InsureBlog

The Individual Mandate is Evil [UPDATED]

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:29:00 +0000

The other day, I had breakfast with an old friend and mentor. In the course of discussing ObamaCare, he asked me which part I considered the most egregious. I think I surprised him when I said it wasn't coverage for abortions or illegal aliens, or even the so-called "Public Option" which most offended me.

It's the individual mandate.

Now, one might think that, because I sell insurance for a living, I'd be all for a law that required folks to buy what I sell. But I'm an American first, and I find this particular idea repugnant and, frankly, unAmerican. Here's why:

There is no precedent for requiring us to buy a product or service simply for living. There are those who argue, incorrectly, that we're required to buy automobile insurance. But they neglect to finish the sentence: "if one chooses to own and/or operate a car." Many folks go through life relying on public or alternate transportation, never having the need or requirement to buy auto insurance. But there are no choices here: simply being alive would require one to buy insurance.

Second, this is far beyond a slippery slope: if the government can require you to buy something you don't need or want, then it can require you to do anything. There simply is no limit.

Third, a friend of mine recently raised a First Amendment issue: what about those folks who, because of their religion, don't use medical services? Would Scientologists and the Amish (for example) be exempted from this requirement? If not, then they're paying for something that they cannot use due to their faith. This is a gross infringement on their 1st Amendment rights. If they are exempt, then how many folks will join (or claim to join) one of these faiths in order to avoid the mandate, and how would that square with its goals?

There is just no valid case to be made for such a law, and its adoption would be a very, very bad thing.

UPDATE: It appears that the most egregious penalties vis: the Individual Mandate have beentoned down in Dr Harry's version of ObamaCare:

‘‘(C) INDEXING OF AMOUNT.—In the case
5 of any calendar year beginning after 2017, the
6 applicable dollar amount shall be equal to $750,
7 increased by an amount equal to—
8 ‘‘(i) $750, multiplied by
9 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de
10 termined under section 1(f)(3) for the cal
11 endar year, determined by substituting
12 ‘calendar year 2016’ for ‘calendar year
13 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.
14 If the amount of any increase under clause (i)
15 is not a multiple of $50, such increase shall be
16 rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50."

In other words, a penalty far less than called for by Nurse Nancy's edition.

And it also appears that they've dropped the threat of jail-time:

"WAIVER OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES AND INTEREST.
—In the case of any failure
12 by a taxpayer to timely pay any tax imposed by this
13 section—
14 ‘‘(A) such taxpayer shall not be subject to
15 any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect
16 to such failure,"

That subsection goes on to say that penalties will be that the gummint gets to keep any tax refunds, that kind of thing.

On the other hand, it will still be illegal to choose to be uninsured. So the principle that one will be required to buy insurance remains unchanged.

And here I thought these guys were pro-choice.

[Update Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]

Just What the Doctor Ordered...

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:02:00 +0000

Via RedState:

Indian Insurance

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Vineyard, CLU) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:21:00 +0000

The more time the House and Senate bills spend in the light of day, the more insidious they become. Pages 264 - 265 tell us that Indians whose income is below 300% of the FPL will receive free health care.

My wife has some Cherokee in her ancestry if you go back far enough. Suppose she can qualify?

Page 443 of the bill substitutes "legal residents" with the language "those lawfully residing in the United States."

What is that all about?

Page 369 of the bill protects workers from retribution if they complain that their employer is not providing health insurance benefits.

If you are an Indian does that mean your employer doesn't have to provide coverage?

Isn't this fun?

Paging Dr. Facebook

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Vineyard, CLU) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:27:00 +0000

Nathalie Blanchard is on medical leave after being diagnosed with major depression. She is collecting monthly sick leave benefits from Manulife. This was not a problem until she decided to take a trip and post some pics on Facebook.

When Blanchard called Manulife, the company said that "I'm available to work, because of Facebook," she told CBC News this week.

She said her insurance agent described several pictures Blanchard posted on the popular social networking site, including ones showing her having a good time at a Chippendales bar show, at her birthday party and on a sun holiday — evidence that she is no longer depressed, Manulife said.

When my wife is depressed, a trip to Chippendales always cheers her up. Apparently Manulife views it differently.

Blanchard said that on her doctor's advice, she tried to have fun, including nights out at her local bar with friends and short getaways to sun destinations, as a way to forget her problems.

She also doesn’t understand how Manulife accessed her photos because her Facebook profile is locked and only people she approves can look at what she posts.

