Steamd

Some time ago, I attempted to do a series of posts based on a series by Ann Coulter on the current health care debate^[1]. Well, as fate would have it, I didn’t exactly have time to really devote to is and, as such, never finished it. To finish this series, I’m topping it off with a response to Ann Coulter’s recent blog post entitled “My Healthcare Plan“. So let’s see what CoulterCare would look like…

CoulterCare is described as a “one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance” with an emphasis on the words “free market”. Ann claims that “nearly every problem with health care in this country…would be solved by my plan“.

Here’s her plan…

1. Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance.

This is probably one of the only things I agree with that CoulterCare mandates. However, I do not agree that it will provide the level of competition that Ann thinks it will. Granted, it would allow for a greater degree of competition but, let’s face it, these are insurance companies we’re talking about. What will likely happen is that many insurance companies will merge together thus causing a flux of less competition rather than more. States that had only one or two insurance companies present would continue to have just one or two due to the fact that a lot of companies simply don’t want to try and compete.

More so, if an insurance company has already merged with companies that have a presence in that state then you won’t see new insurance companies move into those state. We saw this happen with banks and financial institutions back in the 1990’s. Once banks and financial institutions were given the right to compete more through mergers and acquisitions, a slew of mergers happened almost immediately. One would think that this would mean more competition within the banking and financial sector. However, many purported that this allowed for banks and financial institutions to get too big and thus create less competition and more problems.

If we allow the same sort of behavior with health insurance companies then it’s possible that what happened to the financial sector could happen in the health insurance industry: a full-on collapse of the system. Only way to protect against that is some common sense regulations and rules. Granted, it’s a good idea to allow for interstate commerce within the health insurance industry. But to simply tear down the fences and let them roam free isn’t a good solution. We still have to have some gates to keep from floods happening.

2. The exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company’s home office is.

According to CoulterCare, “every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today“. This would open up a big ole’ can of worms. Ann claims that having such a provision would keep insurance companies from having to follow idiotic state mandates that require all insurance plans to cover bogus things. That may sound great and all, but it also goes against the Conservative principle of allowing the states to decide on these kinds of issues.

For instance, let’s pretend that I live in a state where abortions are legal specifically in cases where the mother’s and/or child’s life is in danger. Pretend that my wife is six-months in and the doctor has given us the bad news and recommends that we abort the child immediately, else we run the risk of my wife and the child of dying due to complications. Now pretend that CoulterCare is in full effect and, since our insurance company is based in a state where abortions are not covered and aren’t legal, our insurance company has told us that they will not cover it. Thanks to CoulterCare, we’re stuck with a bill for thousands and thousands of dollars for something that was totally beyond our control. Not good.

Again, just like with interstate commerce, common sense rules and regulations can be put in place to ensure that insurance policies aren’t covering bogus things. Goofy state-based regulations need to apply. Let the states decide.

3. Prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies.

Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice.

This sounds great, doesn’t it; until you realize that, other than the interstate commerce regulations, insurance companies haven’t really been regulated much by the federal government. Right now, consumers don’t have much choice.

Consumers don’t have a choice on what doctor they can go to. If the doctor you’ve been using for the past ten years isn’t a preferred doctor and in-network according to your insurance company then you will likely not get coverage or receive only a small percentage of coverage.

Consumers as well as doctors and hospitals don’t have the final say-so on what doctor visits, tests, procedures, medications, operations, and such get covered. Only the insurance company has the final word. While you may try to appeal their decision, good luck getting them to pay for it in the end.

Consumers have no say-so as to how much total coverage is provided by their insurance company. An insurance company can stipulate that you’ve maxed out your coverage at any time and refuse to pay any additional medical bills. You could be sitting in the hospital dying and in need of a life-saving procedure, but if your insurance company refuses to pay…good luck!

All of this has nothing to do with government intervention or regulations. It’s all behaviors from the insurance companies in an attempt to maximize profits and make share holders happy. Without some common sense rules and regulations from our government, insurance companies will continue with these behaviors and thus giving consumers less choice instead of more. When consumers aren’t in control over their healthcare, how can one claim that they have choice? That doesn’t make any sense.

CoulterCare claims that “in a free market, the government wouldn’t need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding ‘pre-existing conditions’“. It seems that CoulterCare is mixing the idea of ‘pre-existing condition’ with ‘charity’. That is not what we’re talking about here. Consider this…

I, myself, have a disease with no cure that every health insurance company would see as a ‘pre-existing condition’. If my wife were to loose her job, we would likely end up losing our insurance unless we take over the payments for our insurance plan. If we were to drop the insurance plan and go with another insurance company there is absolutely no guarantee that the new insurance company will cover my ‘pre-existing condition’ right away. As such, I would be forced to have to pay the full price for all my doctor’s visits, all tests, and all prescription. That adds up to a whole lot of money.

