The Elephant Pile in the Living Room

The Basics Of Health Savings Accounts

2011-11-15T01:17:00.001-05:00

FAQ On HSAs: The Basics Of Health Savings Accounts

TOPICS: HEALTH COSTS, INSURANCE, MARKETPLACE

KHN Staff Writer

NOV 04, 2011

Note: This story was corrected Nov. 9, 2011 to clarify the tax treatment of HSA funds used for general expenses by people older than age 65.

It's open enrollment season for many employer-sponsored health plans. Employees look for the most cost-effective option that promises high quality health care, and employers attempt to control their costs. Meanwhile, those who seek insurance in the individual market are simply looking for affordable health coverage.

Health savings accounts, coupled with high deductible health plans, increasingly are on the list of choices. The insurance industry trade group America's Health Insurance Plans reports that the number of people with these plans "rose to more than 11.4 million in January 2011, up from 10 million in January 2010."

FAQs

See our collection of FAQs on health care terminology

FAQs: Explaining Health Care's Hot Topics

Still, HSAs can be confusing, and, many people wonder if this approach to health insurance is good for them. Here are some answers to frequently asked questions:

What is a health savings account?

HSAs have two basic elements:

A tax-preferred savings account where money is set aside by the consumer (employers can also contribute) to pay for medical expenses and prescription drugs.
A high-deductible health insurance plan. In 2012, that deductible will be at least $1,200 for an individual and $2,400 for a family and as high as $6,050 and $12,100, respectively, according to the Treasury Department.

Any adult with a high-deductible health plan and no other form of health care coverage can establish one of these accounts.

How can consumers benefit from HSAs?

Consumers who participate in HSAs receive certain tax benefits. For instance, individual contributions are tax deductible, and employer contributions also are not counted as taxable income. Account withdrawals, when used to pay for qualified medical expenses, also are not taxed.

Meanwhile, the money inside the savings account belongs to the consumer and funds left over at the end of the year are rolled over to the next year. If he or she changes jobs, the HSA stays with that individual. And though not all high deductible plans work the same way, by law plans have the option to cover basic preventive care, such as vaccinations and annual physicals, even if the deductible has not been met.

When participants turn 65, any remaining funds can be used -- without tax penalities -- for general retirement expenses, but are subject to income tax.

What are the benefits for employers?

High-deductible health plans come with lower premiums than more comprehensive coverage, which many employers value as a way to manage the costs of employee benefits. "[They] are essentially the employers' answer to cost control," said Deborah Chollet, a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research Center in Washington.

What are some of the drawbacks?

Health care policy experts say that while HSAs give consumers control over their medical spending, they are problematic for low-income individuals, especially those with chronic conditions who use the health care system frequently.

As financially friendly as the HSA-high-dedutible plan combination may appear, Paul Fronstin, who directs the health research and education program of the Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington, said there's a catch: They have a "straitjacket design" in which consumers are responsible for paying the full-dollar amount of their medical expenses until they meet their deductible. This can be particularly burdensome for people with chronic conditions, like diabetes, that requires ongoing care.

The IRS establishes financial and medical limits on this type of health care plan. There is a limit on the amount of money consumers can contribute to their savings accounts: In 2012, the maximum amount is $3,100 for an individual and $6,250 for a family.

The IRS also determines what medical expenses qualify. Recently, the IRS dropped over-the-counter medications from its list.

One of the biggest concerns expressed by some health policy experts is that this type of coverage could discourage certain types of medical care. Since patients will have to pay for all their medical care out-of-pocket, they may avoid the doctor's office. "The healthy employee tends to like high-deductible plans with low premium contributions," Chollet said, adding that consumers "tend to be young, healthy males who avoid the health care system" and only go to the doctor when it's necessary.

Why are HSAs growing in popularity?

HSA advocates say this approach is an ideal model of consumer-directed health care, because consumers will have "skin in the game" and become informed shoppers when it comes to their medical needs. A recent RAND study notes that "HSAs create a strong financial incentive for the employee to manage health care costs carefully, because the account balance is owned by the employee."

Because the concept of HSAs tracks so closely with Republican principles like consumer-directed care and market-driven reforms, they are a hot topic among this year's GOP presidential candidates. Most of the major candidates have expressed support for tax credits to encourage the use of HSAs and allow consumers more flexibility to contribute to these accounts.

But their market share will ultimately be determined by consumers.

"Every time a leading Republican refers to HSAs as an attractive means to buy health insurance, it's as good for the product as buying an ad in the national media," said Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a Washington-based consulting firm. "But in the end, consumers carefully compare health plans … and select the one that gives them the best value."

Court Rules Actual Receipt of COBRA Election Notice Not Required

2011-11-12T17:44:00.001-05:00

Court Rules Actual Receipt of COBRA Election Notice Not Required

In Hearst v. Progressive Foam Technologies, Inc., the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered whether an employer must ensure that employees who experience a COBRA “Qualifying Event” must actually receive COBRA election notices. Generally speaking, employers that sponsor group health plans are required to provide notices that explain the COBRA election rights to eligible employees and their dependents who experience a Qualifying Event, within 44 days after the occurrence of the event.

