The SCHIP debacle continues in Washington. There have been too many gullible Republicans who went along with this who apparently were frightened to death of the “sound bite” about them hating children.
Children would now be defined as people under age 25. That would happen in all states, and we know that many would continue the perversion of including adults as well. Remember that Wisconsin now spends 75% of its funding on adults, not children!
The income level provisions of this travesty have been increased to 400% of the federal poverty level, up from 200%. That is more than $80,000 for a family of four! Imagine just how many employers will appear on the next BadgerCare “embarrassment list” with that income benchmark in place.
SCHIP would become a permanent entitlement program whereas it has been forced through periodic re-authorization up until now. Imagine how this entitlement will spin out-of-control if the President would sign the bill.
Funding comes from a diverse group:
We all understand that the tax on tobacco products will increase in order to pay for this largesse. That goose will die off quickly enough, so many other sources will ultimately be tapped.
We didn’t know, however, that private insurance policies would be taxed as well. This “fair share” tax would begin at $375 million in year one, but we all know that number will pale in comparison to what we’ll see in five years and beyond. This on top of the "crowding out" of private insurance plans every time a person elects to be part of their state's SCHIP. Seems that "big insurance" was squarely in the cross hairs as the Democrats sought to incrementally increase the numbers of people on "government run health programs".
And, Congress "bravely" takes on the senior lobby by taking money away from the successful Medicare Advantage program that is now used by some 8 million seniors in lieu of regular Medicare plans. The CBO analysis indicates that as many as 3 million of the current users will be forced out of the programs by the funding reductions. These programs were, of course, made possible by insurers coming to the table as the original program intended to secure better levels of coverage and coverage in outlying areas. "Big insurance" was again in the cross hairs without regard to the seniors who were enrolled in this better deal.
The private sector is about to take a big hit from the liberals.
It is imperative that we let President Bush know we want him to hold his position and veto this abomination when it finds its way to his desk. It appears that his veto has a good chance of standing given that the House passed its version by just 225 to 204. Many congressional representatives would have to reverse their positions in order to sustain a veto.
In the meantime, each of us must contact our elected representatives who voted for this travesty to advise that we are disgusted with their work product and to assure them that we’ll remember through multiple election cycles. And, we need to talk with those who voted the right way so they aren't frightened into changing their vote if the President vetoes the bill.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Saturday, July 21, 2007
SCHIP Expansion is Wolf in Sheep's Clothing...
How does this continue to happen? How can people continue to have the wool (no pun intended) pulled over their eyes…other than by willful ignorance?
The threat of Presidential veto of the newly proposed SCHIP expansion has again met with the usual press reports. He is denying the poor children their rightful coverage, etc., etc. It is interesting that, even with the Bush-bashing that has gone on for years, the current Congress rates even lower amongst the general population.
This is not about the children! The truth of this matter is simply that this expansion of SCHIP (BadgerCare in Wisconsin) is a ploy to include more adults in the program rather than more children. The additional children we all want in this program can be afforded under the President’s proposed SCHIP increase. But, in order to pervert this well-performing program, those who would see government-run healthcare are using this program as their “Trojan Horse”.
They reason that by adding multiple billions of dollars, more and more states (like Wisconsin that already uses 75% of the current funding to bring adults into the program) can use the increased funding to apply to adults. This happens as the qualifying poverty-level income multiples are increased. This permits people earning far in excess of poverty-level incomes to participate in government-funded health care plans. As this group increases, the private sector health plans lose more and more people…exactly what those who seek a total single payer system desire.
This is back-door socialism. It appears there are enough ignorant Republicans who’ve signed on to support this travesty to at least have gotten this through the Senate. Among those Republicans is Sen. Hatch (R-Utah) who spoke at the Capital Conference hosted by the National Association of Health Underwriters early in 2007. He spoke eloquently as to how this perversion wouldn’t be permitted to happen. He must’ve found some politically-expedient reason for supporting it. This “go along to get along” mentality is a serious threat to us conservatives. And, any number of liberal Democrats and middle-of-the-road Republicans are happy.
As an aside, the tobacco tax increase that has been included as the funding mechanism will succeed in putting cigars out of the reach of mere mortals. With the tax increase going from the capped amount of $0.05 per cigar to a capped amount of $10.00 per cigar, only the “fat cats” will puff cigars. This staggering Federal increase coupled with the hefty cigarette/cigar tax increases added by many states, will effectively kill that industry. Tobacco is a legal product by the way. This reeks of hypocrisy…but why should any of us be surprised at that?
That “industry” is the goose laying all these golden eggs, and it will be killed by the “do-gooders”. We’ll then all awaken to find ourselves taxed to cover the certain budgetary shortfalls thus created by these mandated programs. Back-door socialism will have created government-run health care and we’ll be unable to do anything about it.
This must be headed off in the House of Representatives even with President Bush’s stated position of vetoing the bill in its present form.
The threat of Presidential veto of the newly proposed SCHIP expansion has again met with the usual press reports. He is denying the poor children their rightful coverage, etc., etc. It is interesting that, even with the Bush-bashing that has gone on for years, the current Congress rates even lower amongst the general population.
This is not about the children! The truth of this matter is simply that this expansion of SCHIP (BadgerCare in Wisconsin) is a ploy to include more adults in the program rather than more children. The additional children we all want in this program can be afforded under the President’s proposed SCHIP increase. But, in order to pervert this well-performing program, those who would see government-run healthcare are using this program as their “Trojan Horse”.
They reason that by adding multiple billions of dollars, more and more states (like Wisconsin that already uses 75% of the current funding to bring adults into the program) can use the increased funding to apply to adults. This happens as the qualifying poverty-level income multiples are increased. This permits people earning far in excess of poverty-level incomes to participate in government-funded health care plans. As this group increases, the private sector health plans lose more and more people…exactly what those who seek a total single payer system desire.
This is back-door socialism. It appears there are enough ignorant Republicans who’ve signed on to support this travesty to at least have gotten this through the Senate. Among those Republicans is Sen. Hatch (R-Utah) who spoke at the Capital Conference hosted by the National Association of Health Underwriters early in 2007. He spoke eloquently as to how this perversion wouldn’t be permitted to happen. He must’ve found some politically-expedient reason for supporting it. This “go along to get along” mentality is a serious threat to us conservatives. And, any number of liberal Democrats and middle-of-the-road Republicans are happy.
As an aside, the tobacco tax increase that has been included as the funding mechanism will succeed in putting cigars out of the reach of mere mortals. With the tax increase going from the capped amount of $0.05 per cigar to a capped amount of $10.00 per cigar, only the “fat cats” will puff cigars. This staggering Federal increase coupled with the hefty cigarette/cigar tax increases added by many states, will effectively kill that industry. Tobacco is a legal product by the way. This reeks of hypocrisy…but why should any of us be surprised at that?
That “industry” is the goose laying all these golden eggs, and it will be killed by the “do-gooders”. We’ll then all awaken to find ourselves taxed to cover the certain budgetary shortfalls thus created by these mandated programs. Back-door socialism will have created government-run health care and we’ll be unable to do anything about it.
This must be headed off in the House of Representatives even with President Bush’s stated position of vetoing the bill in its present form.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Health Care Reform or Insurance Reform - The Political Reality
A guest Blog posted on behalf of Terry Murphy:
Democrats in the Senate just recently announced their health care reform plan known as Healthy Wisconsin. In fact, just one day after providing the details of the plan, they put their idea into their version of the State Budget and passed the plan out of the Senate. Their reform plan is theoretically one step away from being sent to the Governor’s desk to be signed into law. This is the most sweeping and expensive legislation in our state’s history and the vast majority of Wisconsin citizens have no idea the plan even exists, let alone what the plan will do to them. How could this possibly happen? Well, that’s a discussion for another day. Instead, the question we ask today is why are all of the government reform plans reforming insurance rather than reforming health care?