Prior to my wife getting a new job, I was without insurance between six months to a year. In that time, we’ve had to minimize doctor’s visits, find alternative medications that cost much less (not to mention less effective than the ones my doctor recommended!), and pay out our doctor’s bills over time. It put a serious dent in our finances and put a serious strain on my ability to maintain good health and get access to the preventative care I needed to avoid the possibility of landing in an emergency room.

Would CoulterCare consider me ‘charity’ case? I suppose so. All I wanted was to be able to pay a reasonable rate for a healthcare insurance policy so that I could get the preventative care I needed at a price I could afford. If CoulterCare were policy then insurance companies would continue with the same practices and thus would force me out of their pool since I would be considered a ‘high-risk’ customer.

Ann doesn’t get it. Ideology can’t fix the healthcare system. You can’t apply political ideology on how corporations run. Corporations don’t care about Conservative principles and ideals; they care about growth and profits for their shareholders. Thus CoulterCare would only help corporations find new ways to maximize profits and wouldn’t solve anything; rather it would make it worse.

I’m not anti-corporation; rather I’m a firm believer in free markets and capitalism. But there is a difference between creating a health profit and profiteering. In order to avoid abuse, you have to create a common sense framework of rules and regulations that everyone can follow. The current healthcare bill, while imperfect, at least takes some steps to creating that framework. CoulterCare does nothing to promote that framework.

Free markets are never ‘free’. Nothing is ever ‘free’. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. No one is entitled to a ‘free lunch’. Thus free markets can never be maintained and will never be sustainable without a framework of common sense rules and regulations. Sustainability and innovation are the keys to maintaining an open free market; an idea that Ann Coulter and other Conservatives are not talking about. They just don’t get it.

1. Health Care, Fiddle Sticks, and Ann Coulter: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four [↩]

As stated in part one and part two, this is an ongoing series based on an ongoing series by Ann Coulter (again, sounds confusing but what do you do). In part three of her series, she starts right off with some colorful comments about the state of Medicare and how that relates to the current health care reform debate:

(9) If you like Medicare, you’ll love national health care, which will just extend Medicare’s benefits to everyone.

Hey — I have an idea: How about we make everyone in America a multimillionaire by pulling Bernie Madoff out of prison and asking him to invest all our money! Both Medicare and Bernie Madoff’s investment portfolio are bankrupt because they operate on a similar financial model known as a “Ponzi scheme.” These always seem to run fabulously well — until the money runs out.

Ah, right! A “Ponzi scheme”! So, what you’re saying is that the government takes people’s money but doesn’t use the money to actually give people health care benefits? Wait a minute! Isn’t that what health insurance companies do too?  I’m so confused.

Not only is Medicare bankrupt, but it is extremely limited in whom and what it covers. If Medicare were a private insurer, it would be illegal in many states for failing to cover hearing aids, podiatry, acupuncture, chiropractic care, marriage counseling, aromatherapy and gender reassignment surgery.

This is funny because private insurers largely refuse to cover things like hearing aids, podiatry, acupuncture, and chiropractic care. Marriage counseling, aromatherapy and gender reassignment surgery? Where the hell did those come from? Last I checked, Medicare doesn’t really cover any of this stuff either so…err…what’s your point?

Moreover, Medicare payments aren’t enough to pay the true cost of those medical services it does cover. With Medicare undercutting payments to hospitals and doctors for patients 65 and older, what keeps the American medical system afloat are private individuals who are not covered by Medicare paying full freight (and then some). That’s why you end up with a $10 aspirin on your hospital bill.

No, you end up with a $10 aspirin not because the hospital doesn’t get paid enough by Medicare but because they don’t get paid at all by the ones without insurance or have claims denied by the patient’s insurance company. It’s easy to blame Medicare for why hospital bills are so damn expensive but that’s simply not the truth. There are a myriad of other factors as to why medical bills are so expensive. The American medical system stays afloat mainly due to the large profits health insurance and pharmaceutical companies receive. The ones who suffer the most are the doctors and hospitals who have to put up with denied claims, failure to pay, a shortage of qualified nurses, a confusing mess of contracts from the insurance companies, and a slew of other things that make the business of practicing medicine downright difficult.

National health care will eliminate everything outside of Medicare, which is the only thing that allows Medicare to exist.

Considering the insane profits insurance and pharmaceutical companies are getting, is that such a bad thing? I don’t know about you but I really don’t like the idea of Mr. CEO of Aetna being able to pay for another yacht just because my dad got a heart bypass. Doesn’t make sense and neither does your statement.

Obviously, therefore, it’s preposterous for Democrats to say national health care will merely extend Medicare to the entire population. This would be like claiming you’re designing an apartment building in which every apartment will be a penthouse. Everyone likes the penthouses, so why not have a building in which every apartment is a penthouse?

