very small government health care program that is corrupted by waste and fraud. This shows one state trying to run one tiny portion of the health insurance. They were over billed for services, people were on the plan who did not otherwise qualify, and there were no avenues in place to police and punish people who abused the system. This type of thing gets ignored in all the rhetoric for universal health care. But this is the type of waste that the private insurance system actively seeks to prevent. Private companies care about wasting money. The government will just raise your taxes to cover their misuse of funds. Enjoy the article.

Wasteful spending raises questions about universal health plan

By TOM HESTER Jr. | Associated Press Writer

TRENTON, N.J. - Audits that found wasteful spending in New Jersey's health care programs for the poor are raising questions about whether the state could manage a health insurance program for all residents.

The audits found wealthy people enrolled in health programs meant for the poor, paltry oversight of health care programs and wasteful spending, all coming as some legislators push plans to make health insurance available to all New Jerseyans.

"If the state can't handle a small health insurance program, then what confidence can anyone have that it will do a better job when it tries to cover everyone in New Jersey?" asked Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Morris.

Continue reading the article here.

Clinton drops hospital story from stump speech

2008-04-07T05:32:00.000-07:00

Here is the problem with allowing politicians decide our health care fate. Clinton once again told a false story about a pregnant woman who died specifically because she did not have health insurance. She will get away with this story because she was just repeating what someone else told her like a rumor. But the individual in the story was not denied health care at the hospital. She did not die because she did not have health insurance. We all hate when something tragic happens to anyone. However the concept of placing blame on one thing or another does not do anything to help the situation. Had this woman had health insurance, she would have gotten the same treatment that she got and she would have died. If giving everyone health insurance from the government is important, then it should be important without having to make up information to scare people into believing that it is necessary. This is the problem that our country faces. There is more hype than substance in the policies proposed by our politicians. I doubt this will be an important story to most of the mainstream media. But it does illustrate the problem with allowing politicians to manufacture issues to solve. Enjoy the article.

Clinton drops hospital story from stump speech

(CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton will stop telling an emotional story about a uninsured pregnant woman who died after being denied medical care, Clinton's campaign said.

Sen. Hillary Clinton was repeating a story she heard from someone on the campaign trail.

A hospital has raised questions over the accuracy of the story, and Clinton's campaign has said although they had no reason to doubt the story, they were unable to confirm the details.

In the story, Clinton describes a woman from rural Ohio who was making minimum wage at a local pizza shop. The woman, who was uninsured, became pregnant.

Clinton said the woman ran into trouble and went to a hospital in a nearby county but was denied treatment because she couldn't afford a $100 payment.

In her speeches, Clinton said the woman later was taken to the hospital by ambulance and lost the baby. The young woman was then taken by helicopter to a Columbus hospital where she died of complications. Video Watch why the story is raising questions

Continue reading the story here.

Why is Temporary Medical Insurance less expensive?

2008-04-06T17:09:00.000-07:00

Temporary Medical Insurance is just the same as traditional major medical insurance, but it costs much less. The reason that it costs less is the liability of the company to pay claims is lower because of the shorter duration. Every individual and family health insurance plan is a month to month type of plan. You don't have to purchase a contract like you would with a cell phone. If you pay the monthly premium, you have the insurance. If you don't pay, then you don't have the insurance.

People often don't understand the difference between short term and full term health insurance plans. The difference is that the insurance company has a short term liability of coverage. For example if you got a short term insurance plan for six months and paid month to month, you would be covered until the end of the six months. At the end of the six months, you would need to re-apply if you wanted to continue the coverage. When you apply you must answer health questions based on your medical history. If you can not answer the health questions to qualify for the medical insurance then the insurance company will turn down the new program. So if you have a claim or a medical procedure during the time you have the temporary insurance plan in place, that claim would be paid, but it would be difficult qualifying at the end of the term for a new policy.

By contrast, a full term medical insurance plan would cover an individual and family for as long as they needed and as long as they paid their premiums. If someone on a full term plan had a medical procedure covered by the insurance plan, that claim would be paid. As long as the individual pays their premium, that policy will remain in place and pay claims. The insurance company may have to pay claims on a person until they turn 65 and go on Medicare.

The term Temporary Health Insurance only applies to the insurance company. The insurance company has a temporary liability on a client's medical bills until an individual has to re-apply. For this reason, temporary health plans are mainly for people who know that they will have coverage within a short time period. It is never good to go without health insurance, but full term insurance can be cost prohibitive. Generally if people are between jobs, or starting a new job, or graduating and in the process of interviewing, or getting ready to go on Medicare, short term health insurance can provide the protection that an individual needs at a fraction of the cost.

I hope this information helps you to make an informed decision about which plan would be good for your situation. As always, contact a medical insurance agent if you have questions and they'll be happy to go over the options available to you. You can review, get quotes, and apply online at websites like this one Temporary Medical Insurance

America's Ailing Health Insurance Markets

2008-04-05T20:47:00.000-07:00

This article looks into different ways that the presidential candidates address health care in America. It is a general article that goes over the problems with the health insurance system, but it doesn't offer any solutions. At the end it does question whether or not insurance is the appropriate model to deliver health care in this country. It is a fair question that does not have a good answer. Here is the article.

America's Ailing Health Insurance Markets

How to fix the problems of health insurance is a hot topic, these days, honest, and I want to chip in before the elections are over and we forget all about its importance. While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are offering competing plans which would cover the forty-seven million uninsured in this country, John McCain has a proposal to cut health care costs by increasing competition in the markets. His idea is that competition would drive the price of insurance so low that most everybody could afford coverage! No need for the government to poke its nose where it is not wanted, and the conservatives surely don't want it meddling with the markets.

There's a sense of déjà vu about McCain's proposal. Haven't we been injecting competition into the health insurance markets for a very long time? Even the establishment of the government Medicare and Medicaid programs in the 1960's had a pro-competitive edge, because it removed from the commercial markets the most expensive and the poorest paying cases, leaving them with the most lucrative consumers to insure. The Health Maintenance Organization movement of the 1970's was another injection of that competitive hormone into the insurance markets in the form of prepaid group plans which combined insurance with the provision of care. What additional forms of competition has McCain invented that health economists never dreamt about?

The truth is that not all competition is helpful to consumers. I know that this is not an idea free-market conservatives like, but it's possible for competition to actually hurt some consumers.

Continue reading the article here.

Small Firms Shoulder Burden of Increasing Health Costs

2008-04-04T09:25:00.000-07:00

This article shows that the problem in this country is not the people without health insurance. The problem is that the cost of health insurance for those that provide insurance for their employees is getting too high. A nationalized health insurance program will do nothing to bring costs down. If we do more as a nation to bring the cost of health care down, then we will be in a position to offer more plans to more people. The number of 47 million uninsured is misleading because of how the number is calculated. If a person went for one day of a year without health insurance, they are included in that number. The problem is the rising costs. This article goes over the costs for small businesses.

Small Firms Shoulder Burden of Increasing Health Costs

FRIDAY, April 4 (HealthDay News) -- The economic burden of providing health insurance for employees increased more for small U.S. businesses than for larger businesses from 2000 to 2005, but most small businesses have not stopped offering the benefit, a new study finds.

The study, released Friday by the Rand Corp., of more than 2,500 small, medium and large companies found that small businesses (fewer than 25 employees) were hit with a 30 percent increase in the cost of providing health insurance. Their share of offering employee health insurance increased from an average of 8.4 percent of their payroll in 2000 to 10.8 percent of payroll by 2005.

Health insurance costs increased 16 percent for companies with 25 to 49 employees, and increased 25 percent for businesses with 50 to 99 workers.

While small companies were less likely than large businesses to provide health insurance, the small businesses that did offer the benefit were no more likely than large businesses to stop providing the benefit.

Continue reading the article here.

Report identifies death rate tied to lack of health insurance in Connecticut

2008-04-03T13:48:00.000-07:00

There are likely other factors that contribute to the reasons for these findings, but it is an interesting article. For instance, people of lower income also have a higher death rate, and would be less likely to have health insurance. Their financial status might have as much to do with it as the fact that they don't have health insurance. Even if we gave them health insurance, they still might not have the means to take proper care of themselves with nutrition. But it is an article that I hope people will find informative.

Report identifies death rate tied to lack of health insurance in Connecticut

HARTFORD, Conn. - Three Connecticut residents die every week because they don’t have health insurance and cannot afford to see doctors for regular checkups, screenings and other preventive care, according to a new report released today.

The study by Families USA, a nonprofit health care consumers group, says such care is important for catching diseases at an early stage and greatly increases the chances for survival.

In 2006, about 209,000 of the 1.9 million people in Connecticut between the ages of 25 and 64 didn’t have health insurance, and about 150 of them died that year because they lacked coverage, the report says.

Continue reading the article here.

Easley announces plan for health care, insurance coverage

2008-04-03T13:44:00.000-07:00

This is in my home state. This is a good thing because it addresses certain issues. But as the Governor says, it is the first time where the government, insurance companies, and providers have come together for a solution. This solution is limited, but it is a start. There is a standard treatment schedule for care and payment for 5 of the diseases that are typically uninsurable. This is a good step, but there still needs to be a risk pool available for everyone. I applaud my state of North Carolina for approaching this problem this way. Enjoy the article.

Easley announces plan for health care, insurance coverage

Gov. Mike Easley Thursday announced a plan to restructure the delivery of health care in the state by standardizing the level of care and insurance coverage for the five most common chronic diseases.

For more than a year, the state's major health insurance providers, physicians and hospitals have been meeting with Easley to design one set of "best practice guidelines" to treat diabetes, asthma, hypertension, congestive heart failure and heart attack.

The guidelines will be the same, no matter the health coverage for the patient, to ensure quality of care.

Continue reading the article here.

Sick, Sick, Sick. Health Care in America

2008-04-03T06:32:00.001-07:00

This is an article that looks at individuals in America and studies the health care issue anecdotally. The problem with the debate is that there is so much emotion involved when someone gets sick and needs treatment. Nobody wants anyone to get sick and need care. When someone does get sick, everyone wants them to get better. The question is, who's responsibility is it to pay for the care to make people better? I would say it is the individual and family other than a safety net for those most in need and unable to provide for themselves. But this article is interesting as it looks at health care data from individual cases. Enjoy the article.

Sick, Sick, Sick. Health Care in America

By: Tula Connell

Dorene, a cancer survivor in Oregon, can't afford health insurance, so she takes part in what she calls "faith-based health care"—she prays she won't get sick.

Barbara's son spent a year in Iraq after enlisting in the National Guard. It was the only way he could get health insurance for his wife.

In New York, Antonius can't afford health care and never sees a doctor. And if he gets a serious illness?

I couldn't get care—I would just have to die—in the richest country in the world, with great health care, I'd have no help. Does that seem right?

Unfortunately, many politicians would not answer "No" to Antonius' question. So in January, we at the AFL-CIO, in partnership with our community affiliate, Working America, launched an online health care survey to encourage people to tell their stories and provide data that we plan to present to 2008 candidates at all levels. Over seven weeks, more than 26,000 people took the survey (and it was long), and nearly 7,500, like Dorene, Barbara and Antonius, took time to describe their personal experiences with the U.S. health care system.

Continue reading the story here.

How to Fight a Health Insurance Denial

2008-04-03T06:27:00.000-07:00

This is an older article and I probably should have posted my own article about this process a long time ago. Fighting health insurance denial of claims is difficult but not impossible. Some companies actually deny every first claim that comes in so they expect you to fight a denial. Anyway, this article goes over all the things you need to know to get your claim paid appropriately. It can be done, it just takes a little time and a lot of patience.

How to Fight a Health Insurance Denial

By: Brie Cadman

Fighting with health insurance companies has to be one of the most unsavory tasks around. When I worked in a cancer clinic, we had one woman whose sole job was to talk, negotiate, beg, and plead with insurance companies on behalf of our patients. It was never an easy fight, and one that most people have to do for themselves. Though it requires patience, attention to detail, and tenacity, taking the time to dispute a denial can really pay off. You just might win. A recent case in California brought against a managed care company found that 30 percent of medical claims were improperly denied; a study done by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that around 40 percent of disputed claims were approved. If you think your insurance company has wrongly denied a procedure, pursue it.

Continue reading the article here.

Comptroller launches health insurance program for municipalties

2008-04-02T20:35:00.000-07:00

This is actually a good solution to lower the costs for government employees. Actually states generally have a generic program for state employees that is pretty good. But this plan goes further in Connecticut where every town and county municipality will be pooled together to create one larger risk pool of people for their insurance. The hope is that the rates would be more affordable if there were more people in the risk pool. Enjoy the article.

Comptroller launches health insurance program for municipalties

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) _ The state comptroller is launching a program to use the state's buying power to drive down health insurance costs for cities and towns.

The plan calls for pooling municipal employees into one large risk group.

Democrat Nancy Wyman says her office is asking interested local leaders to submit claims data and employee census data by April 10. The coverage is scheduled to begin July 1. A private, third party will administer the program.

Continue reading the article here.

The Ailing Health Insurance Markets

2008-04-02T20:29:00.000-07:00

This is a pretty good article with good points about the health care system. It mentions that competition is not a good thing in a market that uses people's health and conditions to maximize their profits. As I said, it makes good points. The problem with the health care industry is those people that the insurance company determine are uninsurable. That is really the ONLY problem with our health care system right now. There are people who the insurance companies will not insure because of the risk of financial loss to the insurance company. The competitive nature of the markets would actually encourage companies to discriminate.

If this problem is addressed with some sort of risk pool, the problem of health care - or at least access to health care will essentially be solved. Other than that, you really need to look into the costs of health care in order to lower the insurance premiums that people pay to competitive companies. Enjoy the article. I did.

