Veterans Day--A Report on Veteran Deaths

On its Web site, the Physicians for a National Health Program has an article on a study published by Harvard Medical School concerning the deaths of veterans. The study found that in 2008 over 2,200 veterans under age 65 died because they lacked health insurance. I am lucky(?) enough to have a service-connected disability, which means I can use the VA medical centers. Not all veterans can use VA facilities. This is something many civilians don't understand.

In my first blog post, I stated that I have utilized the VA health care system. I have nothing but praise for the care I have received. When I lived in Cincinnati, I had the most wonderful nurse practitioner who was my primary care provider. I plan to use the facilities here in Dayton as well.

As a female veteran, it has often been frustrating to be overlooked. So often when pictures are shown of veterans, we usually see male faces. At times at the VA clinics, when I am checking in, I'll be asked if I'm there with my husband, "Do you have your husband's card?" It is generally assumed that my husband is the veteran, not I. Sitting in the waiting rooms, I'll engage in conversation with others, overwhelmingly men, and they'll ask which service my husband was in. When I respond that it is I who served, I very often get raised eyebrows from the questioner. Really, they literally raise their eyebrows. Then to add to the momentary disconnect, I'll tell them I was in the Navy. With Ohio being in the middle of the country, there seem to be many more veterans here who were in the Army, Air Force, or Marines. I've met very few who were in the Navy.

There is an invisible bond between people who have served, and still serve, in the military. There is an almost instant connection made. "You were in the service? Which branch? What was your MOS/your rate/your rank?" An almost imperceptible nodding of the heads at each other. Yes, we know what it means, whether we hated it, loved it, or have feelings somewhere in between the two, we know what it means to have been in the military. Or, we know what it means to have a father/husband/mother/wife/brother/sister in the service.

My father was a career fighter pilot in the Air Force who fought in two wars. My sister was an air traffic controller in the Air Force, my middle brother was a machinist in the Navy, and I was in computers in the Navy. I know what it is to be the daughter and sister of veterans. I know what it is to be a veteran.

So, I was very saddened to read about the more than 2,200 veterans who die each year from lack of health insurance. Especially on a day that has been set aside to honor our veterans. I laud the Physicians for a National Health Program for advocating for a single-payer system. Why is it we are willing to pay, overpay in fact, outfits like KBR, Blackwater, or other military contractors, but we're not willing to pay for our citizens or our veterans to have access to health care? Why is it okay for our women and men in the military to risk their lives in places like Iraq and Afghanistan or other places, but we're not willing to provide them with health care for their service? Too many of the people waving the flag, calling themselves "real Americans" and applauding veterans and active duty personnel are the same ones who are arguing against universal health care. Why would they begrudge anyone access to good, affordable health care? Please, explain it to me because I don't understand their shortsightedness.

Here is the link to the article: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/november/over_2200_veterans_.php

10 of the Nuttiest Statements Elected Officials Have Made in the Health Care Battle

I've already done my posting for this week, but I came across this piece from Alternet, and I couldn't resist.

What makes the ocean of crazy surrounding this debate truly remarkable is that the overheated, ill-informed spew is also coming from the mouths of actual public officials, people tasked with creating legislation. National office holders -- not loopy local GOP party chairs, but people who supposedly represent the interests of entire congressional districts and earn a public salary -- have offered up months of bizarre tales about our health care system and the effort to reform it that are every bit as outlandish as anything scribbled on an overheated right-wing blog.

The most charitable view is that some of the lawmakers who oppose reform most vehemently just have no clue what they're talking about. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., whom some have dubbed "the dumbest senator of them all," suggested as much when asked what he didn't like about the reform bill.

"I don't have to read it or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyways," he told Grady County Express Star. According to the report, "information provided by news media have helped [Inhofe] become a staunch non-supporter of the bill." In other words, his opposition is firmly grounded in whatever he's picked up from the fair-and-balanced conservative media.

Whether examples of dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks ignorance or intentional obfuscation, here are some of the craziest things that have been said about health care this summer by real-live elected officials. It's by no means comprehensive!

1. Policy Terminated!

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, warned that the House reform bill "cancels every [health insurance] policy" in America. "[House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi's agenda takes every [policy] away," King told MSNBC.

Not to be outdone, Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann -- always a favorite of lazy left-wing bloggers on the hunt for a gem -- told Fox News the House bill would make private insurance illegal.

2. Health Care Crisis? What Health Care Crisis?

Another member of Congress named King -- Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., -- told MSNBC that health care is "not a major issue among the American people." The Huffington Post points out that King based the claim on a poll that in fact found that Americans ranked the issue as the third most important, after jobs and the deficit.

But Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., one of the craziest members of the House (and that's saying something), took the prize when she held a press conference to proclaim, "there are no Americans who don't have health care." Which would come as a surprise for the 46 million or so who lack coverage today. "We do have about 7.5 million Americans who want to purchase health insurance who can not afford it," she granted before urging people not to "give the government control of our lives."

3. There's No Problem, and Nobody Cares About Health Care, but … Oh My God!

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., insisted that the Democrats' plans will inspire "a minor revolution" if lawmakers don't heed the confused outrage of the tea-partiers. "The intensity on this issue across the country is like nothing I've seen in a long, long time," he told CNN, adding that if health reforms squeak through, it'll "wreck our health care system and wreck the Democratic Party."

And Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., decided not to quibble and warned that the Dems' rather business-friendly incremental reforms would "destroy America as we know it today."

With so much at stake, you have to credit Bachmann for reacting in the calm, measured tones for which she's become so well-known: "What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn't pass," she told an enthusiastic audience at a corporate think-tank.

4. ET Get Health Insurance?

Like some grotesque apparition from Orson Wells' War of the Worlds, aliens are descending upon us to defile our women and eat our health-insurance dollars! Only these are illegal aliens, and according to Iowa Republican King, a repeat offender, the Congressional Budget Office says almost 6 million unauthorized immigrants would be covered, gratis of course, under the Dems' health reform bill. Mind you he's not saying it -- he's just issuing press releases saying that the CBO is saying it!

But, as it turns out, not so much. The truth is not only are the undocumented barred from receiving benefits by the legislation itself, but also by a variety of other laws already on the books. So did the CBO get it wrong? According to Factcheck.org:

"So, where does King get his 5.6 million figure? His press release says that the CBO projected that the uninsured would include 14.1 million illegal immigrants in 2019. The CBO's analysis of the House health care bill estimates that in 2019, 17 million would remain uninsured, "nearly half of whom would be unauthorized immigrants." This is where math comes in: Taking the 14.1 million illegal immigrants in 2019 and subtracting half of 17 million (8.5 million) gets you … 5.6 million illegal immigrants that have suddenly gained coverage, right? Actually, no. About half of illegal immigrants in the U.S. have health care coverage now."

5. Rationing

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, warned that health care "rationing" is inevitable. Sue Myrick, a cancer survivor and GOP representative from North Carolina, said she wouldn't have gotten the treatment she needed to beat her disease "under the government-run health care system they have in Canada and the United Kingdom," and cautioned people to "make no mistake, [the proposals in Congress] are all gateways to government-run health care."

It's a common refrain. And one Canadians and British find pretty confusing. But the thing that makes this one so crazy is that rationing health care is the private insurance industry's entire business model. As Ezra Klein wrote in the Washington Post, "We Ration. We Ration. We Ration. We Ration."

The rationing meme did lead to hilarity when Investor's Business Daily ran an editorial arguing that physicist Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." Hawking, still a Brit last time he checked, responded: "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

6. Health Care Reform Is Just Like Terrorism, but Far Worse!

North Carolina's Foxx is the gift that just never stops giving! Just this week, after having sworn that the status quo was just peachy, Foxx said that reform, on the other hand, would be just like an ax-murderer crawling into the room of a small, defenseless child in the dark of night, only much scarier.

Creative Loafing, a Charlotte political blog, documented her exact phrasing:

"Give Foxx credit … she always ups the ante in her nutcase sweepstakes. Now, she's gone onto the House floor to declare that she and everyone in her district are living in fear (which, along with anger, seem to be the only two emotions right-wing extremists like Foxx have left at their disposal) and that health care reform is a more terrible threat to America than "any terrorist right now in any country." Um, thanks for that valuable insight, Congresswoman; maybe next time remember to take your meds before giving a public speech."

In this week's crazy-off, Foxx has to compete with Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., bravely challenging the swine flu virus to choose a side -- either with us or with the terrorists -- but Foxx may have the edge.

7. Health Care Reform Spawns Tenthers!

You heard of "birthers" and probably know the health care debate has completed the cycle of life by giving us "deathers" (discussed below). But it's also spawned a generation of "tenthers" -- self-anointed right-wing constitutional scholars who insist that the Founding Fathers, no-doubt shilling for the insurance industry, enshrined ironclad prohibitions against the government helping Americans get halfway decent health care in the country's charter. And they include elected officials!

The gist of their "argument" is that the 10th Amendment says that powers that aren't expressly given to the feds remain in the hands of the states. That's true, of course, but the Constitution doesn't grant the feds the power to build interstate highways, either. According to Think Progress:

"Tenther claims are far from the mainstream. In their world, landmark federal programs such as Medicare, Social Security, the federal highway system and rules regulating airplane safety are unconstitutional. In fact, the South "justified both secession and the Civil War on the theory that the Constitution is nothing more than a pact between sovereigns that each state is free to leave at will."

Real constitutional scholars, of course, dismiss the claim as nonsense. But that hasn't kept a gaggle of Republican officials from jumping on the bandwagon, including Minnesota's Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- a potential candidate for the White House in 2012; Texas Gov. Rick "the Hair" Perry, who toyed with the idea of secession before a crowd of "tea-party" activists earlier in the year; Sens. Jim Demint, R-S.C. and Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; and a handful of GOP House members. (Pawlenty later backed away from his statement.)

How thoughtful are the tenthers? The Wall Street Journal offered a report about befuddled Georgia State Sen. Judson Hill proclaiming at a gathering of like-minded lawmakers, "The 10th Amendment protects us from such federal mandates." But when asked whether "the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the right to regulate and enforce matters related to interstate commerce, would interfere with their plan," the Journal informs us "Hill could not say." When asked if "Medicare, which is government-run health care for seniors, would also then be unconstitutional," Hill was unsure. "That's a good question," he replied, "I don't know yet. We'll fight that battle when it comes before us."