In Hearst, an employee was terminated after failing to return to work from a leave of absence. The employee later sued the employer, claiming that he never received the required COBRA election notice. The lower court dismissed the employee’s claim because the employer provided a “mailing manifest” (i.e., log of daily mailings verified and date-stamped by US. Post Office) to show the employee’s COBRA election notice was, in fact, mailed.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit determined that the issue presented by Hearst was whether the employer sent the notice by means “reasonably calculated” to be received by the employee and not whether the employee actually received the notice. The Eight Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, agreeing that the employee’s claim of not receiving the COBRA election notice was insufficient to overcome the employer’s proof that the notice was mailed.

As a best practice, employers, or their COBRA administrators, should distribute COBRA election notices by using first-class mail, being sure to document such mailings with records that meet a court’s evidentiary requirements. In general, courts accept business records and testimony from individuals with first-hand knowledge of the employer’s compliance practices as sufficient evidence of mailing.

Public Option will increase all taxes beyond the actual costs of the Bill

2009-10-18T14:53:00.002-04:00

Consider - one of the health care bill proposals has a 2 year unemployment insurance clause for displaced insurance company employees.

If you think the point I am about to make is not valid - ask yourself why the above provision is in a bill that includes a public option.

Bottom line
- if 15% of the US economy goes from private insurance to a federal insurance program
- the remaining taxpayer and business will have to replace the local, state and federal income and property taxes that are lost when the Fed controls a program.

Before you scoff at these issues - read on to the end
and for those who think this is not an issue - 15% of the economy going from private to public sector will need to see at least a 20% tax increase on the private sector to replace lost revenues

... Today on Fox News Sunday and (I think also not sure) on ABC/ Stefanopoulos show, the figures for 'overhead' by the health insurance industry, ie the amount actually NOT paid out for delivery of health care services, ranged as high as 20%. That would mean up to 20% of a premium payment goes to marketing, salaries, bonuses, and other ancillary expenses...up dramatically from 1990 level. "

Government care - Medicare A is claimed to be a 5 - 8% overhead rate
Government care - Medicare B, and D added in takes total government overhead to somewhere close to 15%

for this dialog let's accept the conservative
15% overhead for government insurance
20% for private insurance overhead,
both sides can argue up to 30% for the other, but it does not matter for this review

Government overhead for insurance pays 0.00 to get buildings or renovate them - GSA pays for building remodeling services and for new facilities in a separate account
those grounds and buildings are not subject to state property taxes
Private insurance hires people or companies to build facilities and remodel them,
those contractors pay taxes that add to government revenue
those grounds and buildings, and the improvements are subject to local and state property taxes
(real property, real land, real assets)

Government overhead for insurance pays 0.00 to facilities management - GSA pays for building services and facilities management in a separate account
Private insurance hires people or companies to manage facilities management,
and those service providers pay taxes that add to local, state and federal government revenue
(boilers, AC, power, light, parking lots etc)

Government overhead for insurance pays 0.00 to property taxes
Private insurance pay local, state's property taxes that add to government revenue

Government overhead for insurance pays for the clerical employees in CMS to manage the program - but the government employee and employer do not pay all of the FICA and tax burdens to federal and state coffers a private person and employer do
the government worker has part of his/her health insurance paid for by taxpayers
the government workers have a part of their retirement funded by the taxpayer
Private insurance hires people to manage all aspects of the insurance program, and the employer pays for unemployment insurance, FICA, and state and federal payroll taxes
the individuals do not have government (taxpayer) funded retirement, so they invest their monies
the individuals pay for their health insurance, at a discount

Government overhead for insurance pays minimal for enrollment, and sub-contracts some work - as most is done thru federal and state employees in other agencies, funded by federal and state taxes, but not paid for by the government insurance agency
(social services is not a part of CMS or Medicare, it's paid for by taxpayers)
Private insurance hires people to manage enrollment into the insurance program, and hires 1099 workers to sell policies
the employer pays for unemployment insurance, FICA, and local, state and federal payroll taxes
the employed individuals pay for their health insurance, at a discount
the 1099 employee pay local, state and federal taxes and FICA, pays property taxes

Government overhead for insurance pays 0.00 toward profit
Private insurance pays taxes on profit that add to local, state and federal government revenue

Government overhead for insurance pays 0.00 toward mandatory reserves and set-asides
to meet financial needs it borrows money and prints money
Private insurance pays toward mandatory reserves and set-asides which make banks profitable, as the interest paid is less than the interest earned in lending those funds
that keeps the economy going
Banks and bank employees pay local, state and federal taxes, and fund the FDIC

Government overhead for insurance pays 0.00 toward mandatory fees, licenses, regulatory costs, audits or market conduct reviews, and pays no fines for non-payment of claims
(6.9% decline rate for part A)
Private insurance pays all costs born by states toward mandatory fees, licenses, regulatory costs, audits or market conduct reviews
Private insurance pays tort costs
Private insurance has a lower decline rate than Government
look up the AMA report for actual numbers