It doesn’t work: What makes the penthouse the penthouse is all the other floors below. An “all-penthouse” building is a blueprint that could make sense only to someone who has never run a business and has zero common sense, i.e., a Democrat.

That would be a great analogy indeed if it really worked that way. The thing is that what is being proposed isn’t merely an extension of Medicare to the entire population but rather a segment of the population. In other words, no one is looking to give a penthouse to everyone, just access to an apartment to those who are stuck in the rain with no where to live.

One thing you did get right is that it would make sense only to someone who has never run a business, which is what the current health care industry is…a business. Problem is that that business is profiting severely off the sick and injured of others. So what you could have said was that it would make sense to someone who actually has a conscience but would be confusing as hell to someone who only understands business terminology like growth and profitability. The more we continue to look at our health as nothing more than just a business the more we continue to overlook the very problem. While I agree that doctors and hospitals should be paid for what they are worth, I do not agree with how the rest of the industry is ran. Lots of gross mismanagement and greed at play.

10) National health care won’t cover illegal aliens — as the president has twice claimed in recent radio appearances.

Technically, what Obama said is that the bill isn’t “designed” to give health insurance to illegal aliens. (That bill, the “Health Insurance for Illegal Aliens Act of 2009,” was still being drafted by Ted Kennedy at the time of his death, may he rest in peace.)

First of all, none of the bills were written by Obama. He has laid out his own proposals of what he’d like to see in the bills but it’s up to Congress to shape the bills to reflect his plan. Here’s what Obama actually said in his recent address to Congress:

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants.  This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

Which, as we all know, was followed by a rather loud “You lie!” from Senator Wilson. I think the keyword here is insure, meaning that no illegal immigrant will be eligible to obtain any government sponsored health care insurance plans, period. In other words, if a bill hits Obama’s desk that would allow an illegal immigrant to gain access to health insurance he isn’t going to sign it.

But unless the various government bureaucracies dispensing health care are specifically required by law to ask about citizenship status, illegals will be covered. We can’t even get employers and police to inquire about citizenship status, but liberals assure us that doctors will?

Right now, any illegal immigrant can walk into a public hospital and receive care if they are injured or sick. That’s not likely to change any time soon either. The reason is that to deny anyone health care in this country regardless of whether they are a legal citizen or not presents a moral dilemma: Would you want to live in a country that turns away treatment to someone even if it could mean saving their life?

Not only that but I think Ann is confusing access to health care with access to health insurance. These are two separate disparate things. Anyone can get access to health care when they are sick or hurt. But whether they can afford it is a different matter. That’s where health insurance comes into play. When it comes to the debate over whether illegal immigrants can receive health benefits, we’re talking about access to health insurance here, not access to health care.

And by the way — as with the abortion exclusion — the Democrats expressly rejected amendments that would have required proof of residency status to receive national health care.

Umm, probably because it’s not really required in the bill. I mean, if you have to be a citizen of the United States to get health insurance anyways then why would you need to state that you have to show proof of residency status to receive care in the bill?

Beyond that, can you imagine all the problems that would occur in an emergency room if you had to verify every incoming patient and require proof of residency status? A guy shows up after a heart attack and requires immediate medical attention. But, wait! We can’t let him in yet till he proves he’s a legal resident! It’s a moral question: Do you force the issue and run the risk of him dying? Or do you provide him the medical attention he needs and deal with that issue later?

(11) Obama has dropped his demand for the ironically titled “public option” (i.e., government-run health care), which taxpayers will not have an “option” to pay for or not.

Liberals never, ever drop a heinous idea; they just change the name. “Abortion” becomes “choice,” “communist” becomes “progressive,” “communist dictatorship” becomes “people’s democratic republic” and “Nikita Khrushchev” becomes “Barack Obama.”

Yeah, but then again, some names just don’t change. “Bitch” is still “bitch” last I checked. Look, Obama has never dropped his demand for a “public option”. Just the opposite. And he has made it clear that in his own proposals that the “public option” would only be available to those who can not afford health insurance. As he stated in his address, “The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.”

It doesn’t matter if liberals start calling national health care a “chocolate chip puppy” or “ice cream sunset” — if the government is subsidizing it, then the government calls the shots. And the moment the government gets its hands on the controls, it will be establishing death panels, forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions and illegal aliens, rationing care and then demanding yet more government control when partial government control creates a mess.

Which happens to be exactly what liberals are doing right now.

First of all, the “public option” is not something that will result in the government calling the shots. Ironically, when it comes to death panels and rationing of health care, that’s exactly what health insurance companies are doing right now. They don’t want to give policies to those who are old and sick. They’d rather give policies to those who are young and healthy. To them, that’s just good business because it means less claims paid out and more profits. So as far as death panels and rationing of care those two things already exist due to the fact that it is tied into the profitability of insurance companies.