Medicare was established by an act of Congress in 1965.

8. Astroturf Groups Are Just Like Revolutionary War Heroes … or Something

The whole summer of outrage -- with its "tea parties," its loud displays of "patriotism" and dark whispers of revolution -- was nothing short of bizarre. Perhaps swept up in the fervor, Iowa's Steve King (who is now, I suppose, the champion), took to the floor of the House to warn of a "great diminishment of American freedom" if health care reform were to pass.

"If the Founding Fathers could stand in here tonight," he said, "the tears would be running down their cheeks." He then compared busloads of protesters sent to Washington by deep-pocketed corporate lobbyists to Paul Revere. If King were a fictional character rather than an actual voting member of our legislature, he would be endlessly entertaining.

9. When You Can't Oppose Something Rationally, Just Tell People It'll Kill 'Em!

And when telling people that socialism is creeping up just over the horizon fails to stir up their ire, up the ante and promise them that reformers are bent on nothing short of killing off American citizens in order to control health costs. These are the "deathers."

And in America, the media treat their outlandish charges as if they were a credible matter of debate. Begun by veteran wack-a-loon Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York, the infamous "death panels" were soon being touted by GOP hitters like Boehner and Grassley, who said, "We should not have a government program that determines if you‘re going to pull the plug on Grandma."

If you're reading this, you probably know the whole thing is nonsense, but some may not realize how benign the provision that started the death-panels nonsense really is. It just directs Medicare to pay doctors to consult with patients who want help drawing up a living will -- a way to control their own health care if they become incapacitated. That's it -- the deaths panels. That's the government taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients.

Although it's been widely debunked, some prominent Republicans were still trying to push the "deather" story as recently as last week. And, as is so often the case, it turns out that many were for death panels before they were against them.

10. Health Care Reform Will Kill the Republican Party … No, the Entire Two-Party System!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters that the GOP fears the political ramifications of a decent reform bill being passed by the Dems. Saying that around 100,000 people in each congressional district would directly benefit from the House bill, Pelosi said, "Republicans know that passing real health care reform, meaningful health care reform for the American people, which is relevant to their lives [and] solves their problems, is politically powerful, and they must stop it."

It's probably overstating the case, but it's a fairly straightforward analysis. In the hands of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, however, it became darker, as he warned that passing a bill people actually liked would spell doom for our entire two-party system -- government as we know it. Describing the proposals in Congress as a "step-by-step approach to socialized medicine," Hatch told a conservative Web site:

"If they get there, then of course you're going to have a rough time, you're going to have a very rough time, having a two-party system in this country. Because almost everybody's going to say all we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party."

So, Looking Forward to the Climate Change Debate Heating Up?

Blather about a government takeover of health care with ashen-faced bureaucrats rationing out treatments has been ubiquitous among conservative elected officials, so much so that it almost seems a natural part of the discussion. But given the degree to which Democrats have been forced to water down their legislation to appease conservatives within their party, these memes really represent a mass psychosis in the literal sense, as in "a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality." Which might explain why 1 in 3 Americans trust congressional Republicans to deal with our health care mess and 4 percent of the electorate has a "great deal" of confidence in them on the issue.

But the crazy charges flying around also help explain some of the oddly divided public opinion on health care reform. According to the latest polling, while 55 percent favor a public insurance option, 45 percent favor what they understand to be "Obama's" health care reforms. Given that the public option is the most controversial and hotly debated aspect of the health care bills in Congress, that would appear to confirm earlier polling, which basically found that most Americans just didn't have a firm handle on the proposals.

We can laugh at the anti-reformers' hyperbole, but it does muddy the waters to at least a degree. Yet despite it all -- all the talk of death panels and losing our of liberty -- support for the public insurance plan has remained pretty steady over the past months, which has to make you wonder what the political landscape would look like if we were ever to have a serious, fact-grounded debate about health care reform in this country.

http://www.alternet.org/politics/143790/10_of_the_nuttiest_statements_elected_officials_have_made_in_the_health_care_battle

GOP Health Care Plan—If It Sounds Too Good To Be True, It Is Too Good To Be True

Just remember that saying (your mother was right!) when you hear conservative and Republican pundits hailing the GOP’s health care plan (released Nov. 4) as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

As I was reading GOP-friendly Web sites discussing the health care plan, I noticed that they were leaving out some very pertinent points concerning the plan. While the GOP is lauding itself over the plan and how it is less expensive than the Democrat’s plan, they were leaving out a crucial piece of information—how many people won’t be covered under their plan. Once again, they’ve put price above people. They’re very proud of themselves for keeping the cost of their plan much lower than the Democrat’s, but, under their plan, 52 million Americans will have no health care coverage by 2019 for the 9-year plan. That’s more Americans than it is estimated are without insurance now.

While the Republicans are patting themselves on the back, the Congressional Budget Office and others are not singing the plan’s praises, and with good reason. Some of the provisions would actually make it more expensive for people who are less healthy, while reducing the cost for healthy people. This means that people in ill health are bearing the brunt of the cost. They are actually paying more so healthy people get to pay less. Also, the GOP plan had no provisions for companies to provide insurance. It does not prohibit insurance companies from excluding people with preexisting conditions. It does not have provisions for increasing access to quality health care for people. Michael Steele, GOP Chairman, even stated that their purpose was to control costs. Again, putting money before the people.