The Ailing Health Insurance Markets

How to fix the problems of health insurance is a hot topic, these days, honest, and I want to chip in before the elections are over and we forget all about its importance. While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are offering competing plans which would cover the forty-seven million uninsured in this country, John McCain has a proposal to cut health care costs by increasing competition in the markets. His idea is that competition would drive the price of insurance so low that most everybody could afford coverage! No need for the government to poke its nose where it is not wanted, and the conservatives surely don't want it meddling with the markets.

There's a sense of deja vu about McCain's proposal. Haven't we been injecting competition into the health insurance markets for a very long time? Even the establishment of the government Medicare and Medicaid programs in the 1960's had a pro-competitive edge, because it removed from the commercial markets the most expensive and the poorest paying cases, leaving them with the most lucrative consumers to insure. The Health Maintenance Organization movement of the 1970's was another injection of that competitive hormone into the insurance markets in the form of prepaid group plans which combined insurance with the provision of care. What additional forms of competition has McCain invented that health economists never dreamt about?

Continue reading the article here.

Clinton camp got behind on health insurance bills

2008-04-01T23:13:00.000-07:00

While this is both ironic and tragic, it seems like an opening for Clinton. Basically she has not been paying the health insurance premiums for people working on her campaign. Without paying premiums the workers are in danger of losing their coverage if they have a health problem. She could use this as a way to illustrate the difficulty that people have paying their health care premiums because they are so high. But actually she should have chosen a plan with fewer benefits that would have been more affordable. Enjoy the article.

Clinton camp got behind on health insurance bills

A spokesman says the bills are paid now, but in February two companies were owed about $300,000 for premiums.

From Newsday
April 1, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton promotes healthcare as a top focus of her presidential bid, but her campaign's accountants aren't staying on message.

The campaign reported nearly $300,000 worth of unpaid health insurance bills for campaign staff as part of $8.73 million in debts, Federal Election Commission records show.

The New York Democrat's campaign fund owed $229,000 to Aetna Healthcare and $63,000 to CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield for unpaid premiums as of Feb. 29, the latest information available in federal filings.

Continue reading the article here.

Elizabeth Edwards Issues a Challenge to McCain on Health Care

2008-04-01T22:56:00.000-07:00

This is obviously a veiled attempt to get her husband back on the ticket as VP and be seen as relevant again. She mischaracterized McCain's plan, but this article from the Washington Post is interesting anyway. Enjoy the article.

Elizabeth Edwards Issues a Challenge to McCain on Health Care

By Krissah Williams

Since her husband suspended his run for the Democratic nomination three months ago, Elizabeth Edwards has remained largely out of the public sphere. A fierce proponent of her husband's run for office and once a regular on the campaign stump -- despite her ongoing battle with cancer -- Edwards stepped back into the fray last weekend with an attack on Sen. John McCain's health-care plan.

Under the presumptive Republican nominee's health-care plan, Edwards told reporters, she would not be covered, an accusation that McCain's aides deny.

Continue reading the article here.

Short Term Health Insurance – Now More Simple Than Ever.

2008-03-31T18:36:00.000-07:00

This is actually my own press release. Enjoy:

Several new implementations on the Short Term health Insurance website make user experience faster and easier than ever.

Greensboro,NC,March,29,2008 -- Several new innovations are making the Short Term Health Insurance website even easier to use. The relationship between Short-Termhealthinsurance.com and Celtic Life and health is now more efficient as quote and buy technology is drastically improved in order to make it easier than ever to buy insurance online.

"We always expect Celtic to provide quality products, but this new software has enabled even more people who want health insurance plans easier access to these affordable programs," said Brian Thacker, president of ThackerAgency.com. Thacker Agency is the parent company of http://www.short-termhealthinsurance.com.

"We are determined to making the user experience simple and understandable when it comes to online insurance access. We want people who need it to be able to get affordable plans as quickly and easily as possible. This new online system that Celtic has provided makes shopping for affordable and quality health insurance as fast as brewing a cup of coffee."

The Short-Term Health Insurance website has even more up its sleeve, as it offers a new insurance plan known as the Amigo Medical Insurance Plan. This is the only health insurance plan available that does not require a social security number in order to be purchased, but that is still available to citizens of the United States.

Applicants are not required to live in the United States for two years before eligibility like with most short term health insurance products available in the marketplace. More than eleven states are currently offering this new Amigo health insurance plan. It is only a matter of time before other states across the country begin to offer this form of insurance to their residents.

The Amigo health insurance plan offers quotes both in Spanish and in English, and offers temporary health insurance with doctor office co payments of $50, while most other short term health insurance plans do not offer co payment plans. The main goal for the short-term health insurance website is to improve user experience, offering any type of insurance product that a visitor may require.

Brian Thacker is the founder of the short-termhealthinsurance.com website and has been offering health insurance benefits to individuals for nearly 15 years. Originally only individuals residing in North Carolina could take advantage of this unique opportunity to find the right insurance, but now Thacker's short-term health insurance services are being offered nationally and worldwide as well.

The Short Term Health Insurance website is providing a true solution for a largely untapped marketplace by providing information relating to an important and inexpensive alternative to traditional medical insurance plans like COBRA. The Short-Term health insurance website is consistently growing to offer new insurance plans to meet a variety of needs and provide solutions for people from all walks of life.

Contact information :
Brian Thacker
Short Term Health Insurance
Greensboro, NC
866-373-4948
http://www.short-termhealthinsurance.com

Why Not Single Payer?

2008-03-31T18:31:00.000-07:00

This is an article examining the different ideas involved with the health care single payer movement within our government. It is a must read for all who want to know more about the ins and outs of the health care situation within our government today.

Why Not Single Payer? Part 5: The Single Payer Health Care Movement and the Plans of the Democratic Presidential Nominee

Before introducing Chairman John Conyers and Courtney Farr of the California Nurses Association, let me outline a few principals for our discussion this afternoon about how progressives should respond to the health care proposals of the leading Democratic presidential contenders.

First, if we have a Democratic president and an increased Democratic Congressional majority after November, we will have the best opportunity to enact Universal Healthcare in America since the Truman administration. If we blow it, the opportunity could be lost for another generation.

Second, this kind of fundamental social change will never take place only from the top. It requires a mass movement pushing from below. If history proves anything, it's that Washington only enacts major social change if prodded by large scale social movements such as the union movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movement and the anti-war movement. There already is a strong mass movement of unions, doctors, nurses, churches and community organizations building support for Medicare for All as embodied In HR 676 sponsored by Chairman Conyers. It has, I believe, over 80 Congressional co-sponsors--that's nearly 1/3 of the Democrats in the house-- and has been endorsed by over 235 union organizations in 40 states, as well as many citizens, religious and medical organizations.

Continue reading the article here.

Private health insurance available, survey shows

2008-03-31T18:28:00.000-07:00

This is what I've been trying to say. I know there are alternatives. People don't realize that there are alternatives so they don't seek them out. There are great alternatives for health insurance in America.

Private health insurance available, survey shows

Survey says: Help is available if you lose your health insurance in this spiraling economy.

Considering the looming recession, many people worry most about health insurance. That's according to a new survey. Nearly half of those polled say, after a job loss, they would pay credit cards bills late, but only 7% say they'd let their health insurance payments slide.

"You know the good news is today that even if you do lose your job there's a very, very vibrant private health insurance market and certainly there are ways to save money and continue your health insurance even if you have to pay for it yourself."

Sam Gibbs, consumer advocate, says COBRA -- the continuation of your health insurance from your company -- is expensive. However, he says the private health insurance market offers alternatives, allowing you to pick and choose which benefits you want and how high a deductible -- just like your car insurance.

Continue reading the article here.

Private hospital boss slams insurance plan

2008-03-31T18:23:00.000-07:00

This is an article from a doctor in Hong Kong concerning their debate on health care. He says that the young should subsidize the elderly in the system rather than having everyone covered under the same system. I think it is interesting to see how the international community deals with the same issues that we have here. I agree with this doctor. After the last post about Medicare going broke, I think we should probably listen to this man. Enjoy the article.

Private hospital boss slams insurance plan

The elderly and the young should receive subsidies to help them buy health-care insurance instead of making the scheme mandatory for all age groups, according to the deputy chief of one of the city's major private hospitals.

Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital deputy medical superintendent Kwong Kwok-hay said a mandatory insurance scheme, which has been highlighted in the government's health-care reform proposal, would deprive people of choices.

"A mandatory scheme means the young and healthy are forced to subsidize those who are chronically ill and old," Kwong said.

Kwong also accused Secretary for Food and Health York Chow Yat- ngok of trying to interfere with the market by proposing to standardize and regulate inpatient and specialist charges at private hospitals.

The Standard reported yesterday that Chow planned to set up a mechanism through which insurance firms and the private medical sector could hammer out standard pricing for inpatient and specialist services if the community adopts the option of social health insurance or a mandatory insurance scheme.

"It is a violation of free market principles," Kwong said. "If the government is so keen on an insurance scheme, it would be better to use public resources to buy insurance for two age groups, children under 12 and those over 65.

Continue reading the article here.

Medicare Insurance Program is in Serious Trouble

2008-03-31T18:15:00.000-07:00

And this is the 800 lb gorilla that none of the candidates want to talk about. This is an article from the Florida Medicare Foundation that says Medicare will be insolvent in 2019 if nothing is done. This means. . . "A person who is 54 years old today cannot be assured that Medicare hospital insurance benefits will be there when he or she turns 65 and first becomes eligible for Medicare." It says that as of next year, Medicare will be spending more money than it brings in. Medicare costs account for nearly 500 billion dollars each year. Every candidate talks about providing health insurance to people who don't have it now as though it is a tragedy. But I would prefer that they focus on ensuring that the health care that they have already promised can be delivered before they move on to promise more that they can't deliver. Enjoy this important article.

Florida Health Insurance Consultant Says Medicare Insurance Program is in Serious Trouble

With most of the health insurance debate focusing on universal health care, Medicare Trustees admitted this week that the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund, and the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund "expenditures are growing more quickly than the rest of the economy - that is troubling news," according to Morgan Moran of Florida Health Insurance Web, a health insurance consultant.

(PRWEB) March 31, 2008 -- No other topic is more important to Florida, than health insurance. Florida continues to lead the way in terms of sheer numbers of newly arriving retirees, each of these new Floridians hope their savings, and health insurance policies will be enough to get them through their golden years. Then, the latest news from Medicare arrived and is bad news for Florida. "Currently Medicare expenditures eat up 3.2% of the GDP a total of ($432 Billion)," Morgan Moran of Florida Health Insurance Web, said in a phone interview, "the total is expected to rise to 1 Trillion dollars by 2083."

The government needs to act quickly to address Medicare's fiscal health, and enact steps which would postpone the insolvency date. Congress should quickly act on this warning, which would allow the program to be modernized and transformed.
The health insurance consultant continued, "The latest figures show Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund will be insolvent by 2019." This year the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will pay out more than its earns, and over the next 10 years (equal to $342 billion). "Funds will more than likely need to be transferred from the Federal treasury to cover beneficiaries' hospital insurance expenses," said Moran.

Florida Health Insurance Consultant Moran is quoted as saying, "The government needs to act quickly to address Medicare's fiscal health, and enact steps which would postpone the insolvency date. Congress should quickly act on this warning, which would allow the program to be modernized and transformed." More information on this story is available at the insurance web site www.FloridaHealthInsuranceWeb.com.

A Medicaid Services Administrator, Kerry Weems states, "A person who is 54 years old today cannot be assured that Medicare hospital insurance benefits will be there when he or she turns 65 and first becomes eligible for Medicare."

Continue reading the article here.

Health care-malpractice legislative dispute goes on

2008-03-31T18:11:00.000-07:00

In out litigious society, malpractice lawsuits have grown into an epidemic. While people are due compensation in the case of an improper action by a doctor, these lawsuits cause the cost of health care to rise exponentially. The reason they rise is the cost of the malpractice insurance for the doctors goes up and they pass that cost on to the fees for the patients. This is an article on how Pa is trying to solve the problem in the legislature. This is a major prong of the problems involved in the rising cost of health care.

Health care-malpractice legislative dispute goes on

Faced with a Monday deadline, Senate Republican leaders yesterday called on House leaders to consider legislation that would extend for another year a program that reduces doctors' costs for malpractice insurance.

The issue of extending the reductions through the state's MCare abatement program "should be considered on its own merits," said Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Chester, who issued a joint statement with Senate President Pro Tem Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, and Banking and Insurance Committee Chairman Don White, R-Indiana.

But Gov. Ed Rendell and House Democrats, who control that chamber, have linked the reductions, known as MCare abatements, to a House bill that would extend more affordable health insurance to the state's uninsured.

Mr. Rendell set a Monday deadline for progress on the combined package. Earlier this week, he began sending letters to the state's doctors saying the deadline would not be met and that the higher bills were coming due.

Continue reading the article here.

Punjab to introduce health insurance scheme

2008-03-31T17:52:00.000-07:00

This shows what India is doing to help give access to health care for the most poor. America already has a Medicaid system for the indigent, and a Medicare program for the elderly. But this shows how other countries are catching up to where our social safety nets are. To hear the politicians you'd never know we had it better than anyone.

Punjab to introduce health insurance scheme

Keeping in view the fast increasing costs of medical treatment, the Punjab government was shortly implementing a special Health Insurance Scheme for the people belong to Below Poverty Line families, so that the poor people could also avail the advanced medical facilities in the private hospitals.

This was disclosed by Ramesh Inder Singh Chief Secretary Punjab, while addressing the concluding function of three day North Zone Inter Medical and Dental Colleges Tournament at Dyanand Medical College and Hospital last night.