I think it’s highly irresponsible to claim that our government would go out of its way to kill off old people and make taxpayers pay for every abortion and the health of illegal aliens in this country. I would presume that most of the folks in Washington are people who know the difference between right and wrong; people with morals and values. Conservatives like Ann keep telling us that this is a “Christian nation”. If that’s the case, then why all the talk about the government doing evil things? I mean, our government is operated by people, right?

Granted, someone has to pay for the care illegal aliens receive at public hospitals. I wouldn’t want to live in a country that denies anyone health care just because they’re not supposed to be here. Unfortunately, most of the cost for providing health care to illegal immigrants is already taken out of taxes like property taxes and the like.

As for abortion, I’m sorry but there are legitimate reasons for why certain abortions should be covered. If a private insurance company is willing to cover the cost of an abortion under certain circumstance then there should be no reason why a “public option” insurance plan shouldn’t do the same. Now, whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, that’s a different conversation.

Bottom line is that we’re already in a mess as it is and, quite frankly, it’s a mess that wasn’t 100% caused by government control. While one could argue that certain government restrictions have caused the industry to falter, the majority of the problems within the health care industry were cause by the very thing that most “conservatives” keep harping about: free enterprise.

For the past 20+ years or so companies within the health care industry have had free reign to shape the industry as they see fit. As such, costs kept going up as publicly traded companies demanded more growth and profitability. And when it comes to health insurance companies, profitability is far more important than whether your grandpa should be able to get that new heart valve put in. Same applies to pharmaceutical companies. They’re more concerned with getting as big of a return on their investment on a new drug before the patent runs out than whether you can afford to shell out $500 a month for it.

According to Ann, it would seem that either way we’re screwed. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. If it’s not the government telling us what to do then corporate America will most certainly pick up the slack.

Continuing on in an ongoing series based on an ongoing series by Ann Coulter (sounds confusing doesn’t it!), Annie regurgitates additional talking points about health care in part two of her series. It’s worth mentioning that in part one, I took some time to setup exactly how the health care industry has impacted me. If you haven’t read it, be sure and read it before moving on. It’ll help in understanding where my point of view comes from.

(6) There will be no rationing under national health care.

Anyone who says that is a liar. And all Democrats are saying it.

Got proof? No, you don’t. Instead you rattle on with a bunch of conclusions based on a few unsubstantiated facts that have little to do with the actual debate:

Apparently, promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short, “The Death Panel”) deny medical treatment wasn’t a popular idea with most Americans. So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs … without ever denying a single medical treatment!

That would be true if the government was responsible for deciding who gets treatment and who doesn’t. But it’s not. What uninsured Americans will receive isn’t a government health care program but rather a government sponsored health care insurance plan. In other words, uninsured Americans will be dealing with health insurance companies, not the government. So it won’t be the government denying medical treatment, it’ll be the health insurance companies which, ironically, isn’t at all different than what is going on now. Insurance companies deny medical treatments every single day.

Under national health care, you’ll have no choice about how to ration your own health care. If your neighbor isn’t entitled to a hip replacement, then neither are you. At least that’s how the plan was explained to me by our next surgeon general, Dr. Conrad Murray.

Again, if it’s through an insurance company how can you call it rationing? If you want to get technical, insurance companies are rationing health care as we speak. The government can’t tell insurance companies which claims are covered and aren’t covered. The only thing the government can do is put forth some regulations that keep the insurance companies honest, which is exactly what is at debate here. Besides, how is it any different if an insurance company rations your health care than the government doing it?

The only way that the government could potentially ration health care is if we were on a single-payer system, which we aren’t and won’t be for a long, long time. Hell, I’m willing to bet that the United States won’t ever transition to a single-payer system in even my lifetime.

What Coulter presumes is illustrating here is a fictitious scenario that doesn’t even exist right now and isn’t even up for debate. Besides, her joke about Dr. Conrad Murray, the doctor who is suspected of possibly giving Michael Jackson the drugs that killed him, is such that I can’t really take anything she has to say seriously about this.

(7) National health care will reduce costs.

The last time liberals decided an industry was so important that the government needed to step in and contain costs was when they set their sights on the oil industry. Liberals in both the U.S. and Canada — presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and Canadian P.M. Pierre Trudeau — imposed price controls on oil.

There is very little or no difference at all between the health care industry and the oil industry. They are two very different industries with completely different rules on how they are operated. Making this kind of comparison does little to support a valid point other than “Carter bad. Reagan good.”

Freedom not only allows you to make your own rationing choices, but also produces vastly more products and services at cheap prices, so less rationing is necessary.

Incorrect. Insurance companies make decisions for millions of Americans as it is. You call that allowing others to make their own rationing decisions? Even if we were to lift the restriction that disallows insurance companies from providing service on an interstate level, that still will not stop them from denying claims for pre-existing conditions and other reasons. There is no freedom when you have a corporation who will deny you service in an effort to maintain profitability.