Government insurance is not held accountable for compliance to laws and state regulations
so it never pays a fine
Private insurance is held accountable for compliance to laws and state regulations, and pays state and federal fines when it is found to have not meet those guidelines and laws

Government insurance is not liable - so it rarely gets sued
Private insurance is held accountable for any tort issues, and pays fines when it is found to have not meet those guidelines and laws
the lawyers pay taxes, filing fees, and taxes on settlements that enrich local,state and federal coffers

after you read the analysis, consider if that 20% does go away - from a public option or a Universal mandate
notice all of the taxes and fees that local, state and federal government will have to replace from someone else

can you afford 20% more in taxes on top of what the insurance program would cost?

you want to know who to blame for high insurance premiums?

2009-09-05T12:57:00.003-04:00

you want to know who to blame for high insurance premiums?

the majority of your premium actually pays taxes

those of you who ran a business - so you should already know this

anyone who took economics should know this

costs always flow to the end consumer

here are the government costs you pay for in your insurance premiums:
taxes on the insurance company for payroll,
taxes on insurance company property
taxes on insurance company profit
taxes (fees) for insurance company licenses
taxes (fees) to insurance regulatory offices
taxes imposed on insurance companies to fund government programs
taxes paid by insurance employees on income thru wages
taxes paid by insurance employees on property thru wages
taxes paid by insurance employees in sales tax thru wages
taxes paid by doctors and nurses on income
taxes paid by doctors and nurses on property
taxes paid by doctors and nurses offices in sales tax
taxes (fees) by doctors and nurses for licenses
taxes (fees) by doctors and nurses to regulatory offices
taxes paid by hospitals and clinics on income
taxes paid by hospitals and clinics on property
taxes paid by hospitals and clinics in sales tax
taxes paid by hospitals and clinics employees on income
taxes (fees) by hospitals and clinics employees for licenses
taxes (fees) by hospitals and clinics employees to regulatory offices
taxes paid by suppliers to hospitals and clinics on income
taxes paid by suppliers to hospitals and clinics on property
taxes paid by suppliers to hospitals and clinics in sales tax
taxes (fees) by suppliers to hospitals and clinics for licenses
taxes (fees) by suppliers to hospitals and clinics to regulatory offices
taxes paid by suppliers employees on income

so now you know why your insurance premium is so high

and you want even more government to manage your costs

ROFLMAO at the stupidity of that idea

Canadian Health Care is NOT single payer

2009-08-05T15:21:00.003-04:00

there seems to be an inconvenient truth that exposes a lie in the gazillion comments being made to further health care reform

it seems there is a thriving private insurance industry in Canada

from:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/balyasny-bets-against-healhcare-reform-2009-08-04#comment2591443

"While the health-care system in Canada ensures that virtually everyone living here has access to medical services in any part of the country, it doesn't cover everything. That's where private, or extended, health insurance comes in – it is meant to pick up where your government plan ends. Private health insurance is not the same as emergency health – or travel medical – insurance that you may consider purchasing when you travel outside Canada. Rather, it covers the day-to-day surgeries and treatments that can add up to big bills."

and from
http://www.insurance-canada.ca/health-products/health-dental/health-dental.php

"Directory of Health and Dental Insurance Providers

A certain amount of health and dental expense will be incurred every year by individuals and families. However, health and dental emergencies can prove quite expensive and personal or family health and/or dental insurance can be a big help in reducing the impact of unexpected costs.

For this reason many people not covered by an employer or group plan will consider their own health and dental insurance."

and, last but not least:
http://www.insurance-canada.ca/health-products/health-quotes/health-quotes.php

"Directory of Online Health Quotes Providers

When you decide to buy health insurance, the sales organization - broker, agent, company - must be licensed to do so in your province. Providers will make product information, coverages, pricing and applications available in numerous ways -- in local offices, through the mail, via telephone and/or on the web over the Internet."

pending health care reform

2009-08-04T21:09:00.000-04:00

The latest proposals are broken down and available here for anyone who wants to take a look

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.3815/pub_detail.asp

http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/houseandsenatebills.html

Compare Health proposals

2009-07-30T08:22:00.002-04:00

Pass the word - summary level information on all of the health proposals

Sites Compare Proposals

By NU ONLINE NEWS SERVICE

Published 7/28/2009

Subscribe to Life & Health

If you want to keep tabs on the major congressional health proposals but are starting to get dizzy, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation has a chart for you.

The Menlo Park, Calif., foundation has posted a frequently updated health proposal comparison chart here.

The chart includes President Obama’s health reform principles, the Senate Finance Committee proposal, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee proposal, and the House “tri-committee” Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

The chart also includes a number of other proposals, such as the Patients’ Choice Act of 2009, which was proposed by Sen. Thomas Coburn, R-Okla., and Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and the American Health Security Act, which was introduced by Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

Congress exempt from the Public option?