Apparently Canadian insurance companies can be as dastardly as U.S. based ones.

Her lawyer Tom Lavin said Manulife's investigation was inappropriate.

"I don't think for judging a mental state that Facebook is a very good tool," he said, adding that he has requested another psychiatric evaluation for Blanchard.

Well of course not.

If Facebook can diagnose psych issues then why do we need real docs? Paging Dr. Facebook . . .

Stupid Government Tricks - Senate Edition

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Vineyard, CLU) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:57:00 +0000

The folks at The Heritage Foundation have nailed it in today's Morning Bell. This should be required reading of anyone, ESPECIALLY those who will be called to vote on the legislation.

Excerpt . . .

Last Saturday night Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) forced through a vote on her 2,032 page health care bill only a few days after releasing it to the public. Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is poised for another Saturday night cram down, forcing a Senate cloture vote mere days before his 2,074 page bill was given to Senators. Yet again, Congress will be forced to vote on a bill that none of them have actually read. More importantly, as we pour through the details, it becomes obvious that none of them even believe the plan will do what the bill says.

Kills Jobs: All told, the Reid Bill raises taxes by $370.2 billion over the next ten years with many of those taxes starting to be collected this year while unemployment is at 10.2% and rising. Worse, the bill includes a job killing employer mandate which taxes companies for hiring people. Specifically, companies with more than 50 employees that do not offer a health plan approved by federal bureaucrats will be forced to pay a $750 per employee job tax.

Hurts Small Businesses: The Reid Bill acknowledges it is terrible public policy for small businesses and tries to address this problem by including a “small business tax credit” to minimize the impact of the job killing employer mandates and regulation-caused rises in private health insurance premiums. But the tax credit only lasts two years and largely excludes small business owners, small businesses with high-average payrolls, and firms with 25 or more workers. After all exclusions, essentially the only eligible firms are those firms with 10 or fewer workers as well as those with low-income workers—the least likely to offer coverage even with a significant price reduction.

For the rest of the story, click the link above to Heritage.

This is truly another example of a stupid government trick.

Stupid Carrier Tricks: Anthem Renewal Edition

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:00:00 +0000

One of my groups recently received their annual Anthem renewal. They've been with that carrier for several years, absorbing a number of rate increases because, based on demographics and health, it still beat the new business offers from the other carriers. This time, though, Anthem threw in a little twist, one which I inadvertently missed for a bit.

Generally, a renewal quote will include a recap of the current plan design and premium, and the new rates for that plan design. This is standard, and well-accepted. Where a particular plan design is no longer offered, the closest "new" design is substituted, and there's a notation to that effect.

Not this time.

The underlying medical plan didn't change (much), but instead of prescription plan "x" they subbed in plan "z," without noting the substitution. The renewal rate, even with the lesser benefit plan, was 29% higher than last year. Definitely time to shop again.

This was both easier and harder than last time 'round: harder because, as we've noted before, we need to submit completed applications to get realistic bids; easier because the demographics and health of the group had changed in a positive way.

After submitting the ubiquitous UHC applications to several carriers, it looked like we were stuck once again: none of the offers were really outstanding; UHC's was close, but added a $100 per person prescription deductible (in addition to the underlying plan's deductible). I really have no problem with that: rx costs comprise a disproportionate share of claims, and encouraging more consumer awareness of these costs is a good thing. Still, why switch carriers for essentially the same plan and rate?

Or so we thought.

In re-reviewing (no, that's not a typo) the renewal, the business owner and I finally noticed that the Anthem prescription benefit had changed, and not for the better. We asked Anthem if we could still get the same rx plan as we'd had and, if so, at what additional cost. Turns out, they would be happy to restore the full benefits, at an additional cost of about 15% of the premium (about $5000 per year). That earned a double-take, but the numbers didn't lie. No wonder they'd snuck in the rx change: if they'd sent the real renewal, it would have been a 35% hit.

Ouch!

Fortunately, I had put the UHC process on hold, but not cancelled it, so we were able to successfully transition there. A happy ending, but: a very bitter taste as a result of the underhanded way that Anthem presented its renewal.

Lesson: review those renewals very carefully, because what you see may not be what you thought you were supposed to get.

Getting to 60

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Vineyard, CLU) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:20:00 +0000

When it is your money Congress is spending, there is no limit. Care to guess how much Sen. Mary Landrieu want's for a yes vote for health insurance reform?

Try $100 million.

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

No kidding.