Both the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) and a study found in the New England Journal of Medicine show that just 12 cents out of every insurance dollar goes to the cost of insurance administration, leaving the vast majority of the insurance dollar (88 cents) going to the cost of health care. While we recognize health care costs include some administrative costs of their own, the fact remains that the vast majority of insurance premiums collected are spent on health care, not the cost of financing such care through insurance. Knowing this fact, why would anyone devote all of their time and effort in trying to reform how we finance our health care (through insurance), rather than trying to reform actual health care costs? Healthy Wisconsin, like nearly all of the other reform plans introduced in the last year, focuses on how we finance health care by replacing our current insurance system with a government run taxing system. Even if their taxing approach actually reduced some of the insurance administrative costs (the 12 cents), because their plan doesn’t address the cost of health care (the 88 cents), health care will still be unaffordable, making either the insurance or the taxes to pay for such care unaffordable.
Senate Democrats estimate an initial payroll tax of 16% in order to pay for their program. First, this estimate makes a bold assumption that all health care providers (doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, etc) will voluntarily reduce their costs by about 40%. Does anybody in Wisconsin believe this assumption is realistic? Therefore, like the Massachusetts reform plan, the 16% payroll tax estimate will likely be much higher. Secondly, since 2000, health care inflation averaged 12% per year, compared to increases in US Household Income at 3.7%. A provision of Healthy Wisconsin states that health care increases in Wisconsin should not exceed the national average. This means that if health care inflation remains at 12%, payroll taxes for Healthy Wisconsin are guaranteed to increase each year, far outpacing what Wisconsin residents can afford. By the second year of their plan, payroll taxes would have to increase to nearly 18%, and by the third year, the payroll tax would balloon to over 20%. Exactly how is this plan supposed to help Wisconsin citizens?
The problem with Healthy Wisconsin and all of the other government based reform plans is that none of them set out to reform health care costs. Why? Perhaps the answer is that reforming health care costs is not “politically” attainable. To reform, or control health care costs, government has but two options. The first option would require the government to get control of health care providers by either dictating what they can charge or using the more radical approach and taking over the health care providers like the Canadian system. Regardless of what public opinion says about wanting “universal” health care, politicians know that Wisconsin citizens do not want government involved in their health care. Therefore, this option is not one likely to be found in a health care reform plan. However, if any of the government based reform plans like Healthy Wisconsin ever became law, as health care costs continued to increase, thereby increasing taxes, this would be the only option left for government to control health care costs. A scary thought indeed.
The second option would be for Government to let the market work to control health care costs, through transparency and competition. Unfortunately, for many politicians, this option takes far too long to work, and mistakenly gives the appearance of not doing anything in the eyes of voters. Politicians believe voters are looking for a silver bullet and the fact is there are no silver bullets in health care reform. The other problem with this second option is that it cannot be put into a 30 second sound bite that politicians could campaign on. It is truly sad that we have politicized health care reform, and that the only option that will work is not even being considered by many politicians because it isn’t politically acceptable. This is wrong for Wisconsin and wrong for Wisconsin consumers.
A recent report showed that Wisconsin enjoys some of the highest quality health care in the nation. Most surveys find that the majority of citizens like the health insurance plan they have purchased. Wisconsin citizens are smarter than some politicians give them credit for. The government can play a large role in this second option, by working to help the private market work better in controlling health care costs. The Coalition for Sensible Health Care Solutions has provided a blueprint for health care reform in Wisconsin. It works to address health care costs, and yet still works to improve the efficiency of our insurance industry. It is this second option that should be considered by any legislator who doesn’t care about politics, but instead cares about making health care affordable for his or her constituents.
We have to stop wasting our time, effort and resources with attempts to exclusively reform insurance only because it is politically acceptable. Instead, we have to start trying to reform health care costs and work to improve the efficiency of insurance because it is the right thing to do. Each year, Wisconsin consumers face another double digit increase in health care costs because we have avoided the second option. We cannot afford to wait any longer.
Terry Murphy is the owner of East Towne Insurance Services, Inc. (an employee benefits brokerage firm in Milwaukee). Mr. Murphy is also the Legislative Committee Chairman of the Wisconsin Association of Health Underwriters (WAHU). WAHU is an association of insurance professionals who work directly with consumers in the financing of their health care. WAHU is a chapter of the National Association of Health Underwriters covering the insurance needs of over 100 Million Americans.
Democrats in the Senate just recently announced their health care reform plan known as Healthy Wisconsin. In fact, just one day after providing the details of the plan, they put their idea into their version of the State Budget and passed the plan out of the Senate. Their reform plan is theoretically one step away from being sent to the Governor’s desk to be signed into law. This is the most sweeping and expensive legislation in our state’s history and the vast majority of Wisconsin citizens have no idea the plan even exists, let alone what the plan will do to them. How could this possibly happen? Well, that’s a discussion for another day. Instead, the question we ask today is why are all of the government reform plans reforming insurance rather than reforming health care?
Both the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) and a study found in the New England Journal of Medicine show that just 12 cents out of every insurance dollar goes to the cost of insurance administration, leaving the vast majority of the insurance dollar (88 cents) going to the cost of health care. While we recognize health care costs include some administrative costs of their own, the fact remains that the vast majority of insurance premiums collected are spent on health care, not the cost of financing such care through insurance. Knowing this fact, why would anyone devote all of their time and effort in trying to reform how we finance our health care (through insurance), rather than trying to reform actual health care costs? Healthy Wisconsin, like nearly all of the other reform plans introduced in the last year, focuses on how we finance health care by replacing our current insurance system with a government run taxing system. Even if their taxing approach actually reduced some of the insurance administrative costs (the 12 cents), because their plan doesn’t address the cost of health care (the 88 cents), health care will still be unaffordable, making either the insurance or the taxes to pay for such care unaffordable.
Senate Democrats estimate an initial payroll tax of 16% in order to pay for their program. First, this estimate makes a bold assumption that all health care providers (doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, etc) will voluntarily reduce their costs by about 40%. Does anybody in Wisconsin believe this assumption is realistic? Therefore, like the Massachusetts reform plan, the 16% payroll tax estimate will likely be much higher. Secondly, since 2000, health care inflation averaged 12% per year, compared to increases in US Household Income at 3.7%. A provision of Healthy Wisconsin states that health care increases in Wisconsin should not exceed the national average. This means that if health care inflation remains at 12%, payroll taxes for Healthy Wisconsin are guaranteed to increase each year, far outpacing what Wisconsin residents can afford. By the second year of their plan, payroll taxes would have to increase to nearly 18%, and by the third year, the payroll tax would balloon to over 20%. Exactly how is this plan supposed to help Wisconsin citizens?
The problem with Healthy Wisconsin and all of the other government based reform plans is that none of them set out to reform health care costs. Why? Perhaps the answer is that reforming health care costs is not “politically” attainable. To reform, or control health care costs, government has but two options. The first option would require the government to get control of health care providers by either dictating what they can charge or using the more radical approach and taking over the health care providers like the Canadian system. Regardless of what public opinion says about wanting “universal” health care, politicians know that Wisconsin citizens do not want government involved in their health care. Therefore, this option is not one likely to be found in a health care reform plan. However, if any of the government based reform plans like Healthy Wisconsin ever became law, as health care costs continued to increase, thereby increasing taxes, this would be the only option left for government to control health care costs. A scary thought indeed.
The second option would be for Government to let the market work to control health care costs, through transparency and competition. Unfortunately, for many politicians, this option takes far too long to work, and mistakenly gives the appearance of not doing anything in the eyes of voters. Politicians believe voters are looking for a silver bullet and the fact is there are no silver bullets in health care reform. The other problem with this second option is that it cannot be put into a 30 second sound bite that politicians could campaign on. It is truly sad that we have politicized health care reform, and that the only option that will work is not even being considered by many politicians because it isn’t politically acceptable. This is wrong for Wisconsin and wrong for Wisconsin consumers.