2009-07-15T17:14:00.000-04:00

any plan that allows Congress to exclude themselves should be refused by the people

If it’s not good enough for Congress to take it as their own coverage, it’s not good enough for the people

you should all wonder why Congress does not take it for their own coverage, just like they do not take Medicare

if they have their way, the elite government worker will have a super plan, and the masses will be stuck with something doctors already do not like - Medicare

How can anyone expect Congress to fix and maintain a program they do not live by

they have no skin in the game, and so really do not care how poorly or well it works, compared to if they actually lived by the laws of the land

after all - they are the Government, there to help you

right!

with friends like that - who needs more enemies.

Health Care Reform - why so expansive?

2009-07-13T17:12:00.001-04:00

Can someone tell us why Congress is making this issue so expensive and complicated?

Look at how the cost has come down and the quality has gone up on vision correction surgery, with no federal or state intervention
Only basic regulations are in place, and tort laws were not reformed
think about that example, while you read this

Part of the problem is that Congress wants to take 500 - 1500 pages to establish some simple, 1 to 2 page issues.
They seem to like 1500 pages, because they can then slide other things into a bill, and leave parts unwritten, like with Cap and Trade

what would change the whole system in a gradual manner, and not add tons more debt would be the following:

- eliminate the pre-existing clause for health issues, like has been done in multiple states already
now people can get coverage - no matter what the issue

- allow reduced premiums for healthy lifestyles, so smoking and unhealthy lifestyles only penalize the ones who have them, such as the industry already does
If you want to be a chain smoker, and gain 300 lbs - go for it - the only one you hurt is you

- mandate coverage on all citizens, using a basic catastrophic plan as a minimum, such as the existing HSA approved plan structure, which are high deductible and no cap plans
now no one goes bankrupt because they have no coverage, or capped coverage

- phase out employer health plans, since the overall cost per person is higher than individual plans, and layoffs and terminations cause so many to loose coverage going from employer to individual coverage
Now no one looses insurance because of job issues - it's your coverage, so you pay for it
mandate Disability riders in the policy if need be - so a permanently injured person has coverage for the 36 months it takes to go on SSI
Employers are free to compete on the global economy, employees do not have salary caps that automatically factor in health care costs - even when they decline coverage

- make transference of cost illegal, so that private plans are not forced to pay the non-reimbursed costs that Medicare and Medicate do not cover: I should not have to pay for the federal government's refusal to pay.
If Medicare and Medicaid's payment schedule is not enough, providers can choose not to participate, which is the free market system

- set up a fail safe program, that allows people to move to Medicare and Medicaid when legitimate changes in income happen.

- keep the existing COBRA rules in place until the laws take effect

- Keep SCHIP in place to cover lower income children,

- keep means testing, so only people with a real need qualify for assistance

those simple changes will eliminate all but about 16 million uninsured,
those 16 million are here without legal documentation, and that is a different issue to resolve first

net cost to the tax payer - almost nothing

the states can continue to manage plans and benefits, but some federal intervention will be needed to keep things like hair transplants and fertility treatments for 60 year olds of of the mandated coverage list, so that costs stay in line

If you think this is crazy - and it can't be this simple

remember what happened when it really is a free market - like vision correction surgery, like cosmetic surgery, with no federal or state intervention

Our leaders are missing the issue

2009-07-09T20:18:00.000-04:00

Our leaders are missing the issue

the economy is in the tank because people do not spend

People are not going to spend
they can not, until an outside force gives them more cash

we have primarily a service based economy

a service based economy can only operate for so long -

to explain the point to your children, try this

envision a self contained community
the baker uses the barber that uses the laundry that....etc

even if everything one needs for day to day function is available in the community,
and utopia spending is reached, where no one holds a dollar

only if the value of purchased breads, haircuts, washes matches perfectly will it work perfectly
there is a natural lag and lid on the community controlled by the least spending person

if: something has to be sold out side of the community, and something has to be bought and brought into the community, then the dollar flow also has to balance

the moment the bought items exceed the sold items (trade deficit) a financial disparity exists

soon the dollars passed around the community decrease, so the community has to print more

since there is a natural loss of value, when that happens, it creates a cycle of printing more, and them having less value outside the community

that's what we have

and we are progressively eliminating our manufacturing options, thru legislation, higher scale of wages, etc

so - although we could delay the inevitable, and print more dollars

unless this country produces something the rest of the world will pay for,

we are done - the only discussion is when

what does the Cap and Trade really do?

2009-07-08T14:47:00.001-04:00

let's hear it from a Congressman:

Thank you for contacting me about The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which includes a cap and trade system to address climate change and a Renewable Electricity Standard to increase the generation of electricity from renewable sources. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, I have been recognized as one of our nation's strongest advocates of renewable, domestic sources of energy. I have led efforts to change our national energy policies to encourage energy conservation and improve energy efficiency to reduce threats to our national security, economic prosperity and environment. During the last Congress, I worked closely with Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John Ensign (R-NV) and succeeded in extending tax credits for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

I'm a scientist and I've studied this issue very carefully. I agree that emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels to produce electricity and for transportation, damage our global environment. However, our dependence upon oil, especially imported oil, poses a far graver and more urgent threat to Americans' economic prosperity and our national security.