I think what Annie is trying to say is that Democrats are claiming that a public option in and of itself will lower health care costs. That would be incorrect. Providing some sort of a public option that allows Americans to gain access to affordable health care insurance isn’t the only thing that will aid in lowering costs. You also have to lift some of the restrictions that don’t allow insurance companies to compete. That much is true. But you also have to put in place a different set of restrictions that keep insurance companies honest, the biggest one being a denial of health coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Not only that but there are definitive ways for which health care costs can be reduced by implementing some simple common sense guidelines for which doctors and hospitals can prescribe to.

(8) National health care won’t cover abortions.

No need to quote Annie here because, quite frankly, her little diatribe about this makes little sense.  Here’s what Obama had to say about this:

…Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

As it stands, there are loads of restrictions on abortion. In fact, in most states its actually quite difficult to walk into a clinic and get an abortion without going through a long, arduous process to ensure that a patient looking to get an abortion is making the right choice. Beyond that, if the patient is covered under a health care plan through an insurance company then it wouldn’t be the government providing funding for an abortion. Even then, I would bet that an insurance company wouldn’t cover an abortion except for very strict cases when the mother’s and/or child’s life is in question.

More to come in part three…

Before I go off into a rant, let me first describe to you my current health care situation. I’ve touched on this in the past so I won’t repeat myself too much.

I was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis around March of this year. Anyone who knows about this disease will know that it’s an anti-immune disease with no real cure. The only thing you can do is take maintenance drugs that help keep flare-ups from happening. The problem is that the most popular drugs used to treat ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, and other similar ailments can be quite expensive. There is a cheaper option but the side effects aren’t all that great.

I started off taking Asacol and purchased a three month supply while I still had insurance. Even then the cost after deductible was still quite high. I think I spent darn near $200 for the three month supply and that was even with a bulk discount. Recently, I started to run out of Asacol and started to shop around for more. What I found out shocked me. Without insurance, a one month supply (that’s 180 pills; 6 pills per day for 30 days) would cost me around $300. Simply put, I can’t afford that. $300 per month may be chump change to some folks but, to me, that’s a lot of money. I simply do not understand why any drug would cost this much. My only alternative was to either seek out a new insurance policy or buy a cheaper alternative drug.

So, off I went to look for another insurance policy. Unfortunately, due to my pre-existing condition, no insurance company in the state of Texas will cover me for my ulcerative colitis for at least a year. So much for that. Aside from that, the rates for insurance plans weren’t all that great. While the cheapest PPO plan was just over $100, the deductible left a lot to be desired: $10,000. Good plan if all you care about is coverage for cases when you get terminally ill or hurt but that’s about it. For me, a deductible around $2,500 would be ok, which brings the plan to around $162. That’s still pretty good but, even then, only provides 80% coverage plus deductible. Thing is that if I can’t get coverage for my ulcerative colitis then what’s the point? I’m pretty much paying $100 a month into something that is only good if the shit really hits the fan. Even then, there’s still no guarantee that the insurance company will cover me for every claim. I know this because I’ve been through it. I’ve had plenty of claims denied for various bullshit reasons.

I ended up deciding to buy a cheaper alternative to Asacol in the form of sulfasalazine. Even without insurance, I got a 3 month supply for around $30. While it does treat the disease as well as Asacol, it’s still not as good. The side effects leave a lot to be desired. First, it causes infertility, which means my wife and I definitely can’t have kids while I’m on the stuff. Second, I have found that it can cause some light numbness in my toes. That part has my wife kind of freaked out right now. There are some other mild side effects but those are my top two right now.

So I’m in a weird position where I have a disease that no insurance company will cover for a year and I can’t afford the outrageously expensive drugs for. For all the pundits out there, tell me, what should I do? Am I supposed to just grin and bear it like a good little American? Or do I hope for change in the system that will allow me some relief from the shitty business practices that health insurance companies hammer average citizens with every single day? I’d much rather go with the later option.

Sigh! That’s a lot off my shoulders! Now on with my rant…

A lot about health care has been said by those on the far-right and when I hear it my head just wants to explode. Much of it is just fear mongering, misinformation, and lies. Ironically, that exactly what the far-right says, that’s its all just fear mongering, misinformation, and lies. To show you what I mean, I’ll be writing a multi-part series of posts based on Ann Coulter’s recent series called Liberal Lies About National Health Care.

In the first part of Ann’s series, Ann starts right off with commentary on her first point:

(1) National health care will punish the insurance companies.

You want to punish insurance companies? Make them compete.

Umm…duh?

U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they’re a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market. (Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.)

Ironically, President Obama touched on this very thing in his recent speech to Congress:

My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition.  Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies.  In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company.  Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down.