A recent report showed that Wisconsin enjoys some of the highest quality health care in the nation. Most surveys find that the majority of citizens like the health insurance plan they have purchased. Wisconsin citizens are smarter than some politicians give them credit for. The government can play a large role in this second option, by working to help the private market work better in controlling health care costs. The Coalition for Sensible Health Care Solutions has provided a blueprint for health care reform in Wisconsin. It works to address health care costs, and yet still works to improve the efficiency of our insurance industry. It is this second option that should be considered by any legislator who doesn’t care about politics, but instead cares about making health care affordable for his or her constituents.
We have to stop wasting our time, effort and resources with attempts to exclusively reform insurance only because it is politically acceptable. Instead, we have to start trying to reform health care costs and work to improve the efficiency of insurance because it is the right thing to do. Each year, Wisconsin consumers face another double digit increase in health care costs because we have avoided the second option. We cannot afford to wait any longer.
Terry Murphy is the owner of East Towne Insurance Services, Inc. (an employee benefits brokerage firm in Milwaukee). Mr. Murphy is also the Legislative Committee Chairman of the Wisconsin Association of Health Underwriters (WAHU). WAHU is an association of insurance professionals who work directly with consumers in the financing of their health care. WAHU is a chapter of the National Association of Health Underwriters covering the insurance needs of over 100 Million Americans.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Google Could Revolutionize Healthcare...
Google has been thought to be considering working on ways in which people could store their health records on Google and have them readily available for personal needs. It has been quite careful about letting outsiders in on its plans but has just taken action that could suggest this idea is gaining traction.
Google recently appointed its new Health Advisory Council and it is comprised of some 22 very heavy hitters:
Dean Ornish, Founder and President, Preventive Medicine Research Institute
Douglas Bell, Research Scientist, RAND Health, RAND Corporation
Delos M. Cosgrove, CEO, Cleveland Clinic
Molly Coye, CEO, HealthTech
Dan Crippen, Former Congressional Budget Office Director & Reagan White House Asst.
Linda M. Dillman, EVP, Risk Management, Benefits & Sustainability, Wal-Mart
John Halamka, CIO, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center & Harvard Medical School
Bernadine Healy, Former NIH Head, Health Editor & Columnist, U.S.News & World Report
Bernie Hengesbaugh, COO, American Medical Association
Douglas E. Henley, EVP, American Academy of Family Physicians
David Kessler, Former FDA Commissioner, Vice Chancellor-Medical Affairs & Dean, School of Medicine, UCSF
John Lumpkin, Sr. VP, Director of Health Care Group, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
John Rother, Group Exec. Officer of Policy & Strategy, AARP
Anna-Lisa Silvestre, VP, Online Services, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
Greg Simon, President, FasterCures
Mark D. Smith, President & CEO, The California HealthCare Foundation
Paul Tang, Internist & VP, Chief Medical Officer, Palo Alto Medical Foundation & Chairman, Board of Directors, American Medical Informatics Association
Sharon Terry, President & CEO, Genetic Alliance
John Tooker, EVP & CEO, American College of Physicians
Doug Ulman, President, Lance Armstrong Foundation
Robert M. Wachter, Professor of Medicine, UCSF, Assoc. Chairman, UCSF Department of Medicine, Chief – Medical Service, UCSF Medical Center
Matthew Zachary, Founder & Executive Director, The I’m Too Young for This! Cancer Foundation for Young Adults
The private sector is stepping up its game!
Google is among the most innovative organizations in the world and should not be undersold as to the potential for success in this undertaking…if that’s what it is.
Google recently appointed its new Health Advisory Council and it is comprised of some 22 very heavy hitters:
Dean Ornish, Founder and President, Preventive Medicine Research Institute
Douglas Bell, Research Scientist, RAND Health, RAND Corporation
Delos M. Cosgrove, CEO, Cleveland Clinic
Molly Coye, CEO, HealthTech
Dan Crippen, Former Congressional Budget Office Director & Reagan White House Asst.
Linda M. Dillman, EVP, Risk Management, Benefits & Sustainability, Wal-Mart
John Halamka, CIO, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center & Harvard Medical School
Bernadine Healy, Former NIH Head, Health Editor & Columnist, U.S.News & World Report
Bernie Hengesbaugh, COO, American Medical Association
Douglas E. Henley, EVP, American Academy of Family Physicians
David Kessler, Former FDA Commissioner, Vice Chancellor-Medical Affairs & Dean, School of Medicine, UCSF
John Lumpkin, Sr. VP, Director of Health Care Group, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
John Rother, Group Exec. Officer of Policy & Strategy, AARP
Anna-Lisa Silvestre, VP, Online Services, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
Greg Simon, President, FasterCures
Mark D. Smith, President & CEO, The California HealthCare Foundation
Paul Tang, Internist & VP, Chief Medical Officer, Palo Alto Medical Foundation & Chairman, Board of Directors, American Medical Informatics Association
Sharon Terry, President & CEO, Genetic Alliance
John Tooker, EVP & CEO, American College of Physicians
Doug Ulman, President, Lance Armstrong Foundation
Robert M. Wachter, Professor of Medicine, UCSF, Assoc. Chairman, UCSF Department of Medicine, Chief – Medical Service, UCSF Medical Center
Matthew Zachary, Founder & Executive Director, The I’m Too Young for This! Cancer Foundation for Young Adults
The private sector is stepping up its game!
Google is among the most innovative organizations in the world and should not be undersold as to the potential for success in this undertaking…if that’s what it is.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Americans Living in Canada Comment on Health Care...
A recent survey of some 310 Americans who have experienced use of health care services in both the U.S. and Canada produced expected results. The full survey results are available here.
The overall result had 74% rating the overall quality of U.S. health care as excellent or good, while 50% of the same group gave Canadian health care a similar rating.
The nod was given to U.S. health care in the areas of accessibility, timeliness, quality, and available technology. Canada scored higher in the areas of personal cost of both health care and pharmaceuticals. Obviously, the government pays the costs of permissible care in Canada, so it was expected that personal financial exposure would be limited.
Wait times in Canada were comparatively quite long with people citing too few specialists and too little government funding.
As government funding was exhausted in Canada, services were rationed by imposition of longer wait times and cancelled surgeries.
This group had experienced U.S. health care within two to five years of the time of the survey and had been covered by Canadian health care since the time of their arrival in that country. The respondents were scattered across the provinces with higher concentrations where the population was greater.
The overall result had 74% rating the overall quality of U.S. health care as excellent or good, while 50% of the same group gave Canadian health care a similar rating.
The nod was given to U.S. health care in the areas of accessibility, timeliness, quality, and available technology. Canada scored higher in the areas of personal cost of both health care and pharmaceuticals. Obviously, the government pays the costs of permissible care in Canada, so it was expected that personal financial exposure would be limited.
Wait times in Canada were comparatively quite long with people citing too few specialists and too little government funding.
As government funding was exhausted in Canada, services were rationed by imposition of longer wait times and cancelled surgeries.
This group had experienced U.S. health care within two to five years of the time of the survey and had been covered by Canadian health care since the time of their arrival in that country. The respondents were scattered across the provinces with higher concentrations where the population was greater.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Senate Dems Use Interesting Tactic to Mount Health Plan...
Senate Democrats used an embargo of the press as they pushed an 11th hour health plan proposal out front of every other proposal. They scheduled an informational hearing for 11:00AM today (Monday), but refused to release details of their health plan proposal until Monday morning.
That seems a very strange way to encourage true debate on this most critical subject. Why, if your health plan is a genuine proposal and worthy of debate, would you keep the information to yourselves. How can we even think of this plan as worthy given the manner in which it is being exposed to public scrutiny?
It appears to be an extension of the Wisconsin Employee Trust Fund package of health plans with provisions for taxes on both employers and employees to pay for the program. The tax rates proposed appear, at first glance, to be low considering that the coverage is quite extensive with minimal co-payments and small deductibles. The plan would be made mandatory for all citizens of Wisconsin except those who are covered under existing federal plans or BadgerCare.