The problem with the GOP stating that it cuts costs is that, in the long run, it won’t. This is according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. While the GOP plan purports to save our grandchildren, from the apocalypse that is the federal deficit, by cutting the deficit by $68 billion with its plan, the Democrat’s plan is estimated to cut $104 billion overall while still covering many millions more than the GOP’s plan would.
It basically looks as if the GOP tried to put something on the table, no matter how ill-devised the plan. In an article in the Los Angeles Times, it stated that the GOP bill is lacking in areas that the Democrat’s bill covers. The GOP plan has no provisions for “expansion of Medicaid, no requirement that individuals buy insurance, no penalties for employers that do not offer coverage, and no subsidies to help the needy pay premiums.” http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washintgondc/la-na-health-gop5-2009nov05,0,2750338.story

What some Republicans are even saying is that the GOP had to come up with something, anything, to try to stave off the perception that it is the party of “just say no.” You know what, that didn’t work with drugs either!

Check out these Web sites: http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/05/beyond-just-say-no-gop-lawmakers-launch-their-healthcare-plan/, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/congressional_budget_office_th.html, http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/gop-plan-even-worse-you-are-hearing, http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/05/cbo-scores-gop-health-care-pla

Myth #5 in the Series--Dispelling the 6 Most Prevalent Myths Regarding Health Care Reform, 1 Myth at a Time

Today's myth will touch on small businesses.

Myth #5
Small Businesses Will Be Hurt by Health Care Reform

Facts
People against a public option and health care reform have voiced all types of scare tactics, one of which is the demise of small businesses if reform is enacted. Where do they get this stuff?

According to my sources, a small percentage of small businesses would in fact see a tax increase with the passage of a national health care reform act. This would be about 4% of the top-earning small businesses, however "small business" is defined. So that means that about 96% of small businesses would not be subject to the tax surcharge. Small businesses would also be eligible for tax credits up to 50% to provide health insurance to their employees.

In my first post, I talked about working for a for-profit health maintenance organization. I told how small companies, because they were small and did not have the bargaining power, had to pay higher rates for less coverage than larger companies. I saw this first-hand since I worked on various company accounts. With passage of health care reform, this imbalance would be rectified as the act would prohibit health insurance companies from unfairly discriminating against a small business. Why is this bad? I see it as a positive, but some people think it's a bad thing.

The National Federation of Independent Business says that small businesses are especially susceptible to the vicissitudes of the health care insurance market. In March 2009, the NFIB stated "our current system of health insurance and health care is financially unsustainable and threatens the health and financial security of the American people. Small business owners and their employees are especially vulnerable to the weaknesses of our current system." http://www.nfib.com/

There is more information out there regarding small businesses, health insurance, and health care reform. Check out http://www.ctj.org/pdf/smallbuzhealthsurchage.pdf, http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jul2009/sb20090721_906996.htm, http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200907300008, http://www.nchc.org/documents/Resources/NCHC%20Debunking%20Myths%20Final%208_18_09.pdf, and http://www.healthcarereformmyths.org/HealthcareReformMyths.php#A27.

Congressional Budget Office Analysis on Health Care Bill--It Will Reduce the Federal Budget Deficit

The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation came out with a new preliminary finding on the cost estimate of the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Their findings suggest that the health care bill will actually reduce the federal budget deficit. Here's just one portion from their letter:

Estimated Budgetary Impact of H.R. 3962
According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result
in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–
2019 period (see Table 1). In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of
its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget
deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.
The estimate includes a projected net cost of $894 billion over 10 years for
the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects
a gross total of $1,055 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges
(and related spending), increased net outlays for Medicaid and the
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small
employers; those costs are partly offset by $167 billion in collections of
penalties paid by individuals and employers. On balance, other effects on
revenues and outlays associated with the coverage provisions add $6 billion
to their total cost.

Over the 2010–2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would
be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes, which
CBO estimates would save $426 billion, and receipts resulting from the
income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions,
which JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by
$572 billion over that period.1

Here's the link to the CBO's Letter to Congressman Rangel: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf
The letter has the details on the budget deficit savings.

55 Republican Congress Members Who Receive Medicare Oppose the Public Option

This is an interesting article. Fifty-five Republican members of Congress who receive Medicare benefits are opposed to the rest of America getting the public option. You can view an article about it here http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/22/weiner-55-republicans-public-option/.

Let's Think Logically

I will resume my myths next week. For this week, I would just like to pose some questions for us to think about regarding health care. Today, I'd like to talk about common sense issues regarding health care, namely how being healthy is less expensive for your employer, your sister employees, and you.

Think about being at work. You do not have an employer-sponsored health plan or you have one but it isn't all that great. You have to pay each month for this plan, and you can opt out of the plan if you want to. Participation is not mandatory. You opt for the health insurance, and your co-worker, Justine, in the cubicle next to you opts to not take insurance as she cannot afford her part of the premiums. This means that her children and spouse aren't covered either. But, she isn't worried because they're young and in good health.