Further elaborating, the Chief Secretary said that apart from BPL families, the insurance would also be extended to the small farmers and farm laborers through village level Agri Cooperative Societies.

Continue reading the article here.

Health-care insurance gaps affect all of us

2008-03-31T17:48:00.000-07:00

This article goes over the increases in costs to health care and how people without insurance affect those costs for everyone. There's enough money, it just gets sloshed around.

Health-care insurance gaps affect all of us

Maria Gomez knows firsthand the devastation that can hit families who don't have health insurance.

Gomez is chief executive of Mary's Center for Maternal and Child Care in Washington, D.C. The clinic serves Latinos who have no insurance or are underinsured.

The fact that 47 million people -- 9 million children -- are uninsured has been one of the top issues in the presidential campaign. Equally troubling is this statistic: The lack of health-care coverage is most acute among Hispanics and African Americans, many of whom work in low-wage jobs without benefits or are employed by small businesses that don't offer coverage.

"Things are getting worse," Gomez said. "What we are seeing is a lot of people coming in who cannot qualify for government programs."

Continue reading the article here.

Cautionary Health Care Tales

2008-03-31T17:45:00.000-07:00

Here is an article that examines the problems with the brand new government mandated health care programs in Massachusetts and California. Enjoy the article.

Cautionary Health Care Tales

Plans for universal coverage in California and Massachusetts have been beset by problems.

The collapse of health reform in California and ominous signs from Massachusetts spell big trouble ahead for reforming the nation's health care system no matter who is elected President. The lessons from those states, which have tried hard to bring insurance coverage to all residents, are worth heeding for anyone sitting in the White House next year. They also raise the question of whether it is possible, either fiscally or politically, for states to do the job. Indeed, failure in California and troubles in Massachusetts indicate that the underlying problems that bedeviled reform efforts fourteen years ago are still with us, and could doom yet another attempt to change the American way of health care.

Although Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama try to distinguish between their plans, both are variants of the Massachusetts model. That scheme requires everyone to get health coverage, and it imposes tax penalties on people who don't -- the so-called "individual mandate." In both Obama's and Clinton's plan, people do not have a right to health insurance, as is the case in truly universal national health insurance systems, such as in France and Canada, where everyone is guaranteed coverage, with care paid for through a broad-based tax.

Continue reading the article here.

Majority of U.S. Doctors Back National Insurance Plan

2008-03-31T17:38:00.000-07:00

This is an interesting article because it seems to indicate that doctors want to be on the government system. But if you look further into the article and see who is most for it, you will see that psychiatrists (who typically provide services that aren't covered under private health insurance) are the most for the government payer system at 83%. Insurance fraud and waste is huge now. Under a federal system I imagine that the doctors will figure out exactly how to milk it to their advantage without having to deal with the legal teams of the insurance companies. I agree that the system needs to be a not-for-profit system. But I disagree that the government will be able to administer it. I'd prefer seeing the government make Medicare solvent before promising more care it can't provide. Enjoy the article anyway. . .

Majority of U.S. Doctors Back National Insurance Plan

A majority of American doctors now support the concept of national health insurance, which represents a shift in thinking over the past five years, a new survey finds.

Typically, national health insurance plans involve a single, federally administered social insurance fund that guarantees health coverage for everyone. In most cases, these plans eliminate or substantially reduce the role of private insurance companies.

A survey conducted last year of 2,193 physicians across the United States found that 59 percent support "government legislation to establish national health insurance," while 32 percent oppose it, and 9 percent are neutral. In 2002, a similar survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported the concept, while 40 percent opposed it.

Continue reading the article here.

Health Insurance Costs Less than Medical Bills

2007-12-25T17:44:00.000-08:00

While I lay here in my hospital bed recovering, I can't believe how fortunate I am. Thank goodness for my loving wife and successful children. Thank goodness for the doctors and the hospital who knew enough to bring me back to life after my heart attack. But especially thank goodness for my wife forcing me to buy a temporary health insurance plan over the internet to provide insurance during the gap in my coverage.

Since I was only 50 years old and never had health problems, I thought that paying for insurance before the benefits at my new job started would be throwing money away. COBRA coverage that my previous job offered was much more than I was going to pay for health insurance. There was a three month waiting period from the time I started my new and better job and the time that my medical benefits began.

My wife and I searched the internet for something affordable. We found coverage for three months for around $200 at http://www.short-termhealthinsurance.com. That was the cost of a couple of rounds of golf that I did not want to spend. But my wife forced me to get it. My hospital bill is approaching $40,000 now because I got the best care possible. That would have cost a lot more rounds of golf than the insurance did.

The two lessons I learned is never go without health insurance, and always listen to my wife.

Deadline for Romney's Mass Health Plan Today

2007-11-15T06:24:00.000-08:00

This article from the AP points out that under Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts November 15 is the day that everyone must have health care or they will suffer penalties. All of the major rival candidates are chastising him for such a mandate. But Mitt defends his position as the only one on the Republican side of the aisle that provides for the health coverage of all of his state's citizens. John McCain had a good quote when he explained why he does not favor a mandate for coverage when he said 'I favor universal college education, but I would not mandate it.' Mandates are not the role of the government. Mandates can cause small businesses to stop hiring and costs to continue to rise. If you have to have something, what incentive is there to reduce the price? This mandated program is not going to lower the cost of health care. It will be interesting to see if this cuts into Mitt's lead among the early primary states. Sponsored by Blue Advantage Insurance. Enjoy the article.

By GLEN JOHNSON

BOSTON (AP) — Mitt Romney's top rivals are reminding voters that Massachusetts residents have until Thursday to sign up for health insurance or face possible penalties — a requirement that Romney signed into law when he was governor.

The Republican presidential candidate isn't doing as much to mark the milestone.

Massachusetts residents had to sign up by Nov. 15 or they likely would face tax penalties starting Jan. 1. It is the stick that follows the carrot of previous deadlines requiring the state to expand subsidized coverage, or for private insurers to offer less expensive policies to the uninsured.

It's something opponents for the Republican nomination are trying to turn it into a political liability for Romney.

Such mandates are anathema to fiscal conservatives and other bedrock GOP voters who oppose government intrusion, explaining the silence by Romney and the criticism from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and other candidates also vying for conservative votes.

Continue reading the article here.

Map to better U.S. health care: centralize, organize

2007-11-15T06:18:00.000-08:00

This is an article by Reuters about a group that analyzes different parts of our country's health care system. The company is funded by an advocacy for universal health care, but they did come up with some very good solutions in this article. Primarily they identified the problem that the US spends twice as much as other countries per person on health care. A part of the problem is that there are too many highly specialized doctors who perform expensive procedures and not enough general care practitioners. They concluded that the system needs to change from a fee for service incentive where doctors get paid based on the procedures that they perform to a system where doctors are rewarded for keeping people well. Doctors will perform procedures because they will get paid for them, not necessarily because they are either needed or helpful. Another solution by this panel is that they need to computerize health records. I fully agree and there is too much paperwork involved in the health care industry. Medical records should be seamlessly transfered from doctor to doctor so that they can correctly identify new problems without wasting time diagnosing something that has already been found and treated. It is a good article. Sponsored by Blue Advantage Insurance.

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

WASHINGTON, Nov 15 (Reuters) - Experts laid out a health care road map for U.S. presidential candidates on Thursday, recommending more organized care, with an emphasis on overall health as opposed to expensive interventions.

They said it will be essential to ensure that everyone in the United States has health insurance and said the most pragmatic way to achieve this would be a combination of federal, state, employer and private coverage.

And the country needs to train more primary care physicians and move away from expensive, specialized medicine, the panel appointed by the non-profit Commonwealth Fund recommended.

"We do not get good value for our health care dollars," Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, told reporters in a telephone briefing. "The United States falls short when compared to other countries."

Continue reading the article here.

Employer-provided insurance continues to decline

2007-11-13T06:29:00.000-08:00

Here is an article exposing the problem with our employer sponsored health care problem. Less employees are being offered health care by their employers as the cost of employer based health care plans continue to rise. Small companies especially can not afford to keep up the pace of the high cost of these plans so they generally don't offer benefits to employees. This is the issue that will force the entire system to change. All of the health insurance companies gear the majority of their business around the employer based health care model. If this model ceases to be viable, then the system will need to be adjusted from within the health insurance industry. Enjoy the article.

By Julie Appleby, USA TODAY

The percentage of people with health insurance through their employers — traditionally the way most people get coverage — is continuing to shrink, raising anxiety among workers and invigorating a debate about whether insurance should be tied to jobs.

Many of those who get their coverage through their jobs are becoming less secure that those benefits will always be there.

YOUR THOUGHTS: How would you make sure those who needed care could afford it?

"It's going to disappear," says Angela Ruggiero of North Port, Fla., who lost her insurance when she and her husband changed jobs. "There's no way employers can continue to pay premiums if they continue increasing."

Continue reading this article here.

Workers Mull Private Health Insurance

2007-11-13T06:21:00.001-08:00

This article is about and interesting trend. Now that insurance premiums are going up for employer sponsored health insurance plans, more employees are required to pay more for their medical insurance. Years ago the employer would pay for all of the premiums for the employee and his or her family. Now the employer rates have gone up, the out of pocket for the employee has gone up as well.

So this article points out that many people are opting for their own personal private health insurance plans to save money. These plans are available through brokers locally or online at sites like this one health insurance. You can compare different programs on your own and choose the premium and benefits that fits your own needs rather than be stuck with what the employer chooses. Sponsored by Blue Advantage. Enjoy the article.

As Health-Care Costs Rise, More Workers Considering Private Medical Insurance

NEW YORK (Associated Press) - For years, if an employer offered health insurance to a worker, the worker generally took it.

Now some workers are for the first time entertaining another option: private health insurance. Some employees, particularly those at smaller companies, are finding it's cheaper to get spouses and children covered by private policies than under their employers' plans.

A decade of inflation-topping health-care cost increases and the fact that employees are now picking up a larger slice of the bill through higher premiums and greater out-of-pocket expenses are behind the trend.

"If you are healthy, there are powerful economic incentives to see if you can strike a better deal on your own," says Alwyn Cassil, a spokeswoman for the Center for Studying Health System Change.

Continue this article here.

BLUMNER: Universal health care would be a boon to the free market

2007-11-12T08:38:00.000-08:00

This is a very good article because it looks at health care in a way that I would normally disagree with. The main premise is that Universal Health Care would actually boost the private sector through mandated coverage individually. He attacks Rudy's concept that America's system is just fine and does not need work because it healed him from prostate cancer. The main line that scares me about this article is this one. . .

If the next president does nothing else but add this country to the pantheon of advanced nations that provide universal coverage, it will be a successful tenure, one that will be remembered fondly by generations to come, like that of FDR for Social Security and LBJ for Medicare.

The reason this is a poor argument for universal health care is that Social Security and Medicare are albatross problems for future generations. We think of them as good things now, but both of those programs are poorly designed to meet the country's needs. Any universal health care proposal that looks to SS and Medicare as models of government efficiency is doomed to fail.

He goes over the ideas that many people are stuck in their jobs because it is the only way that they can get benefits. He also goes over the fact that 1500 dollars of the cost of domestic cars goes to health care costs. The author tries to justify moving to a mandated individual health care coverage system and do away with the employer system that we currently have.

I don't necessarily agree, but I'm not in disagreement with the author either. Enjoy the article.

Rudy Giuliani has been called ''Bush with brains'' by those who fear that the former New York City mayor shares a penchant for unbridled executive power. But the Republican presidential primary frontrunner seems to have a screw loose when it comes to campaigning. His attack of Hillary Clinton's health care proposal with the bugaboo of European-style ''socialized'' medicine is not only full of factual holes, but it will surely bite him in the butt if he makes it to the general election.
Americans were taken in by health insurance industry foils Harry and Louise the first time Clinton offered this country decent health care reform, but they won't be fooled again. If Giuliani wants to make this election a referendum on America's health care system, he's going to flame out faster than a hospital can dump an uninsured patient.
Polls regularly show that Americans are disgusted with the current state of affairs. In a 2007 CBS News/New York Times poll, nine in 10 respondents said the U.S. health care system needs fundamental changes and two-thirds said it was up to the federal government to guarantee that all Americans have health care coverage.

Continue reading the article here.

Heritage Foundation: Health Care on the Brink

2007-11-10T05:07:00.000-08:00

This article goes over the issues regarding the SCHIP battle as it relates to government health care as a whole. The author points out that during Hillary Clinton's attempt to create a universal tax payer provided health care program, they concluded that the best way to do that was incrementally through segments of the population starting with the children first. The rally cry behind the debate of the necessity of federal programs like these is that there are 47 million people in America without health insurance. The problem with arguing that the SCHIP program helps solve that is that the expanded SCHIP program proposed by congress would move 77% of those eligible from private health insurance to taxpayer insurance. Therefore it doesn't solve the problem of giving people without insurance coverage, it just mandates that the government (taxpayers) pay it.

This is a good article by a congressman from Oklahoma for the Heritage Foundation. I agree with everything in it. It concludes with a quote from Hillary Clinton that 'When I am elected president we are going to get universal health care.' She tried it once. Let's hope for the sake of the children who will have to find a way to pay for this program long after the current congress people are gone that that does not happen. Enjoy the article.

By Ernest Istook

The debate over government-run health care has roiled for decades. Today, we’re at the tipping point.

Incremental growth in public health programs has brought us to the brink. Today, almost half of America’s children — 45 percent — have their health care paid for by taxpayers. The children’s health bill (SCHIP) now before Congress would boost this to 55 percent. And that’s the tipping point.

Once most children are covered by taxpayers, the remaining children will shortly follow. Then their parents. Then those with no children at home. Eventually, the whole country would be under Washington-run health care, using tax dollars to pay the bills.