This falls under the category of saving or creating a health insurance reform bill.

Change you can believe in.

This Just In: "Told Ya So..."

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:26:00 +0000

Last evening, in our report on HarryCare (aka HariKariCare), we noted:

"Absent these [Medicare] cuts ... there are no savings, only additional expenditures."

Now comes word from the Congressional Budget Office that:

"CBO estimates that enacting both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962 would add $89 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period."

[ed: 3961 increases reimbursement rates, and 3962 is the so-called "Affordable Health Care for America Act"]

So instead of decreasing the deficit by some $127 billion, it would actually increase it by $89 billion (that's a 216 billion dollar hole Sen Reid just dug).

Doctors Don't Need Health Insurance

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Vineyard, CLU) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:20:00 +0000

Aetna health insurance plans are some of the best available in Georgia, but some of them are lacking in coverage. I tell folks that, when looking at a health insurance policy, look at what it does NOT cover before deciding if it is right for you or not.

"I'm a health care provider and I don't think I will get sick, so I don't need comprehensive health insurance that includes prescription drug coverage."

That was the line used to justify this woman's position during a phone interview.

She called me looking for dental insurance. Something most people don't need.

She has an Aetna PPO Value 10,000 plan. Not a bad plan . . . until you get sick.

Non-preferred brand name drugs are not covered. That includes most cancer drugs.

Preferred brand drugs are covered but only up to $5,000 per year. Someone who is ill can run through that amount in a few months.

The plan also has a $1,000,000 annual limit on all benefits.

But back to the health care provider.

"I can always change my plan if needed because of portability laws."

Really?

Portability only applies to group health insurance plans. She has an individual health insurance plan.

"As long as I don't have a break in coverage they have to cover my pre-existing conditions."

True . . . assuming they will even accept you. Of course if you are really sick, needing a medication that runs $5,000 per month what are your chances of them taking you on as a policyholder?

"I'm not planning on getting sick."

I decided it was time to end this call. Probably should have asked if she worked in Washington. That is the kind of argument I would expect to hear out of those folks.

Meanwhile, Over at the MVNHS©...

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:17:00 +0000

Woe to the British citizen who develops liver cancer. That great example of socialized medicine continues to implement its own brand of Death Panel (coming soon to a hospital near you?):

"The health watchdog has blocked a critical liver cancer drug, saying it is too pricey for the state health service ... the drug — Nexavar — is one of the only options left, and it has been shown to prolong life by almost four months on average."

Of course, some lives are more equal than others, and the Brits have apparently decided (much like our Congress) that sickies really should move on.

Of course, that's only bad news for those folks fortunate enough to live long enough to even get liver cancer. If you're a baby Brit, then you'd better hope you went full-term:

"Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed."

The infant was born about 4 months early, and so his life was deemed unimportant enough to waste precious health care dollars in saving. What a compassionate system.

Quick - let's have that here!

About that "Public Option:" He who makes the rules...

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:00:00 +0000

Sometimes, seeing something in action is far more convincing than just discussing it:

[Hat Tip: Lyndsi Thomas]

German health care costs: Uber oder unter alles?

noreply@blogger.com (Mike Feehan) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:31:00 +0000

I was struck by the chart that accompanied this Wall Street Journal article today (scroll down).

The chart lists 5 countries (Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada) whose overall health care spending - according to OECD data - is between 9.8% and 11.0% of GDP.

Not that long ago, spending in the US was at 11% of GDP and pundits were predicting disaster. Well, now these 5 countries are at that level.

I think this information suggests that these nations have not really "solved" the problem of health care spending because they have failed to stabilize their health care spending. They have maintained a lower overall spending level than the US (which may be related to other factors, e.g. behaviors, diet, income levels, etc) but they have not stabilized the growth of their costs and as a result have caught up to where the US was, not so long ago. It's tempting to believe their costs will continue to grow and will reach the level where we are now, in not so many more years. Shouldn’t we know for sure whether that’s true?

So wouldn't it be useful to compare per capita US health care spending for our Medicare population with the corresponding per capita numbers in other countries for their over-65 populations? Such a comparative analysis could be designed so as to reflect like populations, insured in like manners by federal programs of health insurance (Medicare in the US, the national health systems in the other countries). If per capita US expenditures for this population are consistent with the other countries', well then that could be evidence that extending a Medicare-like, federal, single-payer system to the rest of our population would result in lower spending - like the rest of THEIR populations. If the US per capita expenditures are higher, that could mean that universal single payer systems may not be so effective as is widely believed.

