Too Early to Celebrate the Health Care Reform Lawsuits!

Thanks to the fine work of the Attorney General in Florida and Mark Levine, Esq. of the Landmark Legal Foundation, and to the great legal mind of Federal District Court Judge Henry Hudson. The President’s use of the commerce clause to implement two key portions of health care reform may be hampered. These are the individual mandate and the penalty for failing to buy insurance.

But wait!

The following features of the law are still intact:
• No preexisting condition limitations
• Limitations on the premium differentiation across enrollment groups
• Removal of co pays and deductibles on preventive care, effectively killing savings accounts and major medical only plans

Those of us for rational market reform should not lose sight of how war is waged. The Waxmans and Kennedys have worked for 70 years to incrementally change the minds of Americans about government’s role in health care.

They brought us Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for the poor, Medicare for those with disabilities, Medicaid for those with disabilities, CHIP for children, CHIP/Family Care for Adults, and Medicaid for individuals…

The single payer crowd has long understood the concept of eating an elephant one bite at time.

Since this lawsuit leaves the key provisions of the health care law in place, that only work with an individual mandate:
• Premiums will increase drastically—when only the sickest and the most risk adverse are the only ones with insurance, insurance costs more.
• If one limits the price differential between age and sex groups for purchase then the healthy, whose experience is not considered will not take insurance and the cost will increase.
• Citing the failure of the program without the individual mandate, looking to increased numbers of uninsured and increased cost the only option will be single payer.

While we celebrate, they continue to eat the elephant.

What we conservative mistake for overreaching may, in fact, have been a brilliant use of the long confidence game—the long Con.

There are short Cons and long Cons. Short Cons are games like three card Monte and letters telling you have won. The long Con is more elegant and takes patience. The mark (victim) must feel that they have won or are smarter than the confidence man along the way.

We, the Marks, now feel that we are the winner when the confidence man has us positioned to handover our wallets…control of our health care in the final move of this long Con.

Please don’t accept partial wins and open up the champagne. Let’s repeal all of this monster. The only thing that stops a confidence man it his tracks is a two letter word—NO!

How Stupid Do American's Look to Politicians and the PRess

So today as I read my e-copy of AHIP' Hi-Wire Connection, a clipping service of America's Health Insurance Plans, I had to ask myself, "How stupid do the press and politicians really think we are?"

The first article listed was an AP story on how Americans receive too many tests and are over treated, especially at the end of life entitled, "Overtreated: More Medical Care Isn't Always Better." This by-lined piece was full of anecdotal information about families who complain about the treatment their family members received, including a radiologist who complained that his daughter had too many abdominal scans after her car accident. How many of you see this as a legal problem not a medical problem? If he weren't a radiologist, do we really believe that the ER would have been as interested in practicing defensive medicine? Or the family that complained that their dying family member received an unnecessary test. So talk to your physician.

This article was so devoid of statistics. The most significant attempt at citing statistics was a mention that 1/3 of all test are proved to be unnecessary. Doesn't that mean that 2/3 of the tests were needed. What portion of the 1/3 are found to be unnecessary though hindsight, but could not be predicted as such prior to a negative result.

At the same time that we are being told by the government that we should work later into life and be healthier, a blanket statement is made about PSAs for men over 75 and the idea that treating someone at that age for prostate cancer is unnecessary. Should not that be determine by the vitality of each individual 75 year old?

The second story was about how scientist are debating whether or not recessions are good for health. Oh, please! I am supposed to believe that reduced air pollution due to idled factories and fewer commuters means we as a society are healthier. What about the increased stress and pollution from having to fly or drive to jobs outside of ones community just to keep enough money coming in to protect ones home and health insurance premiums. Or the stress of constant job hunting? Or are suicide rates also looked at? Or what about mental health versus physical health?

Interestingly enough, these fine observations in the two articles are coming from the National Quality Forum and the American Medical Association. The National Quality Forum which is listed as a non-profit has received $10m in 2009, and will receive that amount per year until 2012 from the federal government to "help establish a portfolio of quality and efficiency measures that will allow the federal government to more clearly see how and whether healthcare spending is achieving the best results for patients and taxpayers. The contract is part of a provision in the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 that directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services 'to contract with a consensus-based entity, such as the National Quality Forum.'" In English, to figure out how to ration health care as the federal government becomes increasing involved in paying for it.

The American Medical Association should be recognized as a decidedly left wing group that represents only 19% of all practicing physicians. Nineteen percent is a generous estimate, since many of its members are students, residents and research fellows whose lack of real world experience has not yet allowed them to see how irrelevant this group may be to a practicing physician.

Personally, I would rather have a group of practicing physicians, who deal with real people and real families daily making the rules, than researchers and a fringe group of physicians and medical students. And forgive my consumerism, but I think that patients should be a part of any committee deciding policy.

Name one other industry that so devalues the customer's opinion? We are not stupid! We are consumers! Consumer of a good that could cost us our lives.

2009 The Year Prostitution Become Legal and Taxpayer Funded

As I reviewed the proposed Health Care Reform bill, senate version, it became apparent that the true affect of this bill is the legalization of prostitution in the Senate. Votes were bought and paid for.

Harry Reid served the role of Pimp in Chief. Can't you just picture him in a full length white fur, with a tricked out Escalade? Just a few examples of how our Senators proved they were easy, but not cheap:

Mary Landrieu $300 million, weren't you moved when she proudly proclaimed it wasn't $100 million, but $300?
Chris Dodd $100 million for a hospital to be named later
Ben Nelson $100 million in Medicaid expansion costs matched at 100% Federal share
Other notable sales:
Florida's exemption from losing Medicare Advantage $4 billion
Michigan's exemption for Blue Cross Blue Shield of MI from insurance taxes
Connecticut's exemption for Mutual of Omaha from insurance taxes

The only money the government has comes from our pockets (federal taxes--right front pocket, state taxes--left front pocket, county and local--back right and left pockets). I don't know about you, but I don't even remember being kissed.