Even without a megabillion-dollar SCHIP expansion, taxpayers already pick up the tab for almost half the health care in America, via Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration. The SCHIP expansion could tip that, too, so the majority of all health care — not just kids’ care — is government-paid and therefore government-controlled.

Continue reading this article here.

Health Care Excuses

2007-11-09T06:36:00.000-08:00

Here we have an opinion piece by an author for the New York Times. He tries to go over some excuses that people use when they say our system is pretty good despite the fact that our life expectancy is less than other countries with different medical systems. Other factors including the size and diversity differences between the countries are always ignored by people like this author.

He points out four different 'excuses' that people against the government paying for health insurance use and tries to explain why they are wrong. The first part of the article where he makes fun of President Bush saying that everyone gets health insurance when they go to the emergency room. The fact of the matter is that everyone knows this - even illegal aliens. It is against the law to deny someone health care in an emergency room. In the article he claims it means that they qualify for Medicaid if they don't have insurance when they arrive in the emergency room. Most people in the Hispanic population WILL NOT purchase health insurance because this is their mantra. If they get sick, they will just go to the emergency room and get care for free. This author does not know this. He probably doesn't talk to many Hispanics about health care.

The second excuse he makes fun of is the fact that people's lifestyle choices are to blame for the high cost of health care. We are in fact the fattest country on the planet. The poorer the group, the fatter they are. Obesity contributes to diabetes, heart disease, arthritis and early deaths. All of these issues other than early death are extremely expensive for our health care system to treat on a chronic basis. If you add our large population of homosexuals and include their expensive drugs needed for contracting AIDS at a much higher than normal level, and you would have to assume that lifestyle choices at least contributes to our high cost of health care.

Then he says that all claims against socialized medicine are wrong because of . . . Medicare. That's right, Medicare will solve all of our health care problems according to this author. He doesn't mention that the system is going broke and probably won't be available by the time I turn 65. He doesn't mention that the government is trying to privatize Medicare as fast as they can through a Medicare Advantage system. He doesn't mention that doctors are turning away Medicare patients because their reimbursement rate is too low for their services. Other than that, Medicare is a perfect example of a good socialized medicine program.

Anyway, this author is wrong, but I will link to his article and let you decide. This is the problem with the debate though. People don't understand where the actual problems are. They claim to be knowledgeable when they really don't know. Enjoy this article. I certainly got a laugh out of reading this 'smart guy's' misinterpretation of the problem.

By PAUL KRUGMAN

The United States spends far more on health care per person than any other nation. Yet we have lower life expectancy than most other rich countries. Furthermore, every other advanced country provides all its citizens with health insurance; only in America is a large fraction of the population uninsured or underinsured.

You might think that these facts would make the case for major reform of America’s health care system — reform that would involve, among other things, learning from other countries’ experience — irrefutable. Instead, however, apologists for the status quo offer a barrage of excuses for our system’s miserable performance.

So I thought it would be useful to offer a catalog of the most commonly heard apologies for American health care, and the reasons they won’t wash.

Continue reading the article here.

47 million Americans lack health insurance: report

2007-11-08T19:58:00.000-08:00

This article from Reuters goes over the statistic that all of the politicians use in detail. It points out the rise in the number of uninsured since the year 2000. It attempts to come up with reasons why so many people don't have insurance. This number is mostly a guess, but it is probably fairly accurate (within 10 million or so). It is sort of like guessing how many illegal aliens are in the country. I think the article is good enough for a post so enjoy it.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The number of Americans lacking health insurance rose by nearly 8.6 million to 47 million from 2000 to 2006, with children and workers from every income level losing coverage, a new report said on Thursday.

The increase was "driven primarily by the continued erosion in employer-provided health insurance," said the report by the Washington, D.C.-based Economic Policy Institute.

In 2006, 2.3 million fewer Americans received health benefits from their employers than in 2000, the report said, noting the decline does not take the population increase into account.

Nearly 60 percent of the nation's children are covered by the insurance provided by their parents' employers, but 3.4 million fewer children had benefits in 2006 compared with 2000.

Continue reading this article here.

Health Care Problems Exaggerated?

2007-11-07T15:46:00.000-08:00

This article is a blogpost by the author of 'Economics and. . . ' blog from today. This post is well written and I agree with everything he says. He indicates that the issue is not whether or not it is a right. The issue is not whether or not the government should pay for it. The problem with the health care system is that we already have a government that has promised more services than it can deliver. Before we start promising more services, we need to figure out how we can deliver on the promises that we have already given. While it is important that we provide coverage for the poorest of Americans, Medicaid is designed for that. Apart from that, the system where the coverage is provided by the employer works pretty well. Those that don't have access to employer sponsored coverage generally have access to an individual plan. He theorizes that the problem becomes when people who do not have the option to get employer coverage and also don't have any individual coverage available due to a medical condition. It is a well written post and I hope you enjoy reading it.

Economics and. . .

I’m a bit confused by Greg Mankiw’s latest blog post on the subject of health care. He seems to be arguing that, aside from redistribution issues and the perception of rising prices, the problem is relatively minor. (“...the magnitude of the problems we face are often exaggerated by those seeking more sweeping reforms...”) I suppose Greg regards the actuarial insolvency of the Medicare system as a problem of smaller magnitude than those alleged by reformers, or perhaps as a purely demographic problem that is only nominally related to the health care issue. But it seems to me, if the government has made a commitment to pay for certain things, the fact that the prices of those things are rising rapidly – regardless of whether quality is rising faster than prices – is a big problem.

I agree with Greg’s contention (in his New York Times piece) that it can be perfectly rational to spend a larger and larger fraction of our income on health care, but that doesn’t change the fact that, under current institutional arrangements, figuring out how to pay for it is a big, big problem. To put my point a little differently, those “pundits of the left” who pretend to be concerned about the health care system but really have a redistribution agenda, they would seem to be holding some pretty good cards right now, given that the government has already promised more free health care than it will be able to deliver under current fiscal arrangements.

When Greg asks the question, “What health reform would you favor if the reform were required to be distribution-neutral?” it is impossible to answer without making an assumption about how the distributions will be worked out under the current system.

Continue reading the blog post here.

CNN's Money 101 : 10 things you need to know about health insurance

2007-11-07T09:30:00.000-08:00

Here is an article from CNN that goes in depth about things you might need to think about before you purchase a policy. I will post the 10 most important things here, but you really need to go to the link I provide to the article to get an in depth analysis of things you need to look for. I like this article and agree with it. Enjoy

Top things to know about Money

In Lesson 16 - Health Insurance

1. Insurance costs a lot but having none costs more.
2. If your employer offers insurance, grab it.
3. Comparing plans is tough but necessary.
4. The lowest premium isn't always the cheapest plan.
5. Even good coverage can have big loopholes.
6. You'll pay more for freedom.
7. You can check out networks before signing up.
8. You can keep your insurance if you lose your job.
9. Working couples have more to think about.
10. Tax breaks can help.

Continue to the full article here.

The Health of the Nation: State By State

2007-11-06T14:49:00.000-08:00

The United Health Foundation graded the health of each state and ranked them according to criteria they set. They looked at many different factors. This list comes out every year. Vermont is the healthiest state, while Mississippi comes in as the least healthy state. I don't believe that the data is a result of the physical location or anything about the place in general. But it is indicative of the lifestyle choices of certain areas. For example many people in Vermont are conscious of the outdoors and they hike and mountain climb a lot. While in Mississippi they are known for their very good but unhealthy fried foods. The article goes into detail on many things. Enjoy the article.

Vermont's on top and Mississippi's on the bottom of the United Health Foundation rankings. What factors were considered?

by Zoe Galland

Minnesota residents drink too much, but they have a low premature death rate. Mississippians don't overindulge, but only a fifth of the population has health insurance. And Vermont seems to be under a lucky star—few uninsured residents, a very low rate of infectious diseases, and a low premature death rate.

These are some of results revealed in the 18th annual America's Health Rankings, a report comparing Americans' health, state by state. It was released by the United Health Foundation (UHF) Nov. 5. The UHF, which was founded by the UnitedHealth group in 1999, publishes the report in partnership with the American Public Health Assn. and Partnership for Prevention.

The UHF said that Americans' overall health has declined by 0.3% as measured by key health indicators, despite progress made in several areas such as reduced cancer rates. It cited factors such as obesity, an increasing number of uninsured people, and the "persistence of risky health behaviors such as tobacco use and binge drinking."

Continue reading the article here.

No Sex In Health Insurance

2007-11-06T08:32:00.000-08:00

Since health insurance is such a boring subject, I thought I would make it more interesting with this article by Dr. Ruth. It talks about how sex therapy should be covered by health insurance. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I do agree with a lot of Dr. Ruth's concepts in this article. How on Earth could you NOT agree with Dr. Ruth? With that said, I hope you enjoy this article.

Dr. Ruth K. Westheimer

With all the talk about health insurance in the news these days, most of it having to do with the 40 million or so people who have no health insurance whatsoever, I know that the subject of the paucity of health insurance policies that cover sex therapy is not high on most people's radar. But it should be.

To many people, sex is considered a frill, something that is enjoyable to engage in, but certainly not necessary. Just look at all the fuss that was made about the issue of health insurance covering Viagra. While I can't compare maintaining sexual functioning to keeping people free of cancer or removing a bursting appendix, this is an area that shouldn't be considered expendable either, especially to businesses.

It's widely accepted that an employee who is in a stable relationship is more productive than one who is constantly on the prowl for a partner. The dating process is never smooth and the emotional conflicts that pop up in the single employee's life do have an effect on how much attention he or she is paying to work duties as compared to the time devoted to thinking about personal matters.

Continue reading this article here.

Swiss Study Finds Marijuana Use Alone May Benefit Some Teens, U.S. Doctor Disagrees

2007-11-05T16:30:00.000-08:00

No comment other than what the article says. Enjoy.

By Tina Benitez

Teens that use cannabis may function better than teen tobacco-users, and appear to be more socially driven and have fewer psychosocial problems than those who do not use either substance, according to a Swiss survey.

Researchers at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland surveyed 5,263 students, including 455 who smoke marijuana only, 1,703 who smoke marijuana and tobacco and 3,105 who smoked neither one.

The survey, which will be published in the November issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, found that marijuana-only smokers had better relationships with friends, better grades and were more likely to play sports than teens who smoked tobacco and those who abstained from both substances.

A U.S. substance abuse expert disagreed with the study and said U.S. teens should not be encouraged to use marijuana, particularly since teenagers’ brains are still developing at this time.

Continue reading the article here.

Guiliani's flip-flop on health insurance for kids.

2007-11-05T15:30:00.000-08:00

This is an article from Slate about Guiliani and his experience with health care as mayor of New York. Rudy has made a habit of chastising 'socialized medicine' as a rallying cry for the base of the Republicans. He also had a campaign ad that said he would have died from his Prostate cancer had he been involved in a government sponsored health care system instead of the US system.

This article paints a different story about Rudy's positions as Mayor of New York when he was first diagnosed with cancer. Before he was diagnosed with cancer he had little interest in the health care system. After he was diagnosed, he attempted to expand New York City's role in health care by expanding their program by three times without caring how much it cost the taxpayer. The system in place is called Health Stat and increased spending on government sponsored health care to children and adults who did not qualify for medicaid by $390 million over four years.

This is another example of the difficulty that Republicans have in considering him to be a conservative candidate. While he says the right things now, his record shows a history of being very similar to the Democratic positions on important platform issues. Hopefully it will all work out, but if this part of his record is any indication, I do not think he will be able to beat Hillary Clinton for the White House after having positions that are so close to hers.

It is a good article. Enjoy.

Sick Man

Guiliani's flip-flop on health insurance for kids.

By Sara Mosle

In his campaign for president, Rudolph Giuliani keeps suggesting that his experience as a prostate cancer survivor makes him uniquely qualified to evaluate the American health care system. To judge from his recent pronouncements, the lesson he learned as a cancer patient is that America has the best health care system in the world. Indeed, Giuliani has implied that without it, he wouldn't have survived cancer. He thus sees little need, in his prescriptions for reform, for overhauling the system or greatly reducing the number of uninsured. What's odd about Giuliani's take is that it is diametrically opposed to what he said he learned from his prostate cancer in 2000, at the time of his actual diagnosis and treatment.

Before his illness, Giuliani the Mayor resembled Giuliani the Presidential Candidate. Both showed little interest in expanding coverage to New York's poor or uninsured, and both Giulianis gave only tepid support and financial backing to an S-CHIP-style program for New York's uninsured children. By Giuliani's own description, however, all that changed when he came face-to-face with his own mortality.

At a packed and emotional news conference in May 2000, in which he announced he was dropping out of the race for the U.S. Senate as a result of his illness, Giuliani admitted to suddenly seeing the world very differently. He said his illness had changed him and that he wanted to reach out to minority groups and the poor. Most important, he said, he had newfound respect, understanding, and empathy for the city's uninsured. It seems Giuliani couldn't feel people's pain until he, well—literally—felt people's pain. But once he had, he stated that extending health insurance coverage to more of the city's uninsured was his top goal for his remaining 18 months in office. ''One of the things that I felt from the beginning of [my illness] and continue to feel is a tremendous sense of compassion for the people that have to make decisions like this alone," he explained. "One of the things maybe that I can do is figure out how we accelerate making sure that people are covered."

Continue reading the article here.