President Barack Obama proposed a cap and trade system for C02 emissions in order to reduce threats from climate change and a Renewable Electricity Standard to require 25% of electricity to be generated by renewable sources by 2025. It is a shame that the House majority chose to pursue a purely partisan process that produced a complex, convoluted, monstrosity of a bill.

On March 31, 2009, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) released a 650-page draft of H.R. 2454. Centerpieces of the draft were mandated reductions in C02 emissions in the United States through a cap and trade system and a Renewable Electricity Standard. Significant details in H.R. 2454 were purposely omitted. These details became the subject of intense lobbying by special interest groups.

After a series of hearings, the committee approved a 900-page version with four Democrats opposing it and only one Republican supporting it. H.R. 2454 requires CO2 emissions to be reduced 20 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. It also includes a Renewable Electricity Standard requiring utilities to produce 6% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 20% by 2020.

The requirements under H.R. 2454 to achieve emissions reductions through a cap and trade system in combination with renewable electricity generation are significantly more aggressive than Maryland's existing commitments. Estimates of the amount vary, but H.R. 2454 would increase the price of energy for households and businesses in Maryland. Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) observed, "Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it's a great big one."

Unless there is an international agreement with mechanisms for measurable and verifiable reductions in C02 emissions, self-imposed C02 emissions reductions by the United States will not necessarily reduce global emissions that are contributing to global warming. Increasing energy prices in the United States from capping emissions could very well encourage energy-intensive manufacturing industries to move these factories and their jobs to countries which don't or won't reduce their emissions. Lower emissions from the U.S. could be more than offset by increased global emissions from as a result of higher emissions from other countries. Affected industries include automobiles, steel, cement, glass, industrial/medical gases, pharmaceuticals and aluminum among others.

H. R. 2454 includes tariffs that would result in a lose-lose dilemma for the United States. The new tariffs would impose tax increases upon the imports from countries that did not impose similar emissions reductions upon their industries. The tariffs would attempt to level the playing field to protect American jobs and factories from being outsourced to countries, such as India or China, where top officials have said they won't reduce their emissions unless the U.S. pays them to do so. However, such punitive tariffs would likely spark a debilitating trade war that would reduce trade and economic growth worldwide. That is what happened after Congress approved Smoot-Hawley tariffs that provoked the Great Depression of the 1930's. Perhaps that is why President Obama said that he opposes these tariffs in H.R. 2454.

There were hundreds of pages of changes in the two days before the House voted on H.R. 2454. A 1,201 page version, H.R. 2998, was published on June 23, 2009. Members offered 224 changes. However, only a single manager's amendment by Rep. Waxman was allowed by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. This 341-page list of changes was made to the bill at 3:09 am just hours before the House voted on H.R. 2454 on June 26, 2009. The final 1,428 page version of H.R. 2454 deserves to be rejected because of the political games and back room deals that produced it.

I've never voted for a tax increase. That is the main reason why I could not support H.R. 2454. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that H.R. 2454 would force a massive federal government-imposed redistribution of approximately $1 trillion over the next ten years. Specifically, CBO/JCT estimated that over the next ten years federal tax revenues would increase by about $846 billion while federal government spending would increase by about $821 billion. The net result, CBO/JCT estimated would be an increase in federal government revenues of $24 billion. Most of the increase in revenues would come from the cap and trade system in H.R. 2454. CBO found that H.R. 2454 would also impose annual unfunded mandated spending increases of $69 million upon state and local governments and $139 million upon private businesses and individuals beginning in 2009.

My constituents clearly understood that H.R. 2454 is a gigantic hidden tax that they would end up paying. That's why they were overwhelming opposed to it. H.R. 2454 was narrowly approved 219 - 212. 211 Democrats and 8 Republicans voted yes. I was among the 44 Democrats and 168 Republicans who voted no.

The Senate has taken a completely different approach to energy and environment policy legislation. Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have led a bipartisan consensus in approving more than two dozen energy-related bills. They intend to combine them into a comprehensive energy bill that would not include a cap and trade system. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said that she hoped to use the cap and trade system in H.R. 2454 as the basis for similar legislation.

It remains to be seen how the Senate will act concerning energy and environment legislation. However, President Obama and House Democratic leaders favor a single bill similar to H. R. 2454 that would include a cap and trade system. In any event, a conference committee of House and Senate members would have to resolve differences between H.R. 2454 and any legislation approved by the Senate. That compromise Conference Report would have to be approved by both the House and the Senate before a bill could be sent to the President for his consideration.

I believe it is important that legislation to reduce C02 emissions complements rather than conflicts with policy changes to reduce America's oil imports. I also believe that legislation to reduce C02 emissions must not make American workers and businesses less competitive in the world economy while failing to reduce global emissions. I will continue to support policy changes that will encourage energy conservation, increase energy efficiency, reduce energy costs, promote domestic, renewable sources of energy, and reduce reliance upon fossil fuels, especially oil for transportation. I am hopeful that bipartisan efforts in the Senate will lead to legislation I can support that will reduce CO2 emissions and our dependence upon fossil fuels, especially imported oil, without the federal government taking more money from taxpayers.