Justine gets a call at work from one of her children. You can hear her part of the conversation. One of the kids is sick. Nothing to be done. It isn't too bad. The next day, Justine comes to work late because her child is still sick, and she had to find someone to stay with the kid. You and Justine were supposed to start on a project first thing that morning. You had to start on it without her. You and she get to working on the project, and Justine gets a number of phone calls from home. The project should have only taken both of you four hours, but it's the end of the day, and you're still not done. You have to take it home and finish it because, if it isn't finished on time, you lose that account, which means your company loses that account.

It's the next day. Justine is very late this morning. You've had to do her work in addition to your own. Your productivity has been compromised because of her sick child. This continues for a few weeks. Her child is very sick now, and Justine has to take him to the emergency room because the family doesn't have health insurance. Turns out the child has a respiratory disease that could have been treated easily when the child first fell ill. Now, the child will have to stay in the hospital. Justine doesn't know how they will pay for this.

Months go by, Justine's productivity has declined. Clients have complained and are threatening to move their accounts to another company. Justine and her husband are going bankrupt because of the hospital bills. Her husband has taken on another job, which means that the kids will have to be home by themselves because they cannot afford child care.

Justine hasn't been feeling well lately. She's not sure what's wrong, but she can't go see a doctor because she can't afford it. She has missed so much work now that the company decides she has to be let go. The company lost some clients due to Justine's underperforming on their accounts.

So now Justine and her family have no health insurance, they are going bankrupt, she lost her job, and she is very sick. Who will hire her? How will she get health insurance if she gets a new job because she and her child have pre-existing conditions? Besides Justine and her family, who is paying for this lack of health care?

While I may have invented Justine and this scenario, it is unfortunately being played out across the country. Check out http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7806-02.pdf, http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf.

Myth #4 in the Series--Dispelling the Six Most Prevalent Myths Regarding Health Care Reform, 1 Myth at a Time

Oh, wait a minute--that's a torte not a tort!

Myth #4
Tort reform is the way to cut costs in our health care system.

Facts
Before investigating this myth, I was one of the legions of underinformed people that believed this one to be true. However, after researching this issue, I have changed my stance. It isn’t that I don’t believe tort reform has merits; it’s just that I don’t think it’s a major factor in the costs of health care in this country. Why? Well, let me tell you.

But first, I’d like to address those people who are called “tenthers,” those who believe health care reform is unconstitutional and is a states’ rights issue. Funny thing is that many of these same people are saying that tort reform is a national issue, not a states’ rights issue. You can’t have it both ways, people. And, I think many “tenthers” don’t know that many states have already instituted tort reforms.

Now on to the tort reform myth. One of the hardest things about researching this one is that there doesn’t seem to be much room for a middle-ground, objective view (I could address the term objective in another blog, but I won’t—I’ll just say a few words. I don’t believe there is pure objectivity. We’re human, therefore we think. [My apologies to René for changing his words.] In thinking, we form opinions. Okay, I’ll stop). I’m talking about the research that is out there—real research, not something from Fox News or the democratic underground. Even the Congressional Budget Office seems to contradict itself. Now I’ll get to some facts.

Did you know that medical malpractice liability is only about 2 percent of our total health care costs? Yes, that’s right—only about 2 percent. Depending on the numbers different researchers use, it is as low as 0.9 percent and goes up to 3 percent. These are the lower and upper limits that I found. Economists and health care researchers have found mixed results related to tort reform. One thing that seems to be consistent, though, is why medical malpractice insurance is so expensive.

That brings us to the insurance companies. In the United States, for-profit insurance companies have driven up the price of malpractice insurance. Did you know that the CEO of WellPoint makes upwards of $9 million dollars a year???? Huh, how does she do that? But I digress--WellPoint is a health insurance company. A comparison that the St. Petersburg Times did of Canadian and American malpractice insurance rates show the differences in costs.

Comparison of malpractice insurance rates
TORONTO
Orthopedic Surgeon $10,485
Obstetrician $36,353
Neurosurgeon $29,233

MIAMI
Orthopedic Surgeon $140,000
Obstetrician $191,000
Neurosurgeon $237,000

TAMPA BAY
Orthopedic Surgeon $72,000
Obstetrician $98,000
Neurosurgeon $121,000

http://www.tampabay.com/news/canada-keeps-malpractice-cost-in-check/1021977

How can Canada keep the costs so low? Their system doesn’t rely on private insurance companies; it’s run by the Canadian Medical Protective Association. Maybe American physicians should follow suit. I don’t think our doctors should be penalized by having to pay such high rates for malpractice insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that “lowering premiums for medical liability insurance by 10 percent would reduce total national health care expenditures by about 0.2 percent.” Page 3, CBO letter to Senator Orrin Hatch, October 9, 2009.

Some researchers have stated that they believe even if tort reform is enacted in all states that it won’t make that much of a difference. This has been shown to be the case in those states that have enacted tort reform. The problem also doesn't seem to be that most doctors practice defensive medicine thereby driving up the costs. The difference between states where there has been tort reform and there hasn't been is negligible as to overall health care costs. So something else is at work. The differences in costs are not enough to make a dent in our overall health care costs. One culprit that most of these researchers point to is the insurance industry. They say that the profit motive is what drives malpractice premiums. Another problem is technology and health care. Technology is expensive, and, as health care consumers, we demand it. This leads to higher health care costs.