Giuliani's healthcare figure outdated

2007-11-05T09:16:00.000-08:00

Rudy Guiliani's campaign created a radio ad that indicated that his chances of survival from Prostate cancer were much higher in the USA system compared to the United Kingdom social system. This article from ABC indicates that there may be issues with the statistics that he used. The statistics used in the campaign are ten years old. Comparing the two systems is difficult because there may be other factors at play in the survivability of diseases rather than the system. While this article points out that the statistics Rudy used were old, it still says that survivability in the USA is higher than in the UK for Prostate cancer. The difference just is not as large as they claim in their campaign. While I agree with the premise that government run health care is a bad idea, I don't necessarily agree with pointing to specific instances such as this to prove the point. It is a well written article that I hope you enjoy.

By Brian C. Mooney, Globe Staff

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani has made "socialized medicine" one of his favorite whipping boys on the campaign trail. But he is using a single, misleading, and outdated statistic to argue that the healthcare system in the United States is better than it is in the United Kingdom.

In a radio ad airing in New Hampshire, Giuliani says: "I had prostate cancer five, six years ago. My chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it, in the United States - 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England - only 44 percent, under socialized medicine."

Giuliani, who was diagnosed with cancer seven years ago, plucked the 10-year-old statistic from an article written by Dr. David Gratzer, an adviser to his campaign, in the 2007 summer issue of City Journal, an urban policy publication of the Manhattan Institute, a think tank much admired by the former New York City mayor.

Continue reading the article here.

Beyond those health care numbers

2007-11-04T19:43:00.000-08:00

Here is an article written by a Harvard professor. He goes over the argument that people for a government controlled health care system often mention. It is a fact that people in Canada have a higher life expectancy and lower infant death rate. However as this article points out, it is not necessarily a result of the health care system. Many proponents of the government system use these facts as 'proof' that the government controlled system is better. However other issues such as lifestyle and cultural issues also play into the differences in the statistics. Americans are typically more obese than their Canadian counterparts. This fact alone could result in dramatic differences in life expectancy and has nothing to do with the health care system. Anyway I agree with this author. Enjoy the article.

By N. Gregory Mankiw

Here are three true but misleading facts about health care that politicians and pundits in the United States love to use to frighten the public.

The United States has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than Canada, which has national health insurance.

The differences are indeed significant. Life expectancy at birth is 2.6 years greater for Canadian men than for American men. Among women, Canadians outlive Americans by 2.3 years. Infant mortality in the United States is 6.8 per 1,000 live births, compared with only 5.3 in Canada.

These facts are often taken as evidence for the inadequacy of the U.S. health system. But a recent study by June and Dave O'Neill, economists at Baruch College, from whom these numbers come, shows that the difference in health outcomes has more to do with broader social forces.

Continue reading this article here.

Senate Passes New SCHIP Bill

2007-11-02T03:26:00.000-07:00

The formalities are completed and the 'new' SCHIP bill will finally reach the president's desk for his signature. It is not changed and just like the last bill, this bill will be vetoed. The senate voted yesterday 64-30 to approve the bill. That is not as good as the previous vote of 67-30. This margin is not even veto proof in the senate either. The Congress needs to realize that passing legislation is not about vote counting. Passing legislation means coming up with something that everyone can agree to and making the country better. This bill is just another tax and spend mandate that our children will have to figure out how to support or cut some day. Congress needs to be cutting federal mandated programs instead of expanding them. Cutting federally funded programs is not popular and sometimes causes people to vote against representatives. But the unpopular thing is often the best thing to do for the good of the country. The president will veto this bill because it is still 35 billion dollars more than the 5 billion dollar increase that he wanted for this program. This CNN article explains the senate vote in detail. Enjoy the article.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate passed a new bill Thursday expanding a popular children's health insurance program, despite the lingering threat of a veto from President Bush.

The bill -- which boosts the number of low-income children covered by the State Children's Health Insurance Program -- was recently passed by the House, but without the veto-proof margin it received in the Senate.

Bush vetoed the first SCHIP bill and is expected to veto this one.

"There's a bill moving through Congress that's disguised as a bill to help children, but I think it's really a trick on the American people," the president said Wednesday.

The current program covers about 6 million children whose parents earn too much to qualify for Medicaid -- the federal health insurance program for the poor -- but who can't afford private insurance.

Continue reading this article here.

Bush's bank shot at Hillary Clinton on health care

2007-10-31T13:13:00.000-07:00

President Bush generally has refrained from commenting on the upcoming presidential elections. However the author of this article thought that he was taking a shot at Hillary Clinton directly. Bush's actual statement was about the nationalized health care debate. He goes over the fact that Congress tried to pass a nationalized health care plan back in 1994 and was soundly defeated. Now he says that the people who supported that effort and failed are still trying to implement it. Bush says that those people are trying to impose a national health care system through incremental steps rather than all at once. Hillary Clinton was behind the 1994 debacle. Bush has emerged victorious on his veto of the current legislation to expand the SCHIP. So with these remarks he both defends his position and attacks Hillary's position. It is a very good article. Enjoy.

by Mark Silva

President Bush has promised to hold his analysis of the 2008 presidential campaign, but he waded straight into it today.

With a broadside against the Democratic Congress and its “incremental'' plans for “federalizing'' health insurance, Bush today reminded his audience that Congress rejected a national insurance plan in 1994 – that would be the plan that then-First Lady Hillary Clinton promoted, ultimately defeated by the insurance lobby.

“We've tried, by the way, here in Washington to have a... major effort, put the federal government square in the center of health care in 1994, and the legislation didn't pass,'' the president said in a speech today to the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

“I believe many of the Democrats in Congress who supported that legislation have learned from the experience,'' Bush said. “So instead of pushing to federalize health care all at once, they're pushing for the same goal through a series of incremental steps. With each step, they want to bring America closer to a nationalized system where the government dictates the medical coverage for every citizen.''

Continue reading the article here.

States will run out of SCHIP funds

2007-10-31T10:36:00.000-07:00

Here is an article that points to the different states that will run out of money for the SCHIP program even if it is passed in its current format. The president actually wanted a reasonable increase in spending level to keep pace with inflation without expanding the program. The problem is that the Congress was not satisfied with maintaining the program that has been so good for so many children. These children who need the program are currently on the program. But unless Congress passes a bill that the president can sign, the children currently on the program will suffer. This article goes over the different states that are in trouble of denying people this program if something is not done soon. Enjoy the article.

By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 — Twenty-one states will run out of money for children’s health insurance in the coming year, and at least nine of those states will exhaust their allotments in March if Congress simply continues spending at current levels, a new federal study says.

The findings added urgency to bipartisan talks on Capitol Hill intended to overcome an impasse over expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Top House Republicans, including Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the minority leader, met Tuesday with senators of both parties, including the chairman of the Finance Committee, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, to seek a compromise.

Their goal is to revise a bill, vetoed by President Bush, to pick up Republican support in the House and gain enough votes to override another veto threatened by the president.

Mr. Bush complained that White House officials were not included in the discussions.

Continue reading this New York Times article here.

Socialized Medicine is Sicko

2007-10-30T07:41:00.001-07:00

This is a fantastic article from the 'Free Market Cure' website by Stuart Browning. It mainly goes over the differences between the Canadian health care system and the United States health care system. It covers many of the myths associated with a National Health Care System. While he starts out making reference to the movie Sicko by Michael Moore, he mostly goes over specifics within the Canadian Health Care system. Browning has several short films himself about health care that you can find on the Free Market Cure site. Enjoy the article.

By Stuart Browning

A case in point is Howard Fineman's column in the June 18 edition of Newsweek. Having just attended a Washington press screening of Sicko, he writes about the increasingly urgent calls for government-run health care:

It would be nice to think that the urgency is the result of outrage at our mediocre infant-mortality and life-expectancy numbers, which are among the worst in the developed world.

The truth, however, is that even if we were to adopt a single-payer system, our infant mortality and life expectancy numbers would still compare unfavorably with Canada and other OECD countries for the simple reason that they have little or nothing to do with the quality of our health care system.

Life expectancy averages are determined by a multitude of factors such as ethnicity, culture, and crime rates. Asians live longer than whites. Whites live longer than blacks. Canada has more Asians than blacks. Infant mortality rates are likewise determined by a host of factors having nothing to do with our health care system. The chief cause of infant mortality is very low birth weight babies. The U.S., for reasons having to do with ethnicity and culture, has more low birth weight babies than Canada and other OECD countries.

Continue reading this article here.

SEC Joins WellCare Probe, Requests Information After FBI Raid

2007-10-30T07:07:00.000-07:00

WellCare is under investigation for Medicare fraud by the FBI. The FBI is seeking information about doctors bills and hospital bills for their Medicare programs. Fraud in Medicare is one of the problems with this system. It adds costs to the system that can not be recovered. Now the SEC is looking at WellCare's activity as well. This is part of the problem of a for-profit system of health insurance. Insurance companies that look for ways to make as much money as possible will not be interested in saving money for the system. Enjoy the article.

October 29, 2007 (FinancialWire) The Securities and Exchange Commission has requested information from WellCare Health Plans Inc. (NYSE: WCG), which manages health care for more than a million poor Americans, after the FBI raided the company s Florida headquarters. The company and two top executives were sued by shareholder, Eastwood Enterprises LLC, which has alleged that the company disseminated materially false and misleading statements and concealed adverse facts. Eastwood Enterprises LLC is seeking class action status, covering buyers of WellCare stock between May 8, 2006 and October 24, 2007, according to the complaint.

Continue reading the article here.

Rudy hails US Health Care system in NH ad (video)

2007-10-29T17:17:00.000-07:00

This information comes from my good friends at Hot Air 'Allah Pundit'. There is a new ad for the Guiliani campaign which talks about his experience with prostate cancer. In the ad, Rudy claims that the American system has over 82% success rate in treating this disease while the NHS system in Great Britain only has about a 40% survival rate. This information segues into his health care plan. He will offer tax credits of 15,000 per family and 7500 per individual to purchase health insurance. I agree that this is probably the best way to help from the federal level. But controlling costs must be legislated at some point. Unfortunately there is no financial interest involved in controlling costs for any lobbyist in Washington. It is a good article. I like Rudy's proposal on reforming health care in America. Please go to this post and enjoy the campaign advertisement. Thank you again to AP at Hot Air.

Click here for the video.

Paging Michael Moore: Brits flee socialized healthcare

2007-10-29T10:04:00.000-07:00

This goes to my favorite conservative pundit, Michelle Malkin. It examines the NHS in Briton and explains that people are opting out of the government system for major surgeries. These are medical tourists in that they go to countries like India and Malaysia for major surgeries that cost much less. Of course the cost is not the problem in the UK, the wait is. I am happy to point you to http://www.michellemalkin.com for this one. I agree that the premise is that this would happen here if we were to move to government health care.

By Michelle Malkin

Oh, what lovely conditions we have to look forward to should Hillary Clinton and Michael Moore get their way:

Record numbers of Britons are travelling abroad for medical treatment to escape the NHS - with 70,000 patients expected to fly out this year.

And by the end of the decade 200,000 “health tourists” will fly as far as Malaysa and South Africa for major surgery to avoid long waiting lists and the rising threat of superbugs, according to a new report.

Continue reading this blog and article here.

Medical-bill errors increasingly common

2007-10-29T09:31:00.000-07:00

This article shows another reason that the cost of health care is so high. It may or may not be done on purpose, but this article states that 8 of 10 bills from hospitals contain errors on them. These errors result in the increased cost of health care with no added benefit. This is one of the reasons that costs have gotten out of control. This is a problem that must be addressed so that fraud is kept under control. When doctors and hospitals over bill for services, rates for insurance and the cost of health care in general increase. This is another Business Week article. Enjoy the article.

WASHINGTON

Don't assume that your complicated medical bill is correct. Errors on bills for doctors, medical tests or hospitals can result in overcharges that run from a few dollars to tens of thousands of dollars.

Husband and wife Ron and Marilyn Hess, from Homer, Alaska, were left facing a bill of about $10,000 from a hospital after Marilyn needed an appendectomy. The hospital bill was about $45,000, of which her insurer agreed to pay $35,000.

After obtaining an itemized bill and with the help of a medical-billing advocate, the couple uncovered procedures billed that weren't performed.

Continue reading the article here.

Compromises sought on kids' health

2007-10-29T07:47:00.000-07:00

This article in Business Week goes over more detail about the problems with the SCHIP program that Congress passed last week. It explains that many states are given the ability to exclude certain income to qualify. States do not have specific rules about how to calculate the income requirements for eligibility. This results in money being spent for other than the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to get insurance coverage to families of children who could not afford it. The article goes into details about other issues such as how it should be paid for. Enjoy the article.

By KEVIN FREKING

WASHINGTON -- President Bush and other critics of a $35 billion spending increase for children's health insurance say they'll support expanding coverage to families of four making as much as $62,000 a year, but they want to limit states' ability to go beyond that level.

About three dozen states ignore certain income when determining who can get government-subsidized health coverage. For example, many states exclude child support payments. Others deduct expenses for child care when determining who qualifies for the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Congress is considering the renewal of SCHIP for an additional five years, but differences remain over who the program should cover and how much money should be spent. The flexibility that states have in defining income is one of the differences that will probably need to be resolved for Democrats to override a promised veto from Bush.

Continue reading the article here.

Dean: Bush wants billions for wars, but not for kids' health

2007-10-29T07:41:00.000-07:00

I just want to put this on my blog to show the difference between rhetoric and good policy. Defense spending is generally considered separately from any other spending from the government. Defense is the only thing that private industry can not accomplish effectively. This is why money spent for the men and women in harms way for duty to country is important.

The Democrats now want to use this expensive war as their excuse for everything that they want. I agree that the war is more expensive than it should have been, but America is gaining the upper hand so the cost should begin to decline. The SCHIP program will start at this 35 billion dollars extra and continue to increase. This cost will increase because the bill does nothing to address the cost of health care. It shows how difficult it is to have a government for the people when you have a government controlled by two parties that are 'for the party'. Congress can cut the funding for the war whenever they want. They have not and I do not believe that they should. But this is no argument for a reason that the government should continue to spend taxpayer money with no regard to cost. Enjoy the article.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Saturday criticized Republicans in Congress for not supporting legislation to expand a popular children's health care program.