Thank you again for sharing your views. I look forward to hearing from you regarding any issues you may find important in the future. I encourage you to review more facts about energy at http://www.bartlett/house.gov/energyupdates. You may also sign up for email updates at my website: http://www.bartlett.house.gov.

Sincerely, Roscoe Bartlett
Member of Congress

Here we go again

2009-06-24T21:43:00.001-04:00

Here we go again

It does not matter what party or political interest you choose - all of us should be outraged that a bill, of almost 1,000 pages, without "escape" clauses, is being voted on, without being read.

that alone is enough reason to call your congress person.

by the way - the number is 202-224-3121

Why call?!

Congress is going to push another package of legislation without reading and comprehending it

what follows is a 2008 summary, before it got Congressional-ized

It's called Cap and Trade, or the Waxman-Markey bill

now is the time to call Congress and voice your position, but be better than a Congressperson, and at least read the summary before you call

Please especially note:
the possible barring of imports - including FOOD - they are working to exempt American farmers

the possible fines on you and I at 25,000 per day

the projected increases in cost for electricity

a nice place to start

Note - the last part was the summary, done in 2008, before it had swelled to almost 1,000 pages

the following link gives a general overview of the points
note that there will be new Federal Agencies established to control state issues
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-03-waxman-markey-bill-breakdown/

current articles include:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102077.html
which points out a cost per household per year of 1,600.00 more

here is the Congressional Budget Office's comments to Kerry, addressing the 1,600 per household cost
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10307/06-12-Ltr_CapTrade_Kerry.pdf

This week, submitted amendments allowing the bill to be nullified if
too many jobs are lost,
if electricity prices go too high,
or if China and India do not rein in their emissions,

All failed.

# 570
June 2008

The Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade Bill: Quick Summary and Analysis

by Casey Lartigue and Ryan Balis

Introduction and summary
The United States Senate will soon begin debate on America's Climate Security Act of 2007, popularly referred to as the Lieberman-Warner bill after its chief sponsors, Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA).
The legislation ostensibly is intended to cut U.S. industrial emissions of greenhouse gases in an effort to reduce the risk of catastrophic global warming. Senator Lieberman has estimated the bill would reduce overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by up to 63% by 2050.1 The policies the legislation would impose, however, have little hope of meeting this target and would likely have little impact on the climate even if it did.
Lieberman-Warner would, however, significantly slow the U.S. economy and increase the cost of energy and consumer products. It also would disrupt international commerce.

Background
America's Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191) was introduced in the Senate on October 18, 2007 by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA). The bill states as its purpose: "[P]rompt, decisive action is critical, since global warming pollutants can persist in the atmosphere for more than a century."
Congress is demanding "prompt, decisive action" even though there is still disagreement among scientists about the level, cause and consequences of global warming. On May 19, 2008, for example, Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine announced that more than 31,000 scientists had signed a petition rejecting the theory of human-caused global warming. A significant number of scientists, climatologists and meteorologists have expressed doubt about the danger of global warming and whether or not humans are having a significant impact for the worse on the climate. Others, including renowned scientists, have suggested that there are approaches to deal with global warming that would not necessitate slowing the economy.
S. 2191 was approved by the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee on December 5, 2007 in an 11-8 vote. On May 21, a substitute bill incorporating America's Climate Security Act, S. 3036, was introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Senate debate on that bill is expected to begin June 2.
The Act would fine any person who violates any part of the law $25,000 per day for each violation and make it easier for the government to take citizens to court for not complying with new global warming laws.
The legislation would require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish:

(1) A federal greenhouse gas (GHG) registry to monitor compliance with the Act;
(2) A GHG emission allowance transfer system for covered facilities;
(3) An international reserve allowance program.

The bill would create a national "cap and trade" policy for greenhouse gas emissions. Companies would be allocated right-to-emit credits based on how much greenhouse gas they currently emit.

Cap-and-trade
The proposal -- frequently referred to as a cap-and-trade plan -- would establish an emissions trading system that would permit companies that emit fewer greenhouse gases than they are allowed to sell the excess portion to companies that exceed their allowances. The Act's sponsors estimate the bill would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by up to 63% by 2050. The initial limits between the years 2005 and 2012 would cap emissions at 5,200 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent to estimated levels during 2005. Between 2012 and 2020, emissions would be further reduced two percent per year, resulting in a 15% reduction below 2005 levels.
Lieberman-Warner would establish:

(1) A domestic offset program, allowing regulated facilities to meet up to 15% of their compliance obligation in any given year with allowances generated through domestic offset projects certified by the EPA. They could meet their emissions limits, provided they receive approval from the EPA, by purchasing credits on the international emission trading market or by borrowing from credits they would normally receive in future years.
(2) The Bonus Allowance Account, established using 4 percent of all emission allowances for calendar years 2012 through 2035, that would be used to reward firms that sequester their carbon emissions in geological formations.
(3) The Carbon Market Efficiency Board to monitor and report on the national GHG emission market.