We encourage debate on all proposals…but we need to know the details of each well before the debate begins. These same Senate Dems plan to vote on the Budget Bill on Tuesday, and this plan is now going to be part of that Budget Bill. It appears to be simply a ploy! They cannot be sincere in this effort using such tactics.
That seems a very strange way to encourage true debate on this most critical subject. Why, if your health plan is a genuine proposal and worthy of debate, would you keep the information to yourselves. How can we even think of this plan as worthy given the manner in which it is being exposed to public scrutiny?
It appears to be an extension of the Wisconsin Employee Trust Fund package of health plans with provisions for taxes on both employers and employees to pay for the program. The tax rates proposed appear, at first glance, to be low considering that the coverage is quite extensive with minimal co-payments and small deductibles. The plan would be made mandatory for all citizens of Wisconsin except those who are covered under existing federal plans or BadgerCare.
We encourage debate on all proposals…but we need to know the details of each well before the debate begins. These same Senate Dems plan to vote on the Budget Bill on Tuesday, and this plan is now going to be part of that Budget Bill. It appears to be simply a ploy! They cannot be sincere in this effort using such tactics.
Friday, June 22, 2007
BadgerCare Publishes List to Embarrass Employers...
Wisconsin offers its version of the SCHIP programs called BadgerCare as we’ve discussed previously. Wisconsin has received approval from the federal Department of Health and Human Services to offer BadgerCare to adults as well as to the children for which the program was originally intended.
As a matter of fact, The DHHS Secretary, Michael Leavitt, points out that 75% of the Wisconsin program’s funds are spent on adults. Another tidbit is that Wisconsin covers nearly twice as many adults as children. Not bad for a children’s health program, huh?
Since the state wants to embarrass employers with employees participating in BadgerCare, we’ll certainly assist by adding the link to the list at http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/badgercare/pdfs/employers0307.pdf .
Obviously, since “everyone” hates Wal-Mart from what I read in the news, Wal-Mart is at the top of this nasty list with 897 employees. Never mind that Wal-Mart employs more than 27,800 people in Wisconsin, just ridicule them for this 3.2% that managed to obtain BadgerCare.
How could that happen? Well, BadgerCare has established some rules that may explain this “unintended consequence”. First, if an employer offers its employees health insurance coverage but doesn’t pay at least 80% of the premium cost, the employee may be eligible. If the employee is earning less than 185% of the federal poverty level, then that person and his or her dependents are eligible for BadgerCare.
How much is 185% of the federal poverty level? For a single person, it is $1,574 per month. For a husband and wife with two children, it is $3,183 per month. For a family of 8, it is $5,329 per month.
Could it be that BadgerCare is too permissive in its attempts to cover children (when nearly twice as many adults as kids are covered)? Could it be that the 80% level of premium contribution placed on employers is too high? Could it be that BadgerCare is intended to bring as much federal largess into our state as possible (ignoring that we over-taxed Badgers are also paying federal taxes)?
Oh, and another thing! Among the culprit employers are these:
The United States Postal Service
The YMCA
Goodwill Industries
The State of Wisconsin
As a matter of fact, The DHHS Secretary, Michael Leavitt, points out that 75% of the Wisconsin program’s funds are spent on adults. Another tidbit is that Wisconsin covers nearly twice as many adults as children. Not bad for a children’s health program, huh?
Since the state wants to embarrass employers with employees participating in BadgerCare, we’ll certainly assist by adding the link to the list at http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/badgercare/pdfs/employers0307.pdf .
Obviously, since “everyone” hates Wal-Mart from what I read in the news, Wal-Mart is at the top of this nasty list with 897 employees. Never mind that Wal-Mart employs more than 27,800 people in Wisconsin, just ridicule them for this 3.2% that managed to obtain BadgerCare.
How could that happen? Well, BadgerCare has established some rules that may explain this “unintended consequence”. First, if an employer offers its employees health insurance coverage but doesn’t pay at least 80% of the premium cost, the employee may be eligible. If the employee is earning less than 185% of the federal poverty level, then that person and his or her dependents are eligible for BadgerCare.
How much is 185% of the federal poverty level? For a single person, it is $1,574 per month. For a husband and wife with two children, it is $3,183 per month. For a family of 8, it is $5,329 per month.
Could it be that BadgerCare is too permissive in its attempts to cover children (when nearly twice as many adults as kids are covered)? Could it be that the 80% level of premium contribution placed on employers is too high? Could it be that BadgerCare is intended to bring as much federal largess into our state as possible (ignoring that we over-taxed Badgers are also paying federal taxes)?
Oh, and another thing! Among the culprit employers are these:
The United States Postal Service
The YMCA
Goodwill Industries
The State of Wisconsin
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Uninsured In America...
Stuart Browning has produced at least three pieces depicting issues within the health care debate.
The piece titled Uninsured in America is found here .
I hope you'll agree that this needs to be shared with as many people as you can get it to as quickly as you can.
We'll look at two more over the next few days.
The piece titled Uninsured in America is found here .
I hope you'll agree that this needs to be shared with as many people as you can get it to as quickly as you can.
We'll look at two more over the next few days.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Consumers Demand Transparency...
A recent survey (completed in February 2007) conducted for the PNC Financial Services Group by the Boston-based research firm of Chadwick Martin Bailey found that consumers (especially those with high deductible health plans) want more transparency in health care administration.
The survey was based on telephone calls conducted with 150 executives from U.S. hospitals or health systems, 50 executives from insurance organizations and an online survey of 1,000 U.S. consumers.
Six of ten people who have high deductible health plans strongly agree that their families have become more conscious of health care costs, and some 22% said they compared doctors and hospitals to find the best value for their money.
This finding supports the changing environment that is being brought about by consumer directed health care. As consumers are reintroduced to the process of buying their health care, they are quickly becoming more aware of costs and outcomes. As the consumer directed movement continues to expand, it is becoming clear that the marketplace is responding with pricing transparency, better knowledge of outcomes and generally more informed patients.
Hospitals are working diligently to improve their overall ranking in terms of outcomes. Physician groups are focusing on patient communication. Entrepreneurial companies are developing point-of-sale claims pricing systems to enable patients to learn true costs and to pay for services with debit cards.
Employers are very conscious of wellness programs as a part of the solution to bring health care costs down, thus reducing the cost of insurance benefit plans while gaining a healthier and more productive workforce.
Employers are learning if they don’t already know it, that they must share the premium savings with their employees through funding of Health Savings Accounts and Health Reimbursement Accounts. Those who used the high deductible health plans primarily as vehicles to shift costs are coming to understand that this was a short-sighted approach.
Consumer directed health care is maturing and expanding. That frightens some in government and industry. Some in government don’t relish the idea of empowering the individual since people begin to understand that they don’t need big government to take care of them.
Some in industry and labor circles are similarly wary of these programs. Again, control of members can be threatened when the individuals begin to make their own decisions.
Some in the health care industries are not anxious to see patient independence since they are comfortable with the status quo. However, those same health care providers are being forced to change. They will either adapt to this new era, or risk being relegated to the junk heap as another entity that failed to take the necessary action.
There is a growing tide sweeping over the health care landscape and it is called consumerism.
The survey was based on telephone calls conducted with 150 executives from U.S. hospitals or health systems, 50 executives from insurance organizations and an online survey of 1,000 U.S. consumers.
Six of ten people who have high deductible health plans strongly agree that their families have become more conscious of health care costs, and some 22% said they compared doctors and hospitals to find the best value for their money.
This finding supports the changing environment that is being brought about by consumer directed health care. As consumers are reintroduced to the process of buying their health care, they are quickly becoming more aware of costs and outcomes. As the consumer directed movement continues to expand, it is becoming clear that the marketplace is responding with pricing transparency, better knowledge of outcomes and generally more informed patients.
Hospitals are working diligently to improve their overall ranking in terms of outcomes. Physician groups are focusing on patient communication. Entrepreneurial companies are developing point-of-sale claims pricing systems to enable patients to learn true costs and to pay for services with debit cards.