I would say that everyone needs to look into these issues. Stop blaming the Democrats for protecting trial lawyers, stop blaming trial lawyers, stop blaming doctors, stop blaming President Obama for everything, stop blaming and start looking at more than one news source for information.
Check out www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/health/july-dec09/, http://www.cgo.gov/, http://www.healthcarereformmyths.org/, http://www.rwjf.org/, http://www.kff.org/, http://www.nchc.org/, http://chppr.iupui.edu/research/healthreformmyths.html .

Insurance Company Severely Cuts Back Coverage on Muscular Dystrophy Victim

An insurance company in New York has severely cut back on a man's, Ian Pearl, health insurance coverage because the company deems it too expensive. An executive with the company said that patients such as Pearl were "dogs" and the company could get rid of them. Mr. Pearl needs round-the-clock care, which is not cheap. Instead of paying, Guardian Life Insurance is just dropping coverage in the state, which is legal. Here is the link to the story:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/14/ny-insurance-company-tries-to-rid-itself-of-high-c/

2010 Will Bring Higher Health Care Costs for Workers

In an article in the Wall Street Journal Online from today, it is projected that employees will see about a 10% increase in their health care costs. This increase and cost includes larger payroll deductions and higher co-payments and other fees. Here is the link to the article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703790404574471290259603238.html

4-Month-Old Baby Denied Health Coverage

"And now for something completely different..." In the following Denver Post story and Denver Channel 11 news story, a four-month-old infant has been denied health insurance coverage because the insurance company says he is too fat. The baby is a big boy, but he is being breast-fed. The insurance company says that they do not insure babies who are above the 95th percentile for weight and height. Alex Lange is a healthy baby, and his pediatrician has not expressed any concerns for his weight. The insurance company says that his pre-existing condition, obesity, makes him too great a risk. This despite the fact that both of his parents and his older brother are slender. Go figure!

Here is the Denver Post link: http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_13530098.

Here is the Channel 11 link: http://www.nbc11news.com/localnews/headlines/63813127.html

UPDATE--UPDATE--UPDATE

There was such a backlash against Rocky Mountain Health Plans that the company decided it should probably offer this baby coverage. Never underestimate the power of the Internet and a lot of ticked off people!!

Myth #3 in the Series--Dispelling the Six Most Prevalent Myths Regarding Health Care Reform, 1 Myth at a Time

I'm bringing my blog around to business with this third myth. I do plan to concentrate on health care reform and business later on in my posts.

In addressing myths and health care reform in general, I am concentrating on H.R. 3200 as this is the most talked about bill. There are other health care bills floating about.

Myth #3
Private health insurance would be made illegal, banned by the proposed health care reform.

Facts

This myth has been traced to an editorial that appeared in Investor's Business Daily, and picked up by a number of media outlets. In the editorial, it was claimed that H.R. 3200, page 16, banned private health insurance. This is not what section 102 on page 16 states. Here is that text: SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENTCOVERAGE.
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insuranceissuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

Check out the text in the bill here http://peters.house.gov/uploads/HR3200%20Full%20Text.pdf

So, what does this mean? It means that private insurance companies would still offer health insurance, but they would do so through the exchange that we have been hearing about. So, what does this mean? This means that private insurance companies will be able to offer private policies, but they will not be able to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. The Health Insurance Exchange allows for people to comparison shop between the private companies and the public option. Those people who have coverage prior to the implementation, Y1, would be able to keep the plan they have. It would not be yanked out from under them. The bill actually would prohibit some people from going into the public option.

The bottom line is that health care reform would not put private insurers out of business, which is what some people are worried about. I'm worried about the skyrocketing costs associated with not having health care, and I'm worried about the people who cannot afford the exorbitant costs some private insurers charge. Study after study shows that people without health insurance cost the rest us a lot of money.

Think about it--if someone cannot afford health insurance, do they go to a doctor for preventive care? Statistics say, "No." They cannot afford it. So what do they do? They wait until there is an emergency and then go to the emergency room. What happens to too many people that forgo preventive care is that chronic conditions only tend to get worse, and that's when they end up in the E.R. I'm not blaming the people who cannot afford insurance. I think our system, or lack thereof, is to blame.

Sources on this issue that can be checked out are: www.urban.org/publications/901286.html, www.huffingtonpost.com/wires/2009/08/13/debunking-health-care-lie_ws_258883.html, http://www.aarp.org/.

Also, check out Erin Kennedy's blog, http://theupsanddownsofbeingyourownboss.blogspot.com/2009/10/health-insurance-nightmare.html#comments. This post deals with Erin's quest to get health insurance on her own when she was self-employed.

Myth #2 in the Series--Dispelling the Six Most Prevalent Myths Regarding Health Care Reform, 1 Myth at a Time

Okay, here is myth #2 for your viewing pleasure!

Myth#2
People who are in the U.S. illegally would get government health care.

Fact
The page most mythmakers cite as definitive proof that illegal immigrants would get government health care is on page 50 of H.R. 3200. Page 50 states, “SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.”