Within the Treasury Department, it would establish:

(4) The Energy Assistance Fund to provide funds to the low-income home energy assistance program and to the rural energy assistance program;
(5) The Climate Change Worker Training Fund to provide job training to any workers displaced by this Act and assistance to workers in need of training or re-training;
(6) The Adaptation Fund to help various fish, wildlife, plants and associated ecological resources in adapting to and surviving the effects of climate change;
(7) The Climate Change and National Security Council to submit annual reports to the President, Senate and House of Representatives the extent to which other countries are reducing greenhouse emissions through mandatory programs; the threat of climate change to sensitive populations, national resources and political stability; and potentially destabilizing impacts of climate change on national security;
(8) The Climate Change Credit Corporation to auction emission allowances.

International Reserve Allowance Program
The Act would require the President to establish an interagency group to determine whether foreign countries have addressed GHG reduction. Before being allowed to trade, any U.S. importer of covered goods must submit approved international allowances. With a few exceptions, failure to make a CO2 emissions declaration (in writing to the administrator of U.S. Customs and Border Protection) for each import would result in the import being barred from entry.

Futility of Lieberman-Warner
The sharp GHG reduction requirements are dependent on significant technological innovations -- innovations that simply can't be mandated.
Even if they could be, Lieberman-Warner would have virtually no effect on the climate, according to Dr. Patrick Michaels, a former president of the American Association of State Climatologists and now senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute: "Say the U.S. actually does what the law says, though no one knows how to. The result is an additional 0.013 degrees (C) of 'prevented' warming," says Michaels.
According to Michaels, such a small change is too small to measure, as natural temperature variation from year-to-year is many times higher.2
Furthermore, China has surpassed the United States as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases and its emissions growth is currently several times larger than the emissions growth of the United States. The emissions of other developing nations, such as India, are also growing at a rate much higher than those of the United States.3

Financial Burden
Meeting the goals of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade plan would impose enormous financial strain on Americans, according to four independent econometric studies.
A study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) projects that by 2014 retail gasoline prices would increase between 13 and 50 percent; residential electricity prices would rise between 13 and 14 percent; and natural gas prices would increase between 18 and 21 percent. The study, "Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S.2191) using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS/ACCF/NAM)," also projects that the U.S. economy will suffer employment losses of 850,000 jobs by 2014 and between 1.2 and over 1.8 million more lost jobs in 2020.4
Moreover, households stand to lose between $1,010 and $2,779 of income each year by 2014. The economy would suffer Gross Domestic Product (GDP) losses of between $135 billion and $269 billion by 2014.5 Estimates are based upon 2007 baseline energy prices and produced a range of estimated price increases depending on the future availability of energy technologies and various socio-political constraints.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change projects that, if Lieberman-Warner becomes law, in 2015 gasoline prices would increase 29 percent, electricity prices would jump 55 percent, and natural gas prices would be pushed up 15 percent. The MIT study, titled an "Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals," is based on 2005 baseline energy prices and accounts for subsidies for carbon capture and storage (CCS), as well as 15 percent of emissions covered by the trading mechanism.6
An assessment by the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University estimates that in 2015 gasoline prices would cost up to six percent more, electricity would be roughly 18 percent more expensive and natural gas prices would increase about 15 percent.7 Moreover, the study projects economy-wide GDP losses of $75 billion in 2015 and $245 billion in 2030.8 The 2007 study, "The Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act: A Preliminary Assessment of Potential Economic Impacts," considers credit trading as well as domestic offsets in its projections.
Finally, the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis projects that Lieberman-Warner would cripple the future economic health of the United States. GDP losses are estimated to be between $45.7 billion and nearly $170 billion in 2015 (2000 dollars)9 - totaling as much as $4.8 trillion of lost GDP by 2030.10 In addition, Heritage analysts estimate annual employment drops could be as high as 901,000 as early as 2016 and will exceed 500,000 per year before 2030.11 By 2030, skyrocketing energy prices will mean the average household will spend an extra $608 for heating oil, $647 for electricity and $303 for natural gas per year from projected 2012 levels.12

Public Support
Regardless of which one of these studies is closer to the mark, the Lieberman-Warner proposal would impose costs unacceptable to the American people. Public support is presumably critical to any government program, but especially one that is intended to govern economic activity over the next 42 years.
A recent survey conducted by Wilson Research Strategies for the National Center for Public Policy Research found that 65% of the public is unwilling to spend more for gasoline to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Another 13% say they are unwilling to spend more than 5% more for their gasoline. That's less than the amount projected by the Duke University study, which provided the most optimistic forecast of the Lieberman-Warner proposal's effect on gas prices of the studies noted above.
The poll also found that 71% of Americans are unwilling to pay any more for their electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with an additional 16% opposed to paying more than 12% more. This amount, again, falls under the most optimistic projections of electricity price increases from the studies noted earlier.
When gasoline and electricity prices are taken together, 90% of Americans reject the Lieberman-Warner plan's costs - even the low-range projection.13