Employers are very conscious of wellness programs as a part of the solution to bring health care costs down, thus reducing the cost of insurance benefit plans while gaining a healthier and more productive workforce.
Employers are learning if they don’t already know it, that they must share the premium savings with their employees through funding of Health Savings Accounts and Health Reimbursement Accounts. Those who used the high deductible health plans primarily as vehicles to shift costs are coming to understand that this was a short-sighted approach.
Consumer directed health care is maturing and expanding. That frightens some in government and industry. Some in government don’t relish the idea of empowering the individual since people begin to understand that they don’t need big government to take care of them.
Some in industry and labor circles are similarly wary of these programs. Again, control of members can be threatened when the individuals begin to make their own decisions.
Some in the health care industries are not anxious to see patient independence since they are comfortable with the status quo. However, those same health care providers are being forced to change. They will either adapt to this new era, or risk being relegated to the junk heap as another entity that failed to take the necessary action.
There is a growing tide sweeping over the health care landscape and it is called consumerism.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Wisconsin Health Plan Follow-up...Chapter Two
Another interesting tidbit that was included in the Lewin Study but wasn’t highlighted is this:
Of the some 2.958 million persons currently receiving health insurance benefits through an employer in Wisconsin, the cost for the Wisconsin Health Plan (WHP) will be less than the current costs for only 736,000 persons.
That means that the WHP, a lesser plan, will cost more for the other 2.222 million persons.
Is that not significant enough to warrant mention rather than to be buried on page 49?
How many other nasty surprises are yet to be found?
Is this really what Wisconsin citizens desire?
Of the some 2.958 million persons currently receiving health insurance benefits through an employer in Wisconsin, the cost for the Wisconsin Health Plan (WHP) will be less than the current costs for only 736,000 persons.
That means that the WHP, a lesser plan, will cost more for the other 2.222 million persons.
Is that not significant enough to warrant mention rather than to be buried on page 49?
How many other nasty surprises are yet to be found?
Is this really what Wisconsin citizens desire?
Monday, June 11, 2007
Wisconsin Health Plan Follow-up...Chapter One
Further exploration of the issues surrounding the Wisconsin Health Plan has turned up some very interesting items.
It seems that the Lewin Study discusses an Option 1 that was really the original Plan up until March, 2007. This “option” is actually the original legislation introduced as AB 1140 and is the plan that was the subject of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau analysis. This “option” was presented to everyone as the health care solution that would be fully funded by an assessment of from 3% to 12% of payroll to be paid by employers, and an accompanying assessment of 2% on employee wages.
An independent analysis by the Wisconsin Hospital Association at the time concluded that this plan was under funded by anywhere from $3 billion to $5 billion. This was met by strong disagreement from the author of the WHP.
Buried in the Lewin Study is the fact that the original Plan was indeed under funded by $3.6 billion. It seems strange that this has not been published. If one didn’t know better, it could almost appear as if the author of the Plan was being a bit disingenuous simply to assure that his Plan would continue moving forward. Apparently the end does sometimes justify the means. When you know best what is right for the 5 million citizens of the state, it simply would not do to have facts derail the proposal.
In fact, the March 2nd version of the report pointed out the fatal flaws of the original Plan, and yet that information has not seen the light of day other than in wonk circles.
Stay tuned…more to come!
It seems that the Lewin Study discusses an Option 1 that was really the original Plan up until March, 2007. This “option” is actually the original legislation introduced as AB 1140 and is the plan that was the subject of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau analysis. This “option” was presented to everyone as the health care solution that would be fully funded by an assessment of from 3% to 12% of payroll to be paid by employers, and an accompanying assessment of 2% on employee wages.
An independent analysis by the Wisconsin Hospital Association at the time concluded that this plan was under funded by anywhere from $3 billion to $5 billion. This was met by strong disagreement from the author of the WHP.
Buried in the Lewin Study is the fact that the original Plan was indeed under funded by $3.6 billion. It seems strange that this has not been published. If one didn’t know better, it could almost appear as if the author of the Plan was being a bit disingenuous simply to assure that his Plan would continue moving forward. Apparently the end does sometimes justify the means. When you know best what is right for the 5 million citizens of the state, it simply would not do to have facts derail the proposal.
In fact, the March 2nd version of the report pointed out the fatal flaws of the original Plan, and yet that information has not seen the light of day other than in wonk circles.
Stay tuned…more to come!
Friday, June 8, 2007
Wisconsin Health Plan Study Raises Questions...
There are many questions about the Lewin Study and the Wisconsin Health Plan.
So far, we have heard, through the press, that the Study affirms this is a great idea, will save money for everyone and answers the health care needs of all but 17,000 people in Wisconsin.
All this begs details to support these conclusions that appear to have been drawn by the WHP creators. Rep. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee) is trying to “fast track” his WHP but is trying to do so without sharing all the facts.
What we haven’t seen or heard is what questions were asked of the Lewin Group? Were those questions agreed to by all member organizations referenced in the press releases? Have there been changes made to the original Plan? Have there been critical questions asked but not answered? If so, what were those questions? Posed by whom? Etc., etc. etc.
Stay tuned. We’ll continue to dig for answers.
So far, we have heard, through the press, that the Study affirms this is a great idea, will save money for everyone and answers the health care needs of all but 17,000 people in Wisconsin.
All this begs details to support these conclusions that appear to have been drawn by the WHP creators. Rep. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee) is trying to “fast track” his WHP but is trying to do so without sharing all the facts.
What we haven’t seen or heard is what questions were asked of the Lewin Group? Were those questions agreed to by all member organizations referenced in the press releases? Have there been changes made to the original Plan? Have there been critical questions asked but not answered? If so, what were those questions? Posed by whom? Etc., etc. etc.
Stay tuned. We’ll continue to dig for answers.
Monday, June 4, 2007
National Association of Health Underwriters Offers SCHIP Position...
Congress is currently in the midst of reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the state/federal block grant program that funds health insurance coverage for low-income children. It is this program that funds Wisconsin's BadgerCare plan for children. The National Association of Health Underwriters (NAHU) feels that during the reauthorization process, Congress has a great opportunity to make it simpler for states to voluntarily use SCHIP dollars to subsidize private group coverage for eligible children who have access to such private coverage through their parent's employer.
Doing so would have the following benefits:
More families would accept employer-sponsored coverage for their children, lowering the number of uninsured children.
The administrative burden on low-income families would be lessened, as families could be covered together on the same health insurance plan.
It would reduce the “crowd-out” of the private market that occurs when parents decline employer-sponsored coverage in favor of SCHIP coverage for their dependents.
It would lower costs by taking advantage of any premium dollars employers are willing to contribute toward their eligible employee dependent premiums—money that is now often “left on the table.”
It would also reduce SCHIP costs because the risk associated with covering the children with employer-sponsored coverage would be borne by the private market plan rather than the public program.
Licensed health insurance producers, who are already helping millions of business owners purchase health insurance coverage for their employees nationally, could provide outreach and enrollment assistance at virtually no cost to the SCHIP program.
We believe this is a wise approach and urge that our state Senators and Representatives give careful consideration to these points.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Canadian-style Health Care Decried by Canadian...
Brett Skinner, Director of Health, Pharmaceutical and Insurance Policy Research for the Fraser Institute, Canada’s leading think tank is urging that California and other states so inclined avoid the Canadian approach to health care.
“Canada is currently witnessing the failure of its own single-payer health insurance system. Faced with this example, why would Americans want to adopt such a system for themselves? The fact is that the Canadian model is an example of what not to do in health care,” said Mr. Skinner.
He went on to say:
“Canada’s public health insurance monopoly is failing and millions of Canadian patients wait so long for treatment that they are no better off than uninsured Americans.”
The article states that the current average wait time from one seeing his or her family physician to being able to see a specialist is 18 weeks. Statistics show that of the patients who received health-care services in 2005, 11 percent waited longer than three months to see a specialist, 17% waited longer than three months to get necessary non-emergency surgery; and 12 percent waited longer than three months to get necessary diagnostic tests.