I would presume that this means he’s well aware of the government restrictions that disallow insurance companies from providing interstate coverage. But, quite frankly, that is but a small percentage of the overall bigger problem with insurance companies. More on that later.

Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That’s what single-payer health care is: “Single payer” means “single provider.”

While I will admit that many Democrats, including Obama, were for a single-payer system at one time, that is simply not the case now. Why? Well, I’ll let Obama explain it:

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone.  On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches.  But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have.  Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.  And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.

Nope. Nothing about making it a total government takeover of the health care system. Besides, doing so in a down economy would be extremely stupid, if not futile.

(2) National health care will “increase competition and keep insurance companies honest” — as President Barack Obama has said.

Government-provided health care isn’t a competitor; it’s a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer. Consumers may be able to “choose” whether they take the service — at least at first — but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion. It’s like a new cable plan with a “yes” box, but no “no” box.

Again, I’ll let Obama explain this one:

…if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices.  If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage.  If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage.  We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.  Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers.  As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage.  This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance.  It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance.  And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.

Gee, Ann, that doesn’t sound at all like government-provided health care. Sounds more like a health care fair where the government gets a little kickback fee for bringing the insurance companies new customers. As for your cable plan analogy, I akin this to being like the digital box that replaces the old antenna ears. While it may not be cable television, it’s still better than nothing.

(3) Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are “villains.”

In his speech, Obama mentioned a story about a man who died due to lack of treatment:

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about.  They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.

For which Coulter replies:

Well, yeah. That and the cancer.

Assuming this is true — which would distinguish it from every other story told by Democrats pushing national health care — in a free market, such an insurance company couldn’t stay in business. Other insurance companies would scream from the rooftops about their competitor’s shoddy business practices, and customers would leave in droves.

So, basically, what you’re saying is that a health care insurance company’s ability to make a profit and please their stockholders is more important that doing the moral, right thing? Am I getting this right? Seems to me that they could find a much better business model that doesn’t require screwing over people’s health to protect the bottom line.

If only customers had a choice! But we don’t because of government regulation of health insurance.

What does government regulation have to do with an insurance company’s ability to accept or deny a claim? Nothing. The government doesn’t make those decisions, the insurance companies do. And when it comes to the acceptance or denial of those claim, no, the customer has no choice. While you can appeal any denial of a claim, good luck getting it appealed with any expediency. Insurance companies are practically worse that the very government that you bitch about, Ann!

(4) National health care will give Americans “basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable” — as Barack Obama claimed in his op/ed in theTimes.

You want to protect consumers? Do it the same way we protect consumers of dry cleaning, hamburgers and electricians: Give them the power to tell their insurance companies, “I’m taking my business elsewhere.”

Umm…Ann…I can’t get full coverage from any insurance company right now. Thus, I can’t simply tell an insurance company that “I’m taking my business elsewhere”. Pre-existing condition limitations are the very “basic consumer protections” Obama was talking about and I welcome it. Telling customers that they aren’t covered due to a pre-existing condition is a shitty business practice plain and simple. So much for your hamburger analogy.

(5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The only reason most “pre-existing” conditions aren’t already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.

Bullshit. Blue Cross Blue Shield is available in just about every state, including Texas, and insures more than 100,000,000 collectively. They aren’t exactly a microscopic size company. So why would they not cover pre-existing conditions? Because just about every health insurance company follows this practice. Not because of government regulations, though I will admit that it might play but a fraction of the reason. No, I think the real reason is that it cuts down on the number of claims paid out in a huge way thus boosting the bottom line and satisfying an ever greedy stock market.

Show me a health insurance company that is in danger of being in the red. Most publicly traded insurance companies are highly profitable and, quite frankly, will deny coverage to anyone if they can get away with it if it means maintaining Wall Street expectations.

So, what’s the bottom line here? Are “liberals” really all that evil for wanting to inject fairness and more competition into the system? Or is the “status quo” still the better way? Ask yourself a question: With all that has been happening in the financial markets, would you allow a company to invest and barter your health as stock on Wall Street?

When I read this story it just pissed me off. Here’s the part that really did it for me:

….Late in the hearing, [Bart] Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show “intentional fraud.”

The answer from all three executives: “No.”

Lord forbid that executives will be required to reduce their compensation to ensure that patients can actually pay their medical bills. All it does is further support my argument that a public healthcare option isn’t optional. Personally I’m more for a single-payer system. Sorry execs but my body isn’t a commodity.  More on that soon.

Read more…

Last week, Rush Limbaugh said some really ignorant things about health care legislation:

Ok, first off, Obama has been doing his fair share to help fix the current banking and credit crisis. However, he’s not a magician. He can’t just wave a magic wand and come up with a solution over night. Plus, he has to have the backing of Congress to pass any kind of legislation that will aid in fixing the mess. It’s a multi-layered issue and no one really knows how big the problem really is other than it’s really big. 