Democratic National Committee head Howard Dean addresses the "Take Back America" conference in June 20.

"The Republican leaders have made their choice. They want to stay in Iraq and deny our kids health care," Dean said in the party's weekly radio address.

Continue reading the AP article here.

SCHIP and the Rigged Health Insurance Game

2007-10-27T14:57:00.000-07:00

This is a very interesting article because I agree with a lot of it, but I disagree with his primary premise. He says that the SCHIP program would actually be a terrible thing for the health insurance community. I don't understand how having the government provide money to pay for HEALTH INSURANCE would necessarily point out the evil insurance companies. I would think that the insurance companies would be for the SCHIP program because the government pays for the insurance rather than forcing the individual to pay it.

I agree however with his remarks about the profit incentive for the health insurance companies. There is a problem with the capitalist model for health insurance because it encourages discrimination. It encourages companies to deny coverage to the sick because they make more money if they only insure those people who will have fewer claims. However what this article misses is the fact that insurance companies negotiate lower prices from the providers to keep the health care costs in check. So while it is bad that insurance companies try to maximize their profits through devious ways, it is good that one way to maximize profits is to negotiate much lower rates with providers than an individual would be allowed to pay.

I agree that the profit needs to be taken out of the health insurance system. I know that the cost of health care is the problem. People who do not have health insurance are not the problem. The government should focus less on the income of people needing health care and more on the health of the people who need health care and the system could work. If the government guaranteed a safety net for sick people who would be declined for health insurance, then that would be sufficient to satisfy the actual need for health care in this country.

Blue Cross Blue Shield association was set up as a non-profit insurance company. That is the best vehicle to provide payment for health care. The non-profit system ensures that health care costs are kept in check through negotiations to lower provider prices. The problem is that now the Blue Cross association plans are no longer non-profit companies. They make as much money as for profit companies. And some like Anthem are even traded as well.

Again, I agree that the system is flawed. I don't agree that this SCHIP program and the defeat of it is a sign of the corruption from the health insurance lobby. Still though I disagree, I think it is well written and well thought out. Enjoy the article.

Eric Haas

The House on Thursday passed a modified version of the SCHIP bill, with a vote that was seven votes shy of a veto-proof majority. There were 142 members of Congress who voted against extending health care to more poor children. Behind their rhetoric, their intentions are clear: they want to protect the health insurance market and the huge profits that go with it.

But the huge profits are killing health care. We all know that now. Profit-maximizing insurance companies are bad economics. They make money by denying care, which is a terrible way to try to keep us healthy.

And, profit-maximizing health insurance does more harm than that. It is also killing our sense of community. It pits us one against another to get the limited number of insurance policies, strangling the trust and cooperation we need to thrive. If we can't come together when we need each other most--when we're sick, injured or dying--without our vulnerability being used as an opportunity to maximize profits, then the U.S. is a hollow shell. The community that makes our nation a family is dead.

Continue reading the article here.

NAIC Testifies On Small Business Health Insurance Options

2007-10-26T14:38:00.000-07:00

This is one of the most thoughtful presentations that you will find in the debate about health care reform. This was testimony in Washington DC to the Senate Committee on Finance on behalf of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). The speaker was the PA Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario. He emphasized that the focus on providing health care plans does nothing to address the underlying causes of our health care crisis which is the rising cost of health care. He points out that insurance is merely the mechanism through which health care services are paid. Without addressing the causes of increasing costs of health care, the costs of insurance will continue to rise as well. Enjoy the article.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Oct. 25, 2007) — Speaking today on behalf of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), Pennsylvania Acting Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance regarding strategies aimed at expanding health insurance coverage for small businesses.

Commissioner Ario emphasized the importance of cost-containment strategies when addressing the issue of helping small businesses provide health insurance coverage to their employees.

“Health insurance reform will not solve [the problem of increasing health care costs] since insurance is primarily a method of financing health care costs,” Ario testified. “Nevertheless, insurers do have a vital role to play in reforms such as disease management, enhanced use of information technology, improved quality of care, wellness programs and prevention, and evidence-based medicine — all of which have shown promise in limiting the growth of health care spending. Whatever is done in insurance reform should be done in a manner that is consistent with sound cost control practices.”

Continue reading the article here.

Community Health Plans Among Best in Nation

2007-10-26T14:34:00.000-07:00

Six of Top 10 Medicare Plans are ACHP Members

WASHINGTON, PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Alliance of Community Health Plans (ACHP) today announced that 70 percent of its member plans have been recognized by the U.S. News and World Report and the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) as being among the top 25 health plans in the U.S. across Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial lines of business.

ACHP members are select regional health plans that provide coverage and health care services for nearly 15 million individuals throughout the U.S. Among the top 10 Medicare plans, one member plan, Fallon Community Health Plan, based in Worcester, MA, was rated as both the top Medicare and Medicaid plan. Six of the top 10 Medicare plans are ACHP members. Among the top 15 Medicaid plans, 5 are ACHP members.

The rankings clearly demonstrate that community-based health plans offer the best quality care available while providing enrollees the highest value for their health care dollar. These plans consistently achieve such high quality ratings through close coordination among all the providers involved in a patient's care. In addition, regional health plans actively work to identify patients' health needs through a variety of patient outreach efforts. Improving their patients' health is the key goal of these plans.

Continue reading this article here.

Bush Says He'll Veto Health Bill Again

2007-10-26T12:34:00.000-07:00

Bush uses this opportunity to explain that this Congress is merely wasting time. He says that this bill costs more than the one he just vetoed. The Democrats are just playing politics and they do not care about the American people. They only care about defeating Republicans. This is not the way the system was designed by the founders. Enjoy the article. Maybe we can find some leaders in Congress but I am not holding my breath.

By DAVID ESPO

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush accused Democratic lawmakers on Friday of wasting time by passing legislation to expand children's health coverage, knowing that he would veto it again. At the same time, he criticized Congress for failing to approve spending bills to keep the government running.

Bush said Congress had "set a record they should not be proud of: October 26 is the latest date in 20 years that Congress has failed to get a single annual appropriations bill to the president's desk."

He also complained that Congress had failed to pass a permanent extension of a moratorium on state and local taxes on Internet access, and that the Senate had not yet confirmed Michael Mukasey as attorney general. Further, he chided Congress for failing to approve more money for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Senate on Thursday night approved a seven-year extension of the Internet tax moratorium; differences with a House-passed version still have to be worked out.

Continue reading the article here.

House passes expanded kids' insurance bill

2007-10-25T16:16:00.001-07:00

It's like deja vu all over again. I guess I should not mind because it keeps interest high for information like I have on my blog. I just wish that their time could be spent more wisely. Once again this bill passes the House of Representatives. Once again it is by not enough to override a veto. Once again President Bush will veto this bill. They have to finish a funding proposal by the end of November because that is when the current SCHIP program will end. Nobody on either side of the aisle wanted to see the end to this program. It was the Republican Congress that established this program in 1997. There is no way they would be interested in seeing it go unfunded. This issue is only about the tax and spend Congress. They want to know exactly how much of your money they can spend. I wish leadership would focus on the cost of health care rather than free health insurance. Enjoy the article, but it is just like one from merely three weeks ago.

By Ruth Mantell, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. House passed an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program Thursday evening, despite a new veto threat and continued opposition from many Republican representatives.

House lawmakers voted 265-142 to approve the new plan, known as SCHIP. If President Bush carries through with his threatened veto, and precedent indicates that he would, then the tally would fall short of the two-thirds majority needed to override.

Bush criticized the new SCHIP plan, saying that it doesn't meaningfully address prior objections. The revision still calls for an increase in tobacco-product taxes to fund a $35 billion expansion over SCHIP's current $25 billion five-year funding baseline. A current extension of SCHIP expires in mid-November.

"Of course [the president] would veto it," said Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman. "In some ways, this bill is worse than the previous bill. It raises taxes on working Americans to move people from private insurance to public assistance. No tax increase of any kind is needed to fund this program."

Continue reading this article here.

Higher Health-Care Costs Are Forcing Americans To Change Behavior

2007-10-25T14:17:00.000-07:00

This is a very informative article about the behavior of the individual. Rising health care costs have caused consumers to increase their co pays and deductibles to lower their health insurance premiums. As a result, people are being more discriminatory over when they go to the doctor which may not be a good thing. But they are taking care of themselves as an alternative which is a good thing. Our health care system relies on early detection of major problems. If people have health problems they need to get checked out. But if people take better care of their health consciously, then they won't have to worry about many major health problems that bog down our system. Enjoy the article.

Kristen Gerencher is a reporter for MarketWatch in San Francisco.

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Concerned about affordability and feeling the financial sting of higher cost-sharing in their health plans, more Americans are changing their personal health behavior in ways that are likely both good and bad, according to a new study.

More than six in 10 Americans with health insurance, or 63%, said they saw an increase in their health plans' out-of-pocket costs in the past year, according to a survey of 1,000 people 21 and older from the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research group in Washington, and research firm Mathew Greenwald & Associates.

Among these people, 81% said their greater financial responsibility motivated them to try to take better care of themselves, up from 71% who said that in 2005. Two-thirds said they tried to talk to the doctor more carefully about treatment options and costs compared with 57% who did so two years ago.

The number of people being more discriminating about doctor visits also grew -- 64% reported they only went for more serious conditions or symptoms, up from 54% in 2005. Half delayed going to the doctor this year, compared with 40% who used that tactic two years ago. Twenty-eight percent skipped or passed on filling doses of their prescribed medications, up from 21% two years ago.

It's impossible to discern from the study what the outcomes of those behaviors were, but the overall trend suggests people are being more mindful of their care and its costs, said Paul Fronstin, director of EBRI's health research program.

"They're becoming engaged on some level, more so than they've been in the past," he said. "That's really the goal of what employers and insurers are trying to do -- to get them to think more about their decisions and be more active in their health care."

Continue reading this article here.

Health Care industry creating Jobs

2007-10-25T10:02:00.001-07:00

This is good news for people who are looking for work. There is going to be a 26% increase in number of jobs in 2008 which translates to 2.8 million new jobs. The median salary for a nurse is $45,000/year so this should help our economy. Enjoy the article.

Healthy Outlook
Training for a job in the growth industry of health care

Healing the nation's sick and injured brings together people from varied backgrounds and diverse interests using not only cutting edge technology and sophisticated medical techniques, but intrinsic values such as compassion and caring.

The health care industry provides 11 million jobs for Americans -- a number that continues to grow.

The U.S. Department of Labor projects that jobs in health care will increase 26 percent by 2008, which translates into 2.8 million new jobs. For those interested in a career in health care, the choices are unprecedented in the nation's history.

According to the latest figures, the national average nursing salary is $45,000, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that jobs for RNs will grow 23 percent by 2008. A registered nurse needs an associate degree in nursing and if working in a hospital, is usually assigned to an area such as surgery, maternity, pediatrics, emergency room, intensive care, oncology or rehab.

Continue this article here.

GOP cries foul on timing of children's health vote

2007-10-25T09:52:00.000-07:00

While I agree that the timing of this bill is suspect, I don't think it would matter. It is a shame that Congress does not recognize the national tragedy that certain representatives must attend to. I don't believe it is a good bill. At the same time I don't believe that this argument is the correct way to stop this bill. Our Congress has broken down into arguing on one side that representatives hate children, while on the other side the argument is that representatives do not care that people have just lost everything they have in a fire. Neither of these arguments are appropriate ways of passing good legislation. But they make for good news stories and good advertisements during re-election campaigns. God bless America. We need all the help we can get. Enjoy the article from CNN.

From Deirdre Walsh and Jessica Yellin
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Republicans are fuming over Democrats' decision to hold the next vote on the State Children's Health Insurance Program on Thursday -- when many Republicans will be in California as President Bush tours areas hit by wildfires.

"Five to seven members are going, all of whom would be 'no' votes, and [Democrats] know it," House Republican Whip Roy Blunt told CNN. "This is clearly designed to minimize the Republican opposition to this bill."

President Bush vetoed the proposed five-year expansion and $35 billion spending increase for SCHIP on October 3.

House Democrats tried to override the veto last week, but failed to get the two-thirds majority needed for a veto. The bill to be taken up on Thursday is a revised version that Democrats hope will win converts.

At a meeting of Republican House members to discuss the revised bill, Rep. Louis Gohmert of Texas said the Democrats are "taking advantage of a disaster to loot the American treasury."

Thirteen Republicans from fire-stricken districts signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday, urging her as "a fellow Californian" to postpone the vote.

Continue the article here.

US House ready Thursday to retest Bush's veto clout on children's health bill

2007-10-25T07:27:00.000-07:00

Here is the AP story about the new vote of the same bill that failed to override a veto just last week. It is still 35 billion dollars of money brought in through taxing the poor and middle class. Pelosi said it addresses everything that the opposition wanted, but if it does not address the cost to the taxpayer then it does nothing to address the real problem. I personally am not a smoker but when revenue from cigarettes does not cover the cost, they'll find a way to tax non-smokers to pay for this anyway. Of course the Democrats feel justified in spending money on anything they want because of the war and because of Bush's unfettered spending until recently too.

Two wrongs don't make a right. And the Federal government's only responsibility is to provide for the common defense through defense spending. Congress is writing checks that the American taxpayer (children) will have to figure out a way to cover. Tax and spend is not leadership. Tax and spend is not good for this country no matter how many times they say it is 'for the children'. It is a tax increase for the children to pay for when they become adults.

Enjoy the article, but hide your wallets.