The only place in the bill that mentions anything remotely related to illegal immigrants is where the bill talks about immigration status on page 132, which states “SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL. (a) DEFINITION.—(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this division, the term ‘‘affordable credit eligible individual’’ means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act). ’’ That’s it, the only place.

If you scroll down to page 143, you will find that it states “SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

Type in “illegal immigrant” or “illegal alien” in the “find” box. Nothing will come up. Type in “undocumented aliens.” The only references are on page 7 (indicating where in the text section 246 is) and page 143. Here is the link to H.R. 3200: http://peters.house.gov/uploads/HR3200%20Full%20Text.pdf

Is it true that illegal immigrants might be able to get health insurance under health care reform? Yes, just as they do now by purchasing health insurance. It is not a new provision or even one that has been added to H.R. 3200. Here is what politifact.com had to say about it: “The best argument that we find that health reform would help illegal immigrants is that some might be able to purchase the public option — if it passes, and it might not — on the new health insurance exchange. They would purchase that at full cost… That's similar to the current system — we're not aware of any particular restrictions that stop illegal immigrants from buying private insurance now. Under health care reform, illegal immigrants would be able to buy private insurance or the public option.”

Is it true that illegal immigrants get health care in the United States? Yes it is. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, hospitals have to treat people who are brought in for emergencies regardless of their ability to pay or immigration status.

I have a question: Would you rather illegal immigrants be able to purchase their health insurance, thereby paying money out of pocket, or would you rather not let them have this option? Without the option, we all pay because, by federal law, they are entitled to emergency room services even if they cannot pay. Hospitals can get reimbursed through Medicaid but that doesn’t mean they do get reimbursed.

Check out politifact.com, factcheck.org, kff.org, cms.hhs.gov (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), and http://www.khou.com/news/local/politics/stories/khou090827_mp_illegal-immigrants-health-care-refor.121de3a0b.html.

"Mad as Hell Doctors"

This is a Web site for the "mad as hell doctors." The byline is "this fall, the rubber gloves meet the road."

It is a group of Oregon doctors who are heading to Washington, D.C., with their message of universal health care. They're travelling in an rv, and plan to arrive in D.C. on Sept. 30.

http://www.madashelldoctors.com/

Hear What Some Dayton Doctors Say About Health Care Reform

Here are a clip and a newspaper article about a forum held in Centerville, Ohio, on Sept. 15, 2009, sponsored by the Dayton group of Doctors for America. They support health care reform.

http://abc.daytonsnewssource.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/wkef_vid_2858.shtml

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/area-physicians-group-gives-its-take-on-health-care-reform-300896.html

Dispelling the Six Most Prevalent Myths Regarding Health Care Reform, 1 Myth at a Time

So that you may disagree or agree with me with real information on your side and mine, I have provided the sources for dispelling these myths. However, I would suggest that everyone read H.R. 3200 and other sources for her/himself and stop perpetuating the misinformation. I would also suggest that people read reputable sites and not depend upon one slanted viewpoint. It adds nothing to the discourse.

Myth #1
The health care bill would set up government death panels.

Fact
This one just keeps going and going and going like the Energizer bunny, yet it's been debunked from many quarters. In section 1233 of H.R. 3200, the provision is to allow doctors to bill Medicare for their consultations with patients regarding end-of-life care and decisions. As it stands now, Medicare does not cover this. It's as simple as that. There are NO death panels (p. 424-425 of the house bill on peters.house.gov; or, scroll down to section 1233 on thomas.loc.gov). Conservative firebrand Dick Morris even stated on Sean Hannity's talk show on Fox on August 17, 2009, that there are no death panel provisions in the bill. Many sources have addressed this myth. Check out cbsnews.com, opencongress.org, aarp.org, nchc.org, mediamatters.org, abcnews.go.com, to name a few sites you can peruse to see for yourself.

Health Insurer Denies Woman's Claim--Her Bleeding Breast Was Not an Emergency

It just gets more and more surreal and sad.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/25/blue-shield-denies/

A 22-Year-Old Dies in Ohio from Swine Flu--She Had No Health Insurance

I just came across this. The story is about a young woman who recently graduated from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. She caught the swine flu but had no health insurance so she put off seeing a doctor. She died.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/25/swineflu-boehner-constituent/

Just Had to Post This

I know in my last post I said my next one would be on Medicare recipients wanting the government out of it, but I saw this and felt compelled to post it. It just shows how out of it many of our lawmakers are. They should be ashamed.

It is Sen. Kyl of Arizona.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/25/stabenow-kyl-maternity/

A Word About. . .Words

I love words. I love looking up the etymology of them. I find it fascinating, so I was just thinking about a number of words that are being bandied about regarding President Obama's vision for health care reform. I really wish that people using these words understood what they mean as too many people I've heard invoking them are using them incorrectly. I would just like to provide some definitions as a public service!!

Words can be used to promote positive change, and they can also be used to control and deceive people. The words I'll be discussing are being used by some people to deceive. Let us not be sucked into their deception but rise above it by having knowledge of what these terms really mean. In explaining the terms, I'm using a number of books I have on concepts in cultural theory, concepts in sociology, and concepts in philosophy. So, let's get started!