While Canadians are forced to wait for treatment, the system legally prevents them from seeking treatment elsewhere and paying for it from their own pocket unless they choose to leave the country.
Most important for any state in the U.S. is that the report produced by the Fraser Institute shows that the Canadian system is not financially sustainable in the long run.
Wisconsin would do well to take Mr. Skinner’s words to heart.
“Canada is currently witnessing the failure of its own single-payer health insurance system. Faced with this example, why would Americans want to adopt such a system for themselves? The fact is that the Canadian model is an example of what not to do in health care,” said Mr. Skinner.
He went on to say:
“Canada’s public health insurance monopoly is failing and millions of Canadian patients wait so long for treatment that they are no better off than uninsured Americans.”
The article states that the current average wait time from one seeing his or her family physician to being able to see a specialist is 18 weeks. Statistics show that of the patients who received health-care services in 2005, 11 percent waited longer than three months to see a specialist, 17% waited longer than three months to get necessary non-emergency surgery; and 12 percent waited longer than three months to get necessary diagnostic tests.
While Canadians are forced to wait for treatment, the system legally prevents them from seeking treatment elsewhere and paying for it from their own pocket unless they choose to leave the country.
Most important for any state in the U.S. is that the report produced by the Fraser Institute shows that the Canadian system is not financially sustainable in the long run.
Wisconsin would do well to take Mr. Skinner’s words to heart.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Jack Lohman's Capital Times Opinion Piece...
Mr. Lohman has used an interesting technique to continue his quest for a government-run statewide equivalent of Medicare.
First, because our political system permits contributions to politicians, and because some of those contributions originate with health care or insurance entities, political corruption is part of the “health care crisis”.
If it is, why do we not tackle political corruption as a separate issue and not throw it into the same basket with health care? Health care in and of itself is far and away a tough enough situation to resolve properly without the added impediment of political corruption tossed into the mix.
Next, he restates his premise that a single payer system of health care would be a windfall for business, the economy of Wisconsin and the citizens who would be the consumers of health care in this brave new world.
Medicare relies upon the private sector insurance companies and health care administrators to pay all its claims. Those costs have been shown to be about 12% of the total claims paid, not 31%. The government cost of operating the system is some 2% to 3% of the total cost. That total administrative cost is about the same as the cost of private sector plans in the state under our free market approach.
“A small payroll tax” of 10% to 15% would be levied on the state’s employers instead of the money currently being spent for the free market version of health care. That would impact the roughly 50% of Wisconsin’s smaller employers that do not currently offer health insurance to employees. A new tax of “just” 10% to 15% would virtually guarantee that those employers would cease operation or move from Wisconsin where that was possible.
The reference to Medicare costing more per capita then would the program Lohman espouses is concerning. He maintains that the state-run program would actually save money over Medicare in that all citizens would be rolled into the pool thus spreading the risk. He ignores the fact that Medicare reimbursements are barely more than $0.50 on each billed dollar. The amount unpaid by Medicare is transferred to the free market programs through increased retail fees at the point-of-care. That alone is a big part of the health care crisis which is largely a health care cost crisis as we’ve argued before.
An alternative would be for those same health care providers to decide whether or not they could continue in business if all reimbursements were now at or below the level of Medicare reimbursements. Another alternative would be for the state to hire the providers of care to take all the egregious “profit” out of the equation. Yet another alternative is for rationing of the then available health care services by the state agency charged with running the health system. Each of those alternatives certainly has a nice ring to them; it’ll be really difficult to decide which to use. Maybe we can have some of each.
And then there is another “small tax” to take away all co-pays, deductibles, dental and vision expense. That would complete the loop. The entitlement mentality that is a large part of the current problem would have become the mentality of us all, and we would’ve driven more jobs out of Wisconsin.
But, we would’ve completely eliminated the insurance industry, all the agents, etc. And that seems a primary goal for effective health care reform from Mr. Lohman’s perspective.
Finally, the argument returns to that of “Business Ethics 101”.
We are finally in agreement: all sides of this debate must be completely honest and ethical because this is far too important a debate to permit it be limited or twisted.
First, because our political system permits contributions to politicians, and because some of those contributions originate with health care or insurance entities, political corruption is part of the “health care crisis”.
If it is, why do we not tackle political corruption as a separate issue and not throw it into the same basket with health care? Health care in and of itself is far and away a tough enough situation to resolve properly without the added impediment of political corruption tossed into the mix.
Next, he restates his premise that a single payer system of health care would be a windfall for business, the economy of Wisconsin and the citizens who would be the consumers of health care in this brave new world.
Medicare relies upon the private sector insurance companies and health care administrators to pay all its claims. Those costs have been shown to be about 12% of the total claims paid, not 31%. The government cost of operating the system is some 2% to 3% of the total cost. That total administrative cost is about the same as the cost of private sector plans in the state under our free market approach.
“A small payroll tax” of 10% to 15% would be levied on the state’s employers instead of the money currently being spent for the free market version of health care. That would impact the roughly 50% of Wisconsin’s smaller employers that do not currently offer health insurance to employees. A new tax of “just” 10% to 15% would virtually guarantee that those employers would cease operation or move from Wisconsin where that was possible.
The reference to Medicare costing more per capita then would the program Lohman espouses is concerning. He maintains that the state-run program would actually save money over Medicare in that all citizens would be rolled into the pool thus spreading the risk. He ignores the fact that Medicare reimbursements are barely more than $0.50 on each billed dollar. The amount unpaid by Medicare is transferred to the free market programs through increased retail fees at the point-of-care. That alone is a big part of the health care crisis which is largely a health care cost crisis as we’ve argued before.
An alternative would be for those same health care providers to decide whether or not they could continue in business if all reimbursements were now at or below the level of Medicare reimbursements. Another alternative would be for the state to hire the providers of care to take all the egregious “profit” out of the equation. Yet another alternative is for rationing of the then available health care services by the state agency charged with running the health system. Each of those alternatives certainly has a nice ring to them; it’ll be really difficult to decide which to use. Maybe we can have some of each.
And then there is another “small tax” to take away all co-pays, deductibles, dental and vision expense. That would complete the loop. The entitlement mentality that is a large part of the current problem would have become the mentality of us all, and we would’ve driven more jobs out of Wisconsin.
But, we would’ve completely eliminated the insurance industry, all the agents, etc. And that seems a primary goal for effective health care reform from Mr. Lohman’s perspective.
Finally, the argument returns to that of “Business Ethics 101”.
We are finally in agreement: all sides of this debate must be completely honest and ethical because this is far too important a debate to permit it be limited or twisted.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Fixing an Ailing State Health Program...
Maine created Dirigo as the panacea to solve the uninsured problem of its citizens. Dirigo has been, by most counts, a failure having attracted only 13,000 participants.
For the second year in a row, a new bill is coursing its way through the political process that would put another twist on this failed program.
Dirigo would become self-funded and apparently Maine would be its own reinsurer. This is intended to permit the replacement of Anthem that had the audacity to earn a profit of some $3.6 Million from its work on Dirigo.
States have every right to experiment with what their citizens believe ought to work, but they really should be more careful than is the case with some.
Maine will find itself in the health care authorization business. Rationing is the term that comes to mind. Political forces will be pushed and pulled by the heartbreak that illnesses and need for treatment bring. Politicians seem to believe that the supply of money is endless, and will be hard-pressed to save themselves from approving new coverage to gain votes.
Inevitably, there will be budget pressures and those will lead to increased cost-sharing with those covered, or increased taxes, or more stringent rationing…and likely a combination of the three.
Wisconsin needs to take note as it debates the issues involved with health care.
For the second year in a row, a new bill is coursing its way through the political process that would put another twist on this failed program.
Dirigo would become self-funded and apparently Maine would be its own reinsurer. This is intended to permit the replacement of Anthem that had the audacity to earn a profit of some $3.6 Million from its work on Dirigo.