I'd be surprised if this comparative analysis has not already been done - but I've been unable to locate anything. Yet.

[Graphic courtesy WSJ]

On Phantom Numbers

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:21:00 +0000

So Sen Reid has (finally) deigned to share with his Senate colleagues his phantasmagorical health care "reform" package.

O frabjous day!

According to the Congressional Budget Office, this all-in-one solution will cost a mere $849 billion, while allegedly reducing the federal deficit by some "$127 billion over the next ten years."

I understand that it slices and dices, as well.

To put that purported $127 billion in perspective: it represents, over 10 years, less than last month's deficit alone.

That bears repeating: if (and that's a big if) it really meets expectations, Sen Reid's baby will cut, over 10 years, the equivalent of one month's deficit. Color me underwhelmed.

It does this, by the way, by drastically cutting Medicare expenses to seniors, to the tune of half a trillion dollars. If, in fact, it cuts them at all.

Hunh?

Since 1997, there have been regularly scheduled Medicare reimbursement "adjustments" (i.e. decreases), every one of which has been deferred. That is, there have been no actual cuts to Medicare reimbursement schedules. Now we're to believe that, willy nilly, after 12 years of non-activity the gummint is suddenly going to get serious about cutting providers' Medicare reimbursements?

Perhaps I can interest you in a bridge, as well.

Absent these cuts (on which the CBO "scoring" is predicated), there are no savings, only additional expenditures. Of course, with these cuts, Seniors will "enjoy" a double whammy: being thrown under the bus, and drastically reduced medical services when they hit the ER (and beyond).

Regardless, The Gang That Couldn't Count Straight© has some credibility issues when it comes to these massive expenditures to solve economic problems. Here's another 1,000 words to illustrate:

[Chart Courtesy Innocent Bystanders]

[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]

For Your Reading Pleasure...

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:15:00 +0000

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you H.R. 3590, aka HarryCare.

All 2,074 fun-filled pages.

Enjoy.

Irony, Thy Name is Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:50:00 +0000

Perhaps the most annoying type of TV commercial is the (apocryphal?) car dealer who claims to lose money on each sale, but will "make it up on the volume." Ostensibly, this is supposed to mean that he'll sell so many cars that he'll end up with a profit.

Unless you're a state Attorney General, you probably understand enough economics to know that, if you're losing money on each car, you're going to lose more money on lots of cars.

Okay, that last sentence is unfair; let's make it more accurate: Unless you're a state Attorney General or the President of the United States, you probably understand enough economics to know that, if you're losing money on each car, you're going to lose more money on lots of cars.

As witness:

"President Barack Obama gave his sternest warning yet about the need to contain rising U.S. deficits, saying on Wednesday that if government debt were to pile up too much, it could lead to a double-dip recession."

So let's get this straight: if we don't cut spending, we're going to continue to further damage an already floundering economy, and the way to cut spending is to spend almost $2 trillion dollars on a government takeover of our health care system?

Gosh, what kind of mileage does that baby get?

[ed: Our apologies to car salesfolks for comparing them to President Obama]

In the Hot Seat (Again)

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:00:00 +0000

Several months ago, the very pleasant Claire McGuire interviewed me on behalf of FoIB Chris Brooks' Term Life Insurance Policy blog. Claire was researching a piece on whether (and how) disclosing one's medical history could adversely affect one's life insurance application.

The results of that interview are part of a very interesting post now up at Chris' blog.

Ignorant Government Tricks: Economics and the Flu

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:53:00 +0000

It appears that officials in some states aren't familiar with the concept of market-driven solutions. Case in point from today's McPaper:

"Some pharmacies are charging three times what others are for a scarce liquid form of the H1N1 drug Tamiflu used by children, USA TODAY has found. At least two states' attorneys general are investigating."

Apparently, "at least two states attorneys general" are clueless: increasing the price of something in short supply is a feature, not a bug. That is, the price increases because there's a shortage, not the other way around. When the cost of something is artificially depressed, the demand goes up, and shortages ensue. In this case, the relatively low cost of the vaccine (the article quotes $43, although I've seen it for much less locally) encourages folks who are at low risk of getting H1N1 (or, if they do, experiencing much difficulty) to get it anyway, reducing the supply available to those who are at-risk. By making the opportunity cost (and, of course, the nominal one, as well) more painful, it alleviates pressure on the supply chain. This is a good thing because more of the vaccine is then available to those truly in need.