Fascism: Protester's sign--"No Health Care Reform! President Obama is a Fascist!" When I first heard someone say this, I had a number of reactions, one of which was bemusement followed by amusement. Did you know that part of the political philosophy of the fascists was racial purity?? Think about it--Barack Obama, a biracial man, as a fascist advocating racial purity?!! Another aspect of it was its denunciation of liberalism. Interesting. Yet another aspect of fascism was its intense hatred, yes hatred, of communism. One last point about fascism that you might find interesting--social support for fascism came from the military and the middle-class. Interesting indeed! Hm, President Obama as a liberal and a fascist.

Socialism: Protester's sign--"No Health Care Reform! President Obama Advocates Socialism and He's a Fascist!" As a political theory, socialism actually has equality as its most basic ideal. Socialists believed that it was to everyone's benefit to wrest the control and means of production from the few who owned the resources, and redistribute the control and means of production for the general welfare of the population. Socialists, however, disagreed as to who should control the means of production in a socialist society. "Socialists are particularly opposed to the individualism of liberal capitalist society." (Edgar, A., & Sedgwick, P. (Eds.). (1999). Key concepts in cultural theory. London: Routledge.) Hm, so President Obama is a liberal, fascist, socialist, capitalist individualist. Very interesting.

Communism: Protester's sign--"No Health Care Reform! President Obama is a Socialist Fascist Who Advocates Communism!" Communism reflects the belief that there should be no social division of classes, no ownership of property (private), and no divisions within the labor force. Communism rejects the premise of individual liberty and rights and liberalism, and believes it is the collective conscience of a people that is important. So, President Obama is a liberal, fascist, socialist, capitalist, communist individualist. Makes one's head spin!

Now for something else to think about: Many people who are shouting out their resistance to health care reform are saying that they don't want the government to run health care because the government shouldn't be in control of things like that. It should be privately run because the government doesn't do a good job of running institutions.

One question then for these naysayers: Do you want the military to be privately run? Seems to me like the government has been doing a fairly good job of running it for a couple of hundred years.

Using today's topic as a segue, my next post will address those people who have been shouting "Keep the government out of my Medicare!"

Introduction to the Helthe Cearu Reform Blog

Introduction
You may be wondering what "helthe cearu" means. I have chosen to write my Business Organizations course blog on health care reform in the United States. It seemed a bit boring to just title it "Health Care Reform," so I looked up the etymology of the words health and care. The words "helthe" and "cearu" are Middle English and Old English respectively. Interestingly, helthe is derived from the word "whole."

Why Health Care Reform
I chose this topic as it is front and center in public discourse in our country. We all need health care, and we have all benefitted from it. Having access to health care affects us all in one way or another. It also affects businesses, from sole proprietorships to multi-national corporations.

A number of years ago, I took two college courses that had a profound affect on my outlook on capitalism and general economics. One of these was a social philosophy course, Social Justice and Economic Distribution. Probably the most salient point I took away from this course was how equal access to quality education and health care were of paramount importance to having a productive society. The other course was a graduate course in economics that combined micro- and macroeconomics. I basically came away from this course with the same message as the social philosophy course.

What is startling to me about these two courses and the way in which they were taught is that the instructors could not have been more different. Not surprisingly, the social philosophy professor was an avowed Marxist. The economics professor was a conservative South Carolinian, but his message was the same as the Marxist's. The message that an educated and healthy society is a productive society has stayed with me all these years.

My Experiences with Health Care
I have had a couple of experiences that make me somewhat wary of for-profit health care businesses. In the late 1980s, I worked for a health maintenance organization in California (which shall remain nameless), in the accounts receivable department. I maintained many accounts for large and small companies in the Los Angeles area. I knew how much each company paid per employee per premium, and I knew exactly how much coverage each company bought for their employees. I also knew how much each employee had to pay for her health coverage. In thinking about all of this, I was struck by how different each policy was. The larger companies usually paid less per premium than the smaller companies. In this mix, I also was privy to how much it cost my company for each policy, and the company was making a nice profit.

While working for this same company, I was horrified to learn that the people making the initial decisions as to approval/denial of a procedure had no medical experience. Let me repeat that--the people making the initial determination of approval or denial of a medical procedure had no medical training. These front-line clerks made more money than those of us in receivables, and we all planned to eventually move into these positions as they became available.

Another rather unsettling job I had was as an account supervisor for a supposedly non-profit pharmaceutical development center affiliated with a medical college. Again, I will not reveal the name of this outfit. The center made clinical trial drugs for major pharmaceutical companies. As the account supervisor, I knew how much money it cost us to develop these drugs, and I knew how much we billed the drug companies. When I questioned my boss about the discrepancy between these two matters, he told me that because drug companies made such a profit, it was no big deal to charge them what we did. I had more of a conscience than he did, but I was also concerned about compliance issues--we were non-profit after all.

A different experience of mine has to do with utilizing the VA health care system. I am a veteran, and I have used the VA extensively, both in California and now in Ohio. Once the VA changed to a managed care model, I have had nothing but praise for the care I have received. I have never had my care rationed at the VA, and though it is a gargantuan system, I have been more than satisfied with the way in which it has been run.

So, this is my introduction to my blog. I will be posting items from a myriad of Web sites, conservative and liberal and non-partisan.