States have every right to experiment with what their citizens believe ought to work, but they really should be more careful than is the case with some.
Maine will find itself in the health care authorization business. Rationing is the term that comes to mind. Political forces will be pushed and pulled by the heartbreak that illnesses and need for treatment bring. Politicians seem to believe that the supply of money is endless, and will be hard-pressed to save themselves from approving new coverage to gain votes.
Inevitably, there will be budget pressures and those will lead to increased cost-sharing with those covered, or increased taxes, or more stringent rationing…and likely a combination of the three.
Wisconsin needs to take note as it debates the issues involved with health care.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Canadians don't care for Sicko...
…so read the headline for an article written by Peter Howell for the Toronto Star on May 20, 2007.
He stated that Michael Moore took quite a verbal beating during an interview at the Cannes Film Festival where Moore has been touting his latest “documentary”. I quote from his article:
“We Canucks were taking issue with the large liberties Sicko takes with the facts, with its lavish praise for Canada’s government-funded medicare system compared with America’s for-profit alternative.”
“…Sicko makes it seem as if Canada’s socialized medicine is flawless and that Canadians are satisfied with the status quo.”
“Other Canadian journalists spoke of the long wait times Canadians face for health care, much longer than the few minutes Moore suggests in Sicko.”
“Sicko, to be released in North America on June 29, is by turns enlightening and manipulative, humorous and maudlin. It makes many valid and urgent points about the crisis of U.S. health care, but they are blunted by Moore’s habit of playing fast and loose with the facts. Whether it’s a case of the end justifying the means will ultimately be for individual viewers to decide.”
The U.S. health care industry knows this is coming and feels alternately threatened, angered, frightened and somewhat helpless. What can be done to blunt this latest of Moore’s film adventures?
Those who care must become much more knowledgeable about Canadian, British, French and Cuban health care issues and how those systems compare to that of our country. Moore has changed his original tactics and now attempts to cajole, instead of club, folks to get them to see his point of view.
His tactics require that spokespeople for the industry assure that they too change their tactics. They can no longer simply criticize the messenger; they must become sufficiently knowledgeable as to be able to refute the wild claims one-by-one.
We are disadvantaged by the fact that his public relations machine is running at full speed and has been for awhile. We have yet to see the film in its entirety and do not yet understand the nature of his various claims and/or charges. We must begin to act now in order to counter the various “issues” soon after the initial screenings in this country.
Agents certainly understand many of the faults of the current U.S. health care system. They must not be seen as defensive, however, when it is they who have been preaching to the choir for the past decade or better.
Agents simply need to occupy the high ground of truth and reason. The Coalition for Sensible Health Care Solutions is a solid platform on which to build consensus.
He stated that Michael Moore took quite a verbal beating during an interview at the Cannes Film Festival where Moore has been touting his latest “documentary”. I quote from his article:
“We Canucks were taking issue with the large liberties Sicko takes with the facts, with its lavish praise for Canada’s government-funded medicare system compared with America’s for-profit alternative.”
“…Sicko makes it seem as if Canada’s socialized medicine is flawless and that Canadians are satisfied with the status quo.”
“Other Canadian journalists spoke of the long wait times Canadians face for health care, much longer than the few minutes Moore suggests in Sicko.”
“Sicko, to be released in North America on June 29, is by turns enlightening and manipulative, humorous and maudlin. It makes many valid and urgent points about the crisis of U.S. health care, but they are blunted by Moore’s habit of playing fast and loose with the facts. Whether it’s a case of the end justifying the means will ultimately be for individual viewers to decide.”
The U.S. health care industry knows this is coming and feels alternately threatened, angered, frightened and somewhat helpless. What can be done to blunt this latest of Moore’s film adventures?
Those who care must become much more knowledgeable about Canadian, British, French and Cuban health care issues and how those systems compare to that of our country. Moore has changed his original tactics and now attempts to cajole, instead of club, folks to get them to see his point of view.
His tactics require that spokespeople for the industry assure that they too change their tactics. They can no longer simply criticize the messenger; they must become sufficiently knowledgeable as to be able to refute the wild claims one-by-one.
We are disadvantaged by the fact that his public relations machine is running at full speed and has been for awhile. We have yet to see the film in its entirety and do not yet understand the nature of his various claims and/or charges. We must begin to act now in order to counter the various “issues” soon after the initial screenings in this country.
Agents certainly understand many of the faults of the current U.S. health care system. They must not be seen as defensive, however, when it is they who have been preaching to the choir for the past decade or better.
Agents simply need to occupy the high ground of truth and reason. The Coalition for Sensible Health Care Solutions is a solid platform on which to build consensus.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Hospitals Threatened by Gov. Doyle...
Governor Doyle has threatened the hospitals in Wisconsin by stating they would receive no Medicaid rate increase unless they accepted his 1% of gross revenue hospital tax proposal.
The Wisconsin Hospital Association is opposed to the tax with a chief reason being their fear that the additional Federal money that would flow into the state as the result of this “tax” would not go entirely to the hospitals. They also stated that the acceptance of the Governor’s proposal in this instance would cause such an approach to become the approach of choice for years to come.
The assessment would generate some $202.5 million in 2008 with only $136.9 million going back to the hospitals, and would generate some $212.7 million in 2009 with $147.3 going back to hospitals.
It seems obvious that the hospitals have every right to be concerned even in the face of the Governor’s threat.
By the way, does anyone have any idea where all this newfound money will come from? Of course. We all pay our taxes to the U.S. and the state; and any hospital shortfalls will be collected from those who use those facilities.
We citizens just seem to have really deep pockets…at least to the Governor!
The Wisconsin Hospital Association is opposed to the tax with a chief reason being their fear that the additional Federal money that would flow into the state as the result of this “tax” would not go entirely to the hospitals. They also stated that the acceptance of the Governor’s proposal in this instance would cause such an approach to become the approach of choice for years to come.
The assessment would generate some $202.5 million in 2008 with only $136.9 million going back to the hospitals, and would generate some $212.7 million in 2009 with $147.3 going back to hospitals.
It seems obvious that the hospitals have every right to be concerned even in the face of the Governor’s threat.
By the way, does anyone have any idea where all this newfound money will come from? Of course. We all pay our taxes to the U.S. and the state; and any hospital shortfalls will be collected from those who use those facilities.
We citizens just seem to have really deep pockets…at least to the Governor!
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Self-Fullfilling Prophesy?
An Associated Press report titled “Health System Deemed a ‘Mess’” appeared in the Journal-Sentinel in Milwaukee today. It obviously has appeared across the country.
The first two paragraphs read as follow:
“The U.S. health care system is ‘a dysfunctional mess’ and politicians who insist otherwise look ignorant, according to a medical journal essay by a prominent ethicist at the National Institutes of Health.
‘If a politician declares that the United States has the best health care system in the world today, he or she looks clueless rather than patriotic or authoritative,’ Ezekiel Emanuel wrote in today’s Journal of the American Medical Association."
Mr. Emanuel went on to decry our health care results, to express dismay at what is spent per person in the U.S., to advise that our average life expectancy ranks 45th in the world behind both Bosnia and Jordan. He also noted, for good measure apparently, that the U.S. infant death rate is 6.37 per 1,000 live births, higher than that of most developed nations.
First, the AMA was in the company of the AARP and Families USA when, on January 18, 2007 they issued a joint press release announcing the “unprecedented alliance” of themselves and some 13 other organizations which had come together to solve the health care crisis.
A careful reading of that unprecedented agreement suggests that some of what had been more reasonable organizations rolled over and became part of the liberal solution. The solution used several federal programs to expand coverage, increased participation of the uninsured, encouraged state experimentation, etc., etc. There is nothing wrong with any of that, except it is apparent to me that the “solutions” lay on the left side of center. Isn’t that always the case when the left-leaning organizations announce some great new coalition?