It's akin to the price of hotel rooms after a major weather disaster: if rates remain fairly low, some families figure "hey, we'll get two or three rooms so the kids have some space;" this reduces the available supply for those who come in later. Temporarily increasing room rates discourages this behavior. It's basic economics.

Seems like that concept is lost on gummint-types.

Cavalcade of Risk #92: FAQ's

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:15:00 +0000

Jason Shafrin hosts this week's Q&A version of the Cavalcade of Risk. It's a safe bet that you'll learn something new.

Group Term Life Insurance - Open Enrollment

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Vineyard, CLU) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:46:00 +0000

For some, open enrollment is going on as employees scramble to make elections for the coming year. I consulted with a client today on their options.

The family has been covered under a family major medical plan but his wife has recently returned to work and has been offered a benefit package. The health plan is good and very inexpensive for her after factoring in the employer contribution.

Like most employer plans, the heavy cost is shifted to the employee that has a family looking for coverage. After reviewing the benefits of their current plan vs. the one through the employer and weighing the cost of both plans the husband decided to keep what he has now.

The husband and children will remain on the current plan, the wife will choose the employer plan.

We then looked at other benefits such as life insurance, dental and vision. The dental and vision plans both have nominal premiums (due to heavy employer subsidy) and were essentially a no-brainer.

He dismissed the life insurance but I encouraged him to look at it further. Like many plans, the employee will receive life insurance at no charge that is a multiple of salary.

Free is good.

They also have a dependent life insurance plan that allows the wife to buy $50,000 of life insurance on her husband. Since this is open enrollment he can pick up the insurance without evidence of insurability.

This last item is a key in the decision process.

My client has cancer.

He has been battling cancer for 2 years. He applied for SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) in January and was approved in three weeks.

No one is approved that quickly.

If he were to apply for life insurance in the open market he would be denied. I strongly encouraged him to pick up as much life insurance as he can get under the employer plan.

After I explained the way the plan will work, that he will not be required to answer health questions or submit to a physical exam, he agreed that purchasing life insurance through the employer was a good idea.

So did I.

How Much?

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:00:00 +0000

It's been a while since we've discussed transparency in health care. Thanks to commenter Christine Lynch, here's a pretty good summary of why it may be overdue:

Skip that Mammogram? Maybe... [UPDATED & BUMPED]

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:45:00 +0000

[Please scroll down for updates]

Earlier this year, we reported on surprising news that perhaps PAP tests weren't "all that." Now comes news that, for many 40-something women, mammograms may not be "all that," either:

"Most women don't need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50 ... It's a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position."

But wait, it gets better (or worse):

"[B]reast self-exams do no good and women shouldn't be taught to do them."

If this was just any old think-tank, one might be tempted to call this irresponsible and potentially dangerous advice. But it isn't, it's "the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies."

In the other corner, of course, Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, responds that "[o]ur concern is that as a result of that confusion, women may elect not to get screened at all. And that, to me, would be a serious problem."

So which is it?

Hard to say, but even the ACS has apparently been "backing off promoting breast self-exams in recent years because of scant evidence of their effectiveness."

And since most health insurance plans cover mammograms, some at no cost to the insured, it's unlikely that we'll see demand for them sagging. And we'll leave it at that.

[Hat Tip: SoIB Joyce Ferreiro]

UPDATE: There may be a diabolical undercurrent to the panel's findings. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey reports that as recently as 6 months ago, the same panel was sounding the alarm in a statistically insignificant drop in the number of 40-something women having these exams. Now, they're lauding the same outcome. What's changed? Under ObamaCare, "the government will be paying for a lot more of these exams ... That will put a serious strain on resources, especially since many of the providers will look to avoid dealing with government-managed care and its poor compensation rates."

Ed also notes that none of the 16 members of the U.S Preventive Services Task Force is an oncologist.

Death and Taxes: An Ethical Dilemna

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:42:00 +0000

FoIB and tax-blogger extraordinaire Joe Kristan has an intriguing post about organ donations, taxes and the thousands of patients who've died as the result of a perhaps mis-guided policy.

What do you think?

Health Care Reform Disappearing Act

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Vineyard, CLU) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:22:00 +0000

Health insurance reform is about give and take. If you waddle through the maze and countless pages in all the various bills before Congress you really have to wonder what is going to come out on the other end if and when this massive spending bill is finalized.