WASHINGTON (AP): The House of Representatives plans to vote Thursday on a modestly revised version of a children's health insurance bill that President George W. Bush recently vetoed.

Last week the House fell 13 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override the Oct. 3 veto, which had been prompted by Bush's objections to a major expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

The bill's supporters now hope the revisions will attract the seven or more Republicans needed to change the outcome later this fall. Republican leaders urged their colleagues to resist, saying the changes are too minor to justify abandoning Bush on a high-profile issue.

Continue the article here.

House to Vote on New Version of Child Health Bill

2007-10-24T20:58:00.000-07:00

This is just absurd. The House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quoted as saying, “The bill addresses all of the concerns that were expressed by our colleagues and by the president,” Ms. Pelosi said. “We hope the Republicans will take yes for an answer.” The problem is that they did not make ANY changes, nor did they speak with anyone who did not vote for this bill 3 weeks ago. The cost is still 35 billion dollars. They are still going to raise taxes on the poor through a 61 cent tax on a pack of cigarettes. Most importantly, this program becomes PERMANENT with this bill instead of the original program that is designed to be reconsidered at least every 10 years.

This permanent mandate merely puts a further burden on these children to figure out a way to pay for these programs that do not have definite funding. At some point somewhere down the line, these entitlement programs are going to paralyze the entire country. When the tobacco tax is not enough to fund this program, where are they going to get the money? What tax are they going to raise?

On this generous compromise, 'Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, met with House Republican leaders on Tuesday and with Senate Republican leaders on Wednesday, but said he had “yet to engage in direct conversations with the Democrats.”

“I have zero impact on what the Democrats do,” Mr. Leavitt said.'

President Bush even said that he was willing to compromise up to 20 billion dollars instead of the 5 billion dollar increase he had already proposed. The bottom line is that this Congress believes we have an unlimited supply of money. The war effort is expensive, but defense is something that the federal government is supposed to pay for. Congress recently passed a spending bill that called for 9 billion dollars more than President Bush wanted earlier this week. Their form of 'leadership' is take more of your money so that they can spend it.

They think that as long as they say it is 'for the children' they can do whatever they want. These children are going to have to figure out how to undo the financial fiscal irresponsibility that these 'adults' are placing on their future. Enjoy the article.

By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — Sensing a political advantage, Democrats rushed Wednesday to move a health care bill for children back to the House floor, having made minor changes to win over more Republicans.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House would vote Thursday on the new bill. Like the original, which President Bush vetoed three weeks ago, it would cover 10 million children through the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and increase spending on the program by $35 billion, for a total of $60 billion, in the next five years.

But the new bill would tighten eligibility for the program, generally barring the use of federal money to cover illegal immigrants, childless adults and children of families with incomes exceeding three times the poverty level: $61,950 for a family of four.

Continue reading the article here.

New SCHIP bill, same old reaction

2007-10-24T16:42:00.000-07:00

It seems as though the Democrats are not willing to change anything on the bill that was just defeated by President Bush's veto. They will bring the same bill to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote tomorrow. The Republicans have indicated a willingness to compromise on certain elements. But the 'new' bill has the same price tag and way to pay for it as the 'old' bill that just got killed. I guess that the Democrats want to repeat the same mantra that this somehow 'proves' that Republicans hate kids. I think it proves that the Congress and especially its leadership deserves the poor approval ratings it enjoys now. Their approval is even lower than the presidents'.

This article is from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It explains that their representatives will not change their votes this time around either because there are no differences in the bill. I hope to post some more about this tomorrow. Enjoy the article.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Details were still sketchy by Wednesday evening, but House Democrats and the White House are talking about a compromise on the bill that would add hundreds of millions of dollars to Georgia’s PeachCare, a health insurance program for poor kids. The House may vote on it Thursday.

The few details that have already been leaked to reporters, however, indicate that the compromise won’t be changing the minds of the 10 Georgia congressmen who voted against the original bill - and then voted to uphold President Bush’s veto of it - this month.

The compromise would still expand SCHIP, or State Children’s Health Insurance Program, by $35 billion over five years and raise the money through an increase in tobacco taxes, Republicans complained.

Continue reading the article here.

Biden Unveils Health Care Plan

2007-10-24T11:50:00.000-07:00

Here is an AP article about Senator Biden's new health care plan. He says that the current system is good for those people who can afford the coverage. But he says that it is important that universal coverage is given to those who 'can't afford it'. The problem with this argument becomes who determines who can or can not afford coverage offered. His program will cost taxpayers about 110 billion dollars per year. But it is different from Hillary's program in that it does not mandate coverage. He will work with all the involved entities in the first 3 months of his presidency to come up with some sort of solution. I don't agree with him, but here is his new proposal. Enjoy the article.

By AMY LORENTZEN

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on Tuesday called for expanding access to health coverage for all children and adults, but stopped short of mandating universal coverage.

Biden's plan would also improve coverage for catastrophic illnesses, modernize the health care system and encourage wellness.

"It's time to take charge of our health care system," Biden told a packed auditorium at a private medical school in Des Moines. "The current system, as good as it is for its people (who can afford it), it's just not working well enough for all of the people."

The Delaware senator said that if he is elected, he would bring together government workers, health care providers, labor leaders and businesses in the first three months of his administration to work on health care challenges.

Continue reading the article here.

Poll: Nearly 70% say their health insurance gets at least a passing grade

2007-10-24T11:22:00.000-07:00

We hear more often from politicians talking about how poor the health care situation in this country is. However when you speak with people about their personal experience with their own health care, people seem pretty satisfied. Politicians want to claim that there is a problem that needs major work when that is not the case. There are plenty of issues with the current system of health care that our nation has. But the idea that the fix is to throw the baby out with the bathwater is not sound. This article was in The Business Journal. Enjoy the article.

The Business Journal

Nearly 70 percent of those responding to The Business Journal's most recent online survey give their company's health insurance plans at least a passing grade.

In fact, of those responding to the question, "What grade do you give your health insurance plan, and why?," 18 percent went so far as to rate their coverage with an A, saying they had no complaints. Another 22 percent gave their insurance a B, while 28 percent were able to give their plans a C.

A total of 22 percent gave their health plans a failing grade (either a D or F), with the other 8 percent saying their jobs didn't offer health benefits.

The survey, which generated 145 responses, ran live from Oct. 17-23. It was not designed to be a scientific sampling, but a snapshot of what respondents were thinking.

Continue reading the article here.

Dems' SCHIP to again set sail, perhaps this week

2007-10-24T08:32:00.001-07:00

This must be why the White House came out with their claim that half of America is not poor. It seems like the Democrats are going to try to pass this again and get as much money as they possibly can from the taxpayers. They just want to find out how much of an entitlement program they can saddle on the American people and take credit for a massive 'gift' come election time. I guess their job is trying to figure out how to spend everyone's money. It will be interesting to see what they come up with this time. If it is something other than 'tax and spend' I'll be surprised. Enjoy the article.

by Matthew Hay Brown

It may have gone down in a failed veto override last week. But it looks as if the plan to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program is coming back sooner rather than later---and in a form that will be familiar to all who have followed the debate.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said today that Democrats could bring the bill back to the floor as early as this week. And while Republican opponents have called for compromise on who would be covered and how much would it would cost, Hoyer suggested that the main difference this time would be better salesmanship.

"Some of the comments that have been made by members of the other side about their concerns ... we are prepared to try to address some of those concerns," Hoyer said today during his weekly pen-and-pad session with the Capitol press corps. "We don't think they were concerns that were legitimate. And we are prepared to address them to ensure the fact that everybody understands what the bill means."

Continue the article here.

White House: More than half of America 'not poor'

2007-10-23T21:00:00.000-07:00

Since the SCHIP bill has already been killed, this is a little late. However it is still a good point in the debate about the expansion of the SCHIP program. This goes over more of the details about what this expansion from the Democrats would actually do. If you believe the Congress' version of this program that was designed to help poor families, then you have to believe that half of Americans are poor.

There is a poverty issue in this country. I do not disagree that there are a lot of people who do not have a lot. However half of America can not be considered poor. The veto was the right thing to do for the children. Without the veto, these children that would get government funded health insurance would be saddled with another entitlement program that they would have to figure out how to pay for eventually.

It is a little late for the debate, but it is not any less appropriate. Enjoy the article.

by Mark Silva

Here's a cheerful note from the White House:

"Over half the families in America are not poor.''

That's a good glass half-full way of looking at the debate over health insurance for children. With the president having vetoed -- and having sustained that veto -- a bill offering health care to the children of families living at three times the federal poverty level, the White House maintains it is willing to find more money for health care for lower-income children.

Just not the middle class.

"Over Half The Families In America Are Not Poor,'' the White House announces today, in a release focusing on a statement by Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto -- who also is not poor.

"Congress' SCHIP Bill Would Cover The Majority Of American Families With Children,'' it notes of the State Children's Health Insurance Program legislation.

"The President vetoed Congress' SCHIP bill because they were asking for a policy that was bad, not because they were asking for too much money,'

Continue reading the article here.

Senate passes health funds that Bush opposes

2007-10-23T18:46:00.000-07:00

Here we go again with the spending in Congress. This Reuters article justifies the increased spending by saying that the Republican Congress spent too much too. This bill is for 9 billion dollars more than the President wanted. The spending includes money for research of things like cancer treatment. This is the problem with the pharmaceutical companies complaining that if we restrict how much money they can charge for prescription medications that they create, they won't have the money for research and development of new drugs. Much of the money for research and development comes from bills such as these. Once they develop the drugs, they then work in concert with the FDA for approval and the patent then ensures them years of a monopoly on a drug that was paid for by tax dollars.

I am not coming down either way on this issue because I do not know the details. Congress needs to start cutting spending somewhere (outside of defense). The only detail that really matters is that the President, who has not shown much problem with overspending himself, is not spending enough money according to the Congress. A billion dollars here, a billion dollars there, NINE billion dollars later and soon you'll be talking about real money. Anyway, it is veto proof likely because Congress wants to get something done to show for their work.

Congress does not want to give the president a blank check, but Congress wants the President to give them one it seems. This is for a $606 billion dollar program of which $152 BILLION is pork above what the entitlement programs require. It's your money. Enjoy the article.

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate on Tuesday ignored a veto threat and easily passed legislation that would spend more than President George W. Bush wants this year for social programs including health care, education and job training.

By a veto-proof margin of 75-19, the Senate passed the bill that would cost $606 billion in the fiscal year that started Oct 1. Of that total, $152 billion funds programs that Congress tinkers with each year.

The rest of the money largely pays for federal retirement and health-care programs for the poor and elderly that the government is obligated to pay, unless lawmakers take on the difficult and unpopular task of reforming them.

Last week, the White House complained the bill topped Bush's February funding request by about $9 billion.

"I really can't believe the president wants us to cut funding for cancer research; cut children from the rolls of Head Start (preschool program for children from low-income families)," said Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, who steered the bill through the Senate.

Continue the article here.

NHS failings give private medical insurance firms a boost

2007-10-23T07:41:00.000-07:00

This is an article about the National Health System (NHS) in the United Kingdom. Many times in America politicians will speak of the universal health care systems in the UK and Canada as models for how our system should be. This article indicates that people are abandoning the universal system in favor of private medical insurance plans. For the first time in a long time the number of people on private insurance has gone up. They get private insurance to ensure that they have appropriate care if they need it. This article indicates that there are many problems with a universal health care system run by the government. If we do not learn from the problems of the systems we hail as 'superior' to ours, we will suffer the same fate. While this likely is an article for an insurance company trying to sell more insurance, the issue is worth examining. Enjoy the article.

Fair Investment Company

More people are turning to the private medical sector to ensure that they and their families get a good level of healthcare rather than put their lives in the hands of a failing NHS system, according to recent findings from The Association of British Insurers (ABI).

For the first time in recent years, the number of subscribers to personal Private Medical Insurance (PMI) policies has gone up. The latest figures from ABI show that last year, 1,030,000 people subscribed to personal PMI policies, an increase of 1.8% from 1,012,000 in 2005. This figure is expected to rise significantly within the next few months.

The NHS has recently come under fire after a report into the outbreaks of superbug C-Difficile at the Maidenhead and Tunbridge Wells Hospitals NHS Trust revealed that at least 345 patients had died while in the care of the hospitals.

Continue the article here.

GOP Govs Discuss Health Care at Retreat

2007-10-22T21:06:00.000-07:00

This AP article goes over what is self-evident. While the Republican party has not historically had an interest in the national health care debate, the climate of the country is such that it is necessary to discuss programs. Since the AP is strict with its 'fair use' doctrine, I am only going to post a little bit of this very good and informative article. The GOP is going to try to make this their issue. Enjoy the article.

By SHANNON McCAFFREY

GREENSBORO, Ga. (AP) — Republicans have not been known as the party of health care, but to make headway in the next election they need to embrace what is fast emerging as the top domestic issue for many Americans. That was a key message at a Republican governor's retreat Sunday in eastern Georgia.

On the agenda at the Republican Governors Association retreat at Lake Oconee were initiatives to drive down health care costs through such plans as health savings accounts, the portability of health records and other free-market proposals designed to boost competition.

Continue reading the article here.

PROVIDING HEALTH CARE FOR KIDS WILL PAY OFF OVER TIME

2007-10-22T19:27:00.000-07:00

Here is another well meaning article that I disagree with. The author says that we should pay for 'health care' for kids because we already pay for 'health care' for adults. What she really says is that we need to pay for 'health insurance' for kids without saying it. Paying for health insurance will not make kids healthier. What kids need is an active lifestyle. What kids need is education in lifestyle choices to live more healthy. This will actually make a difference and pay off over time by making our society healthier. We do a disservice to our society if we pay for health insurance to provide care for kids who do not understand what a healthy lifestyle choice is. If we encourage kids to exercise and eat healthy in our public schools, we will have healthy children and we will lower the cost of health care in this country. While I disagree with this author, it is a well meaning article. I hope you enjoy.