Next, Emanuel plays loose with his numbers by not taking into account the variations that exist. We spend more per person and we get more. Countries that spend less ration care to their citizens. Our birth rate adjusted to the manner of accounting employed in other countries would show better survival than the rest since we permit low weight, premature and disadvantaged babies to be born into the world, and then we fight to keep them alive. By the way, we count every live birth. We do not extract from the total those that are unlikely to survive for the first year as is common in many other higher ranking countries.
Is the Journal of the AMA publishing this misinformation simply to try to justify its own beliefs, or did it simply take for granted the veracity of the author? I’ll bet that it didn’t simply print without an editorial vetting.
The first two paragraphs read as follow:
“The U.S. health care system is ‘a dysfunctional mess’ and politicians who insist otherwise look ignorant, according to a medical journal essay by a prominent ethicist at the National Institutes of Health.
‘If a politician declares that the United States has the best health care system in the world today, he or she looks clueless rather than patriotic or authoritative,’ Ezekiel Emanuel wrote in today’s Journal of the American Medical Association."
Mr. Emanuel went on to decry our health care results, to express dismay at what is spent per person in the U.S., to advise that our average life expectancy ranks 45th in the world behind both Bosnia and Jordan. He also noted, for good measure apparently, that the U.S. infant death rate is 6.37 per 1,000 live births, higher than that of most developed nations.
First, the AMA was in the company of the AARP and Families USA when, on January 18, 2007 they issued a joint press release announcing the “unprecedented alliance” of themselves and some 13 other organizations which had come together to solve the health care crisis.
A careful reading of that unprecedented agreement suggests that some of what had been more reasonable organizations rolled over and became part of the liberal solution. The solution used several federal programs to expand coverage, increased participation of the uninsured, encouraged state experimentation, etc., etc. There is nothing wrong with any of that, except it is apparent to me that the “solutions” lay on the left side of center. Isn’t that always the case when the left-leaning organizations announce some great new coalition?
Next, Emanuel plays loose with his numbers by not taking into account the variations that exist. We spend more per person and we get more. Countries that spend less ration care to their citizens. Our birth rate adjusted to the manner of accounting employed in other countries would show better survival than the rest since we permit low weight, premature and disadvantaged babies to be born into the world, and then we fight to keep them alive. By the way, we count every live birth. We do not extract from the total those that are unlikely to survive for the first year as is common in many other higher ranking countries.
Is the Journal of the AMA publishing this misinformation simply to try to justify its own beliefs, or did it simply take for granted the veracity of the author? I’ll bet that it didn’t simply print without an editorial vetting.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Why Do Our Rulers Not Hear Us?
Wisconsinites are in the midst of the single biggest money grab by any political party in my memory…and that covers some ground.
The combinations of all proposed (some accepted already) new or increased fees and taxes will equal nearly $3 Billion in additional payments to the state. There are some 5.5 Million of us in Wisconsin.
Our rulers are expecting an average of an additional $545 from every person in the state. If you and your wife constitute your household, then you can expect to pony up another $1,091 for the state. If you and your wife have two children at home, then your equivalent share will be $2,182, and so on. These are averages, and the people who pay the majority of taxes (those earning $50,000 and more) will be hit several times harder.
This does not begin to take into account the additions that will be required of communities, and of our school districts, and of our county, and on and on. This does not take into account Governor Doyle’s latest, the promise of a college education in a Wisconsin institution of higher learning for every current eighth grader and all future students who maintain “B” averages, stay out of trouble and sign a contract. So far, many of the 75,000 eligible this year have signed this document even before the program has been approved. By the way, we aren’t even being told the ultimate cost of this boondoggle.
This does not take into account that the state will have managed to move up a slot or two or three on the “Highest Taxed States in the Nation” list that our current rulers seem to think is an honor.
This does not address the negative impact on our business environment, and on the purchase of new vehicles, and on the sales tax collection fall-offs, or our children leaving the state and it does not address another thing…
When, if ever, will enough be enough for Governor Doyle and the Democrats, our rulers?
We are now going through the charade of state budget “debate”. It is during this time that the Joint Finance Committee, comprised of eight Democrats and eight Republicans meet regularly to make changes to the budget submitted by the Governor. One small problem exists, however, in that the Democrat members of this Committee have almost consistently chosen to vote against any changes in the budget as they march to the beat of the Governor's drum.
When this Committee deadlocks at eight to eight, as it usually does, the Governor’s proposed budget remains in place. And, our Governor has chosen to load his budget with nearly every conceivable spending and gifting proposal coupled with increases in everything that already exists. (I use the word “nearly” since his creativity has outstripped my imagination. There are probably more yet to come.)
It would be interesting to see the list of taxes and fees that are not being increased. Certainly it would be easier to list those than all that are going to be, or already have been, increased.
And, what’s worse is that elected Republican officials can do virtually nothing about this except to hold news conferences to try to get the word out. That, too, is made difficult since the mainstream media appears to be enjoying this renaissance with its newly promised government largess.
They can't find time to have a vote on their Sick Leave largess, but raising taxes is good at any time!
These rulers do not represent me. I presume they also do not represent many others! Will our memories last long enough to get us to the polls and to remember that changes are necessary?
It was widely rumored that this was Governor Doyle’s last race for public office. If so, it seems he has decided to get everything on his list accomplished during this last term.
We can only hope for two things: that this is his last term, and that we’ll be able to put food on our tables after he’s gone.
The combinations of all proposed (some accepted already) new or increased fees and taxes will equal nearly $3 Billion in additional payments to the state. There are some 5.5 Million of us in Wisconsin.
Our rulers are expecting an average of an additional $545 from every person in the state. If you and your wife constitute your household, then you can expect to pony up another $1,091 for the state. If you and your wife have two children at home, then your equivalent share will be $2,182, and so on. These are averages, and the people who pay the majority of taxes (those earning $50,000 and more) will be hit several times harder.
This does not begin to take into account the additions that will be required of communities, and of our school districts, and of our county, and on and on. This does not take into account Governor Doyle’s latest, the promise of a college education in a Wisconsin institution of higher learning for every current eighth grader and all future students who maintain “B” averages, stay out of trouble and sign a contract. So far, many of the 75,000 eligible this year have signed this document even before the program has been approved. By the way, we aren’t even being told the ultimate cost of this boondoggle.
This does not take into account that the state will have managed to move up a slot or two or three on the “Highest Taxed States in the Nation” list that our current rulers seem to think is an honor.
This does not address the negative impact on our business environment, and on the purchase of new vehicles, and on the sales tax collection fall-offs, or our children leaving the state and it does not address another thing…
When, if ever, will enough be enough for Governor Doyle and the Democrats, our rulers?
We are now going through the charade of state budget “debate”. It is during this time that the Joint Finance Committee, comprised of eight Democrats and eight Republicans meet regularly to make changes to the budget submitted by the Governor. One small problem exists, however, in that the Democrat members of this Committee have almost consistently chosen to vote against any changes in the budget as they march to the beat of the Governor's drum.
When this Committee deadlocks at eight to eight, as it usually does, the Governor’s proposed budget remains in place. And, our Governor has chosen to load his budget with nearly every conceivable spending and gifting proposal coupled with increases in everything that already exists. (I use the word “nearly” since his creativity has outstripped my imagination. There are probably more yet to come.)
It would be interesting to see the list of taxes and fees that are not being increased. Certainly it would be easier to list those than all that are going to be, or already have been, increased.
And, what’s worse is that elected Republican officials can do virtually nothing about this except to hold news conferences to try to get the word out. That, too, is made difficult since the mainstream media appears to be enjoying this renaissance with its newly promised government largess.
They can't find time to have a vote on their Sick Leave largess, but raising taxes is good at any time!
These rulers do not represent me. I presume they also do not represent many others! Will our memories last long enough to get us to the polls and to remember that changes are necessary?
It was widely rumored that this was Governor Doyle’s last race for public office. If so, it seems he has decided to get everything on his list accomplished during this last term.
We can only hope for two things: that this is his last term, and that we’ll be able to put food on our tables after he’s gone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