I have wondered about all the new taxes to pay for health insurance (supposedly for the uninsured) but something I read this morning crystalized the games they are playing in Washington with our money. The AP reported this on the tax credits that everyone got as part of our share of stimulus.

The tax credit, which is supposed to pay individuals up to $400 and couples up to $800, was President Barack Obama's signature tax break in the massive stimulus package enacted in February.

Most workers started receiving the credit through small increases in their paychecks in April. The tax credit was made available through new withholding tables issued by the Internal Revenue Service.

The withholding tables, however do not take into account taxpayers with multiple jobs or married couples in which both people work. They also don't take into account Social Security recipients with jobs that provided taxable income.

The Social Security Administration sent out $250 payments to more than 50 million retirees in the spring as part of the economic stimulus package. The payments were meant to provide a boost for people who didn't' qualify for the tax credit.

However, they went to many retirees who also received the credit. Those retirees will have the $250 payment deducted from their tax credit — but not until they file their tax returns next year, long after the money may have been spent.

That's a bit of a rude awakening.

President Obama called and he wants his money back.

Congress is doing the same thing with health insurance reform under the guise of taxing the rich to pay for health insurance for the poor.

That finding from a new Associated Press poll will be welcome news for House Democrats, who proposed doing just that in their sweeping remake of the U.S. medical system, which passed earlier this month and would extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.

The poll found participants sour on other ways of paying for the health overhaul that is being considered in Congress, including taxing insurers on high-value coverage packages derided by President Barack Obama and Democrats as "Cadillac plans."

That approach is being weighed in the Senate. It is one of the few proposals in any congressional legislation that analysts say would help reduce the nation's health expenditures, but it has come under fire from organized labor and has little support in the House.

Lawmakers also are looking at levying new taxes on insurance companies, drug companies and medical device makers.

Think about this for a moment.

They want to assess health insurance companies, drug companies and medical device makers to pay for health insurance for the poor. But what happens when the tax is imposed?

Drug companies will pass the tax on to consumers who will pay more for medication. Prescriptions covered by health insurance will be more expensive which will result in higher premiums.

Medical devices like pacemakers and wheelchairs will become more expensive which will result in higher costs to the consumer and health insurance company. This mean higher premiums.

Of course let's not forget that drugs, pacemakers and wheelchairs are also covered by Medicare and Medicaid, so those costs will increase as well.

And that tax on health insurance companies? It will be passed through as well to those who pay the premium.

As health insurance premiums rise, to cover the cost of new taxes, higher prices for medication, pacemakers and wheelchairs those plans are in danger of becoming a "Cadillac" plan . . . which will be taxed.

These changes don't even take into account the required 30%+ increase in premiums caused by health insurance reform that mandates more expansive (and expensive) coverage for wellness and mental health parity as well as the "no restrictions on pre-existing conditions" requirement.

So just like the government is giving us a break by lowering our withholding taxes and tossing a bone to Social Security beneficiaries, then taking it back next April, they are doing the same thing with health insurance reform.

Giving us more benefits (no pre-existing, low copays, wellness, mental health parity) which increase premiums so we will have to pay more tax. Actually, it is a double tax.

We pay the tax the first time when we consume goods like medication and medical devices, and then we pay again because we were forced to buy an expensive "Cadillac" plan.

This is a dog only a politician could love.

Change you can believe in. Yes you can.

Pre-Thanksgiving Grand Rounds

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:07:00 +0000

FoIB Louise Norris hosts this week's edition of Grand Rounds, and there's a lot for which to be grateful. For one, she's obviously taken the time to read every submission, and offers her own thoughts on each.

The Gang That Couldn't Count Straight: Spendulus & Health Care

noreply@blogger.com (Henry Stern, LUTCF, CBC) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:34:00 +0000

Back in the day, we poked fun at then-Presidential candidate Obama's claim that he'd been to "all 57 states." Not having a Harvard Law degree, we relied on our high school teachers' claims that there were but 50. But it appears that President Obama's Spendulous efforts are indeed reaching all 57 states:

"In Arizona's 9th Congressional District, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the website set up by the Obama Administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says."

Good news, right?

Well, not so much:

"There is no 9th Congressional District in Arizona; the state has only eight Congressional Districts."

Ooops.

But that's just a fluke, right? A one off?

Well....

"There's no 86th Congressional District in Arizona either, but the government's recovery.gov Web site says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent there."

And the list goes on from there.

Quick - Put these guys in charge of our health care!