Also, I don’t expect Obama to focus his attention exclusively on the banking and credit issues we face. That would be incredibly irresponsible given that there are myriad of other issues that our country faces that require his attention as well. Not only that but to say that the buck stops with just Obama isn’t realistic. It’ll require the efforts of everyone in Congress; not just Obama and his cabinet.

To say that all he can do is shift people’s attitudes about it is pretty ignorant. This isn’t about ideology. It’s about facing the raw facts. You can preach ideology all you want but at the end of the day if what you are preaching isn’t contributing anything to the solution then your ideology doesn’t matter for squat.

The Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill?! Seriously, Rush?! That is by far one of the most insensitive things I’ve heard anyone say in quite a while! The guy is dying of brain cancer and you’re making a statement like that?! You may have a difference in ideology and opinion with Ted Kennedy but don’t joke around about his health. It’s rude and downright insensitive and, quite frankly, deserves an apology.

Questions for Rush: What would you do? What solutions to these problems would you propose? Given that you’re so eager to criticize Obama and just about every other Democrat and Republican who doesn’t agree with you, what would the great Rush Limbaugh do if he were in the White House? Would you focus exclusively on each problem till each one is solved? Would you say that’s a good strategy? Or would you get the ball rolling on each of these issues and focus your attention as it is needed?

What the hell does Rush Limbaugh know about any of this stuff? For all he knows, the problems with the health care industry are as big and complex as the banking and credit crisis. I should know because I’ve gone through some health care issues myself recently.

For those who really want to understand one of the bigger issues with health care in this country, I suggest you read a recent Time magazine article entitled The Health-Care Crisis Hits Home. After reading it, I quickly realized just how inadequate my own health care insurance really is.

Just like Patrick Tumulty, I’m on a temporary insurance plan. I switched jobs and, since my wife was still in school, we weren’t sure whether she would end up with a full-time job with benefits. As such, we decided to stick with a temporary insurance plan till we knew more.  Big mistake! There were a number of discrepancies with my insurance plan within the six month duration I had it.

First, after having hernia surgery, my insurance company did not pay the anesthesiologist for some reason. Why? No clue. Guess they figured I didn’t need it. Or maybe it was because the anesthesiologist is out of network? So basically the insurance company is telling me that I have to keep up with whether or not if my doctor, the hospital, the anesthesiologist, the labs, and anyone else who is providing me with medical services is covered under my insurance plan. I literally had to jump through hoops to make sure that each and every thing was covered. In my opinion, it’s ridiculous and does nothing but cost more time and money for everyone involved…including the insurance company due to the number of bogus claims they have to process, including mine!

Second, I recently was diagnosed with colitis. I first went to a general physician (who is covered under my plan), who referred me to a specialist. The office for this doctor told me that I was covered under my insurance so, after seeing the doctor, I scheduled a colonoscopy. It wasn’t until about a week before my colonoscopy that I get a call from the doctor’s office telling me that I wasn’t covered through my insurance after all and that I’ll likely have to pay over $500 out of pocket for the colonoscopy. Great. 

Fortunately the folks that the doctor’s office were great and found me another doctor who can do the colonoscopy under my insurance. However, this doctor wanted me to come in for an unnecessary doctor’s visit, something my insurance company doesn’t like. My wife thought it was ridiculous to have to pay more money just to have a doctor ask the same questions and say the exact same thing: “You need a colonoscopy!”. So I called back to the original doctor’s office and asked them to find someone who would do the colonoscopy without any questions asked. Good news is that they found someone and I got the colonoscopy done and was diagnosed with colitis. Goody!

Lastly, I have confirmed what I have always know: that pharmaceutical and health insurance companies suck. My doctor prescribed to me two main medications, one oral and one (cough!) fun one. My wife nearly passed out after hearing what a 1 month supply of one and a 3 month supply of another would cost us: $600! And that’s after insurance deductions! Are these people out of their mind? Who the hell pays $600 for prescriptions!? That’s highway robbery!

The problem is that there are no generics of the medications I was prescribed. I either have to take something different or simply not take them at all. I can’t very well afford to keep paying for these medications since I’ll likely have to take them for the rest of my life. It’s a known fact that many medications won’t have generics available unless it’s been on the market for at least three years. In the meantime, pharmaceutical companies are gouging everyone due to the patents they hold on medications that don’t qualify for generic production yet. And being that there is little to no regulation on this, the gouging will continue and American insurance companies and individuals will continue to pay a premium on name brand drugs. It’s ridiculous.

Last question for Rush: What would you have me and millions of Americans like me do about our health care problems? If you don’t have an answer then quit complaining. Sorry but I don’t see how anyone can complain unless they are able to offer an alternative.