Cynthia Tucker

Just four years ago, President Bush and the Republican Congress joined with Democrats to champion a program giving prescription drug coverage to senior citizens. It was poorly conceived and mega-expensive, an added entitlement for a group of Americans who already had good medical care. But Bush and Congress insisted that seniors deserved it.

Now, however, the president and many of his GOP colleagues adamantly oppose extending just a fraction of that good medical care to children. What sort of country lavishes health care on its old but withholds it from its young? Why do so many conservatives believe old folks are "deserving" but children are deadbeats?

Continue reading the article here.

Snatch victory from kids' health bill defeat

2007-10-22T05:37:00.001-07:00

I disagree with this article because it mainly talks about government run health care as a good thing. The author of this article says that Medicare is a government run program and it does a lot of good things. The problem that this author does not understand is that Medicare is going broke. Medicare in its current form will not be available to children who are born today. I certainly would like to be able to go on Medicare myself because the benefits are good and I don't have to pay as much for it.

Medicare going broke is only the first problem with it. Doctors and hospitals are beginning to limit the number of Medicare patients that they see because they can not make enough money with Medicare reimbursements to cover their costs. Their choice is to either limit the number of Medicare patients or go out of business. Private insurance companies reimburse these doctors and hospitals at a high enough rate that they can still stay open and treat some Medicare patients as well.

Another problem with Medicare is that the government is actively trying to privatize the current system that we have now. The new Medicare Advantage programs were created during the 2003 Act of Congress that also gave us the expensive Prescription Drug program. Those programs give private insurance companies incentive to offer free plans to people willing to give up their Medicare benefits from the government to enroll in a private HMO plan administered by private health insurance companies.

Basically Medicare is a very good program, but America can not afford it. It is not an example of government run health insurance that anyone should point to as reason government run health care is a good idea.

This article demonstrates the amount of misinformation people have about the quality and viability of certain programs run by the government. Enjoy the article.

Clarence Page
Washington

Some folks don't believe government-run health care will work -- even when it already is working.

Way back in the 1990s, then-Louisiana Sen. John Breaux was accosted in an airport by an elderly woman who pleaded, "Senator, don't you dare let the government get its hands on my Medicare!"

To paraphrase Rick from "Casablanca," she was misinformed.

Nevertheless, Breaux, always the gentleman, replied congenially, "Don't worry, madam, I won't."

That's a small illustration of how successful conservatives and the health insurance industry have been at demonizing anything that sounds like "government-run health care."

Continue the article here.

Freedom Works - The right approach to health-care reform

2007-10-20T16:21:00.000-07:00

This is an article written by John McCain for the National Review Online. I think this plan is the best available program for health care reform. He hits on all of the points that I believe need to be addressed for real and effective health care reform that reduces the cost of health care. He emphasizes the three main phases of lowering cost of insurance through tax credits, cutting prescription costs by offering generics quicker and allowing re importation of drugs from Canada and Mexico, and third TORT reform by limiting the amount that people can sue for an improper medical procedure. He also mentions the importance of choice for the military in the VA system. This is the best available plan to fix the problems of our health care system. Enjoy the article.

By John McCain

We face a choice on health care: We can reform the system through the mechanism that has made the American economy the envy of the world — free markets and competition — or we can promote more government intervention in the false hope that bigger government will be the elixir to our health-care ills.

I offer a conservative vision of health-care reform, while the Democrats offer their usual stew of government mandates and regulations, and the inevitable imposition of massive tax increases on Americans to pay for their “reform.” Back in 1993, I opposed President Clinton’s health-care proposal because I knew it would lead to more and more taxes, huge increases in federal spending, and the rationing of care for Americans. Today, I’m sure Democrats would gladly pass that plan in a heartbeat if they could only convince a skeptical American public to go along. But they can’t. Instead, Democrats are pushing incremental government control of health care, as we just witnessed with the S-CHIP debate, and hoping no one notices.

I reject this sleight-of-hand.

Continue to read this article here.

Unhealthy Health Care

2007-10-19T18:31:00.000-07:00

This is a very good analytical article about the state of the cost of health care in America. I agree with everything she says other than how she characterizes health insurance companies - Blue Cross in particular. Basically this author makes the case for moving insurance plans from the current 'pre-paid' health care plans to more basic major medical coverages through Health Savings Accounts or Health Reimbursement Accounts. Again, I agree that employers need to look into these new programs for cost savings because it is a good solution to reduce the cost associated with health care. However, people have been unwilling to part with their expensive copay plans with low deductibles and high premiums.

The reason I disagree with the author saying that the health insurance companies don't want people in these plans is that most of the major companies offer these plans too. They would prefer to limit their liability and place the burden of cost controls to the consumer in these 'consumer driven health care' plans. I agree that it is a good solution to the problem of rising costs of health care, but we need to get away from the idea as a culture that we 'need' 15 dollar co payments for a visit to the doctor. Enjoy this very good article.

Current plans are the equivalent of a $1,000 oil change.

By Linda Halderman

If Americans shopped for health insurance like they do for auto insurance, Blue Cross might need to use a cute green Gecko for marketing.

Eighty-percent of people who buy employer-sponsored health insurance incur less than $1,200 in yearly health-care expenses. Another 10-percent accrue expenses totaling $1,200-$3,000. The final 10-percent require more than $3,000 to cover their yearly health-care needs.

But the average group (employer-sponsored) health-insurance policy costs $350-$800 every month — up to $9,600 yearly per employee. The reason for this high cost, low value equation is simple: Blue Cross, CIGNA, HealthNet, and every other major carrier aren’t selling you health insurance. Their expensive premiums fund pre-paid health care.

Continue reading the article here.

Clinton says her health plan would not cover illegal immigrants

2007-10-19T08:58:00.000-07:00

This is a major problem with the concept of government sponsored universal health care. Illegal immigrants represent at least 12 million people in the USA. They already get treatment for emergency services and they know this. The proposal to grant citizenship to illegal aliens earlier this year would make them eligible for coverage then. In this article Hillary says it is a 'difficult choice' however it should not be. The choice from the federal government should be to enforce existing laws on the border. The concept of granting free coverage to individuals who have broken the law to be here would only encourage more illegal aliens. This proposal is already too expensive without covering the illegal aliens. Covering illegal aliens should not even be considered. Hillary does a wonderful job as a politician by not committing to enforce border laws. However, she is able to say that 'illegal aliens' will not be covered by the universal health care program. She does not say what happens when those illegal aliens are then given citizenship. Hillary's plan starts out expensive and gets oppressively more expensive as time moves forward. Enjoy the article.

From the AP

WASHINGTON: Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said that immigrants living in the United States illegally would not be covered by her proposed universal health care plan.

The New York senator said she supports basic health services for illegal immigrants, including hospitalization and treatment of acute conditions. But she said the magnitude of America's health care challenge means her universal coverage proposal would not cover the 12 million people living in the country illegally.

"People who are here legally deserve some better treatment and acceptance in the law than people who are not here legally," she said Thursday. "These are hard choices."

Continue reading the article here.

House fails to override children's insurance veto

2007-10-18T11:44:00.000-07:00

By Ruth Mantell, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The House of Representatives failed on Thursday to override President Bush's veto of a proposal to expand funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion, more than doubling the program.

The vote, 273-to-156 in favor of the override, missed the two-thirds of votes needed to override the veto. Among "yeas" were 229 Democrats and 44 Republicans. Voting against the override were 154 Republicans and two Democrats: Jim Marshall, D-Ga., and Gene Taylor, D-Miss. See how the House members voted.

Because the House failed to override, the Senate will not take up the matter.

Continue reading the article here.

The right question

2007-10-18T10:49:00.001-07:00

Here is another article on the issue of health care costs rather than numbers of uninsured. Enjoy the article.

From The Economist print edition
Welcome attention to the real problem

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN is famous for his straight talking, spelling out uncomfortable truths even when they do him political damage—whether on Iraq, torture, immigration or free trade. Now he has decided to deal with health care bluntly too: American health-care costs are much too high, he says, and the priority for any reform must be to bring them down.

Speaking on the campaign trail in Iowa on October 11th, Mr McCain put cost front and centre as he unveiled his own health plan. He noted that General Motors spends more on health than it does on steel: the price of each of its cars includes more than $1,500 for health care. Toyota's health-care costs come to about $200 a car.

Continue reading this article.

Labor group says health care plan doesn't address cost of insurance

2007-10-17T07:26:00.000-07:00

This article from the SF Chronical goes over the Governor's health care plan. The article says that this plan is similar to Hillary's plan in that it requires every family to buy health insurance just like drivers must purchase car insurance. The problem with this plan is that the cost of health care and health insurance won't be affected by this program. It will still be unaffordable, but you will force people to pay the costs anyway. It is a good article. Enjoy.

Carla Marinucci,Tom Chorneau, Chronicle Political Writers

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Powerful California labor interests, backed by a key Democratic operative, have declared war on Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ambitious health care proposal, a strategy that could pose problems for Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has made a similar plan a major component of her presidential campaign.

Chris Lehane, a former Clinton White House spokesman - a veteran Democratic operative dubbed "the master of disaster" for his skills in advocacy and crisis communications - has been hired by the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO to help shepherd labor's effort to oppose the governor's plan, said federation chief Art Pulaski this week.

Pulaski characterized Schwarzenegger's health care plan on Tuesday as unacceptable for working families and said organized labor strongly opposes the effort. He said it would require families to have health insurance, much as they currently must buy car insurance, without sufficiently reducing the price tag.

Continue reading the article here.

Poll: Mixed feelings on kids' health insurance

2007-10-15T20:18:00.000-07:00

This article shows that the country is pretty well split on this issue. This would be a good opportunity for people in Congress to vote their actual conscience rather than rely on some focus group to tell them how they should vote. Even with the sensationalist rhetoric that people against this proposal hate sick kids, the nation doesn't want spending to continue spiraling out of control. Enjoy the article.

By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans trust Democrats to handle the issue of children's health insurance more than President Bush, but they agree with the president that government aid should be targeted to low-income families, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows.

Two days before the Democratic-controlled House attempts to override Bush's veto of a five-year, $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the poll shows that opinions on the issue are mixed.

Fifty-two percent of respondents say they have more confidence in Democrats to deal with the issue, compared with 32% for Bush.

Slim majorities back two positions at the core of the president's opposition to the expansion:

Continue reading the article here.

Business group urges end of employer-based health care

2007-10-15T16:59:00.000-07:00

Here is another article that shows the end of employer based health care system. It makes a lot of good points. It mentions that the rising costs of health insurance premium threaten the growth of the economy. It also mentions that people should have more control over their own health insurance. I did not think that this was even on the radar in the health care debate. I thought that the employer based programs were entrenched in the US health care system. This article is from a business group. It is an interesting read. I don't disagree with the article, but something must be done for those people who might be declined coverage due to health conditions as an individual. The good thing about the employer based model is that everyone qualifies no matter their health condition. Many states are adopting 'high risk pools' for individuals who would not qualify for health insurance on their own. Maybe this is a feasible solution, but it will be a huge shift in the way health care is delivered in America if it happens. Enjoy the article.

Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal

Health care costs threaten future economic growth in the U.S. and today's employer-based system is faltering and should be replaced by an insurance system driven by consumer choice, according to a report released Monday.

The report released by the Committee for Economic Development, a non-profit organization of more than 200 business leaders and university presidents, says employer insurance is failing "because of rapid cost increases and the inability to provide high-value care."

Robert Chess, chairman of San Carlos-based Nektar Therapeutics (NASDAQ:NKTR), trustee of the Committee for Economic Development (CED) and co-chair of its health-care subcommittee, said, "There are successful models for consumer choice of insurance plans, including the federal employees plan. The CED proposal builds on the best of those ideas and adds some new ones to achieve affordable, sustainable, quality coverage for all Americans."

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2007/10/15/daily14.html

Broder: Momentum builds for shift away from employer-based health care

2007-10-15T06:43:00.000-07:00

This article from the Salt Lake Tribune goes over the change in the health care industry. For decades health care has been distributed through voluntary employer medical benefits. The problem is that some people are unemployed or employed by a small company that does not offer any benefits at all. As a result, the industry is shifting its focus on individual coverage for health insurance. This article goes over that in detail. Enjoy the article.

David Broder

WASHINGTON - As the United States prepares for the next great debate on its ailing health care system, support is growing for a shift from the traditional employer-based financing to publicly subsidized individual health insurance.

A measure co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Republican Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah to convert to such a system has attracted a total of nine sponsors. Last week, presidential candidate John McCain introduced a variant that is a partial step in that direction.

And this week the Committee for Economic Development (CED), a high-powered business group, will give a strong push to the idea with a report saying in blunt terms that business can no longer afford to pay the rising costs and lacks the clout to curb the forces that are driving health care inflation.

Continue reading the article here.

FACTBOX -- Health care plans of presidential candidates

2007-10-14T09:10:00.001-07:00

This is a breakdown of the positions of all the Presidential candidates by Reuters. I think it is a very good review of all the plans. I was planning to do the same thing myself, but I'll just post their link here for my visitors to enjoy. Here is the article.

(Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain this week outlined a proposal to provide Americans with a refundable $2,500 tax credit as an incentive to buy health insurance.

McCain's plan offers voluntary solutions to fixing health care in the country, where high costs have left millions unable to pay for health insurance. Several other candidates have also suggested how they would provide coverage for the 47 million people in the United States without health insurance. Following are some health care proposals from the leading candidates.

Continue reading the article here.