Today, my wife sent me a link to a bumper sticker that said “All Your Fears Are Lies“. This made me think about a recent e-mail I received regarding a man in Canada who had problems receiving proper health care:

A Short Course On Brain Surgery Worth Watching…

A short but poignant independent film on government sponsored healthcare systems. Everyone who plans to vote for our new President in 2008 NEEDS to see this. Regardless of the person for whom they would vote. Please forward this to everyone you can think of as soon as you can.

The problem with e-mails like this is that it makes the bumper sticker seem a whole lot more true. People do indeed fear what is essentially a lie. There’s no doubt in my mind that the system of healthcare in Canada can cause many problems for many Canadians. I don’t think anyone can deny that. The part of this video I disagree with is the last part where the narrator says this:

“Isn’t it ironic that while the Canadian government’s monopoly on health care is slowly crumbling in the face of widespread suffering, liberal Democrats in the U.S. are pushing to adopt a system much like the one that has failed so miserably in Canada.”

Which Democrats want to create a true socialized heath care system like Canada? Obama? Nope. He doesn’t want to create a total socialized heath care system. He just wants to insure that everyone in America has access to affordable health insurance. Read the attached documents and tell me exactly what parts of it are not true and what parts make it a socialized system. Seriously, read each of these thoroughly and completely. These are taken straight off of Obama’s web site:

Barack Obama’s Plan for a Healthy America

Background Question and Answers on Health Care Plan

Now compare the very well thought out, highly detailed verbiage in these documents to McCain’s web site. Notice a difference? Not to knock on McCain but personally it looks like McCain is really good at identifying all the problems but not providing any real solutions…just band-aids.

The problem with health insurance in this country is that it’s not accessible and unaffordable to many Americans that are without health care insurance. Unless you work at a job that either provides full coverage or really cheap health insurance then you’re pretty much screwed if you can’t afford it on your own. I know this because I’ve personally been shopping for health insurance and, yes, it’s expensive!

Wal-Mart is a good example of a company that, although provides a health insurance plan, doesn’t follow through to insure that every employee can afford it. Here’s what it says straight off their own web site:

Every associate who works in the United States can become eligible for individual health coverage costing as little as $5 per month in some areas and as little as $8 per month nationwide. As soon as an associate becomes eligible for benefits, their children become eligible too.

Today, more than 92 percent of associates have health insurance–either through us or through other coverage. For our associates who choose coverage with Wal-Mart, we also offer more than 2,400 generic prescription drugs for $4. This includes prescription drugs to treat everything from diabetes to heart disease.

Wal-Mart associates will find more than 50 ways to customize their health coverage. They can select from a menu of deductibles, health care coverage options, and health credits and premiums.

We want associates and their families to have the peace of mind that their healthcare needs will be met, especially when they need it most. To ensure that peace of mind, Wal-Mart’s health coverage includes no lifetime maximums on most health care expenses.

92% insured? Really? So, by that measure, Wal-Mart went from only 50% insured to 92% insured in just 6 months. Check out this article on the New York Times website dated January 23, 2008:

Wal-Mart Says More Than Half Its Workers Have Its Health Insurance

This is a company that makes billions of dollars a year and 50% of their employees can’t even afford to buy the insurance provided to them. Granted, some of them probably have spouses that get insurance from their employer. But what about the ones that don’t? Where do they get health insurance? Right. Social services which consequently come right out of the taxes we pay. If even two-thirds of the estimated 1.4 million Wal-Mart employees have insurance that would still leave over 900,000 employees who are forced to used government provided programs for health care and other needs. Yeah, Wal-Mart sure is taking care of their employees alright.

This isn’t an Obama vs McCain, Democrat vs Republican, Liberal vs Conservative, Socialism vs Capitalism issue. This is an issue that affects peoples lives. And, like the video about Canada, it can be a matter of life and death for some people. It’s one thing to claim that providing affordable healthcare is socialism. It’s another when doing virtually nothing to address the problem is the alternative solution. Millions of people in America can’t afford health care. What do we say to them?

I personally believe that regardless of whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, Independant, Conservative, Liberal, or whatever that you can still look upon others who are on the opposite side of the fence and see eye to eye on the issues that effect our country. But its not till we can seriously talk about the issues and discuss the solutions till we can get to that point. It’s one thing to talk about the problems. It’s another to really address them and come up with worthwhile solutions. Not every solution is perfect…but if the politicians we are voting for can at least propose good, solid, well thought out solutions based on the facts then that is a step in the right direction. I’m not a Republican or a Democrat. I’m voting for who I believe to be the person who is trying to address the problems and come up with worthwhile solutions. Again, they may not be 100% perfect…but they’re solutions nonetheless.

My job as a web developer is much harder when ideas aren’t flowing. Each and every project has to start somewhere. Even if the ideas aren’t perfect you have to start somewhere. A good start on coming up with ideas, even flawed ones, is much better than no start at all. Wouldn’t you agree?