Conclusion
Imagine if, in 1966, then President Lyndon B. Johnson had tried to determine what the emissions levels of America should be 42 years into the future. Even if he had gotten together the best and brightest minds of the day, it is unlikely that his advisers would have come up with data that could have anticipated either our energy needs or our standard of living today. Although some lawmakers may be reluctant to admit it, policymakers today are similarly handicapped when it comes to predicting our future needs, technologies and circumstances.
Lieberman-Warner would embark Americans on an unprecedented and large-scale manipulation of the national economy that would depress economic growth and have both short- and long-term unintended consequences. Lieberman-Warner's "cap-and-trade" could hamstring Americans for decades.

- Casey Lartigue and Ryan Balis are policy analysts at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Webmaster note: Due to a production error, this paper was originally posted without one of the author's names. We regret the error.

Footnotes:
1 Joseph Lieberman, "Fighting Global Warming the Right Way," Hartford Courant, October 22, 2007.
2 Patrick Michaels, "Cato Scholar Comments on Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act," The Cato Institute, May 30, 2008, available at http://www.cato.org/pressroom.php?display=ncomments&id=34 as of May 30, 2008.
3 Ben Lieberman, "Five Myths About the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Legislation," The Heritage Foundation, May 30, 2008, available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1940.cfm as of May 30, 2008
4 The National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation, "Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S.2191) using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS/ACCF/NAM)," March 2008, p. 8, available at http://www.accf.org/pdf/NAM/fullstudy031208.pdf as of May 28, 2008.
5 Ibid.
6 Sergey Paltsev, et al., "Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals," MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 146, April 2007, Appendix D, p. D21, available at http://w3.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt146_AppendixD.pdf as of May 28, 2008.
7 Brian C. Murray and Martin T. Ross, "The Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act: A Preliminary Assessment of Potential Economic Impacts," Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, October 2007, p. 10, available at http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/institute/econsummary.pdf as of May 28, 2008.
8 Ibid., p. 5.
9 William W. Beach, et al., "The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation," Heritage Center for Data Analysis, Heritage Center, May 12, 2008, p. 4, available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/cda_0802.pdf as of May 28, 2008.
10 Ibid., p. 2.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid., p. 18.
13 National Center for Public Policy Research, "Overwhelming Majority of Americans Oppose Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Proposal, New Poll Suggests," May 28, 2008, available at http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Poll_Lieberman_Warner_052808.html as of May 30, 2008.

Medical Problems Could Include Identity Theft

2009-06-20T15:45:00.000-04:00

The article published in the NY times says it all.

The last paragraph is the consumer's punch line.

So - the new electronic age in medicine may cut some costs, but please check your credit reports regularly.

Remember - those medical records contain birth date, ss#, address, full name, health and insurance data. These are all anyone needs to take your medical identity.

from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/13/health/13patient.html

Medical Problems Could Include Identity Theft

By WALECIA KONRAD

Published: June 12, 2009

Brandon Sharp, a 37-year-old manager at an oil and gas company in Houston, has never had any real health problems and, luckily, he has never stepped foot in an emergency room. So imagine his surprise a few years ago when he learned he owed thousands of dollars worth of emergency-service medical bills.

Brandon Sharp, of Spring, Tex., learned he was a victim of medical I.D. theft only when he applied for a mortgage and discovered debts on his credit report for emergency room visits at places in the country he had never been.

Mr. Sharp, as it turned out, was a victim of a fast-growing crime known as medical identity theft.

At the time, Mr. Sharp was about to get married and buy his first home. Before applying for a mortgage he requested a copy of his credit report. That is when he found he had several collection notices under his name for emergency room visits throughout the country.

“There was even a $19,000 bill for a Life Flight air ambulance service in some remote location I’d never heard of,” said Mr. Sharp, who made this unhappy discovery in 2003. “I had emergency room bills from places like Bowling Green, Kan., where I’ve never even visited. I’m still cleaning up the mess.”

The last time federal data on the crime was collected, for a 2007 report, more than 250,000 Americans a year were victims of medical identity theft. That number has almost certainly increased since then, because of the increased use of electronic medical records systems built without extensive safeguards, said Pam Dixon, executive director of the nonprofit World Privacy Forum and author of a report on medical identity theft.

And uncountable, Ms. Dixon said, are the people who do not yet know they are victims. They may not know that their medical information has been tampered with for months or even years until, as in Mr. Sharp’s case, it shows up in collections on a credit report.

Medical identity theft takes many guises. In Mr. Sharp’s case, someone got hold of his name and Social Security number and used them to receive emergency medical services, which many hospitals are obliged to provide whether or not a person has insurance. Mr. Sharp still does not know whether he fell victim to one calamitous perp who ended up in several emergency rooms or a ring of accident-prone conspirators.

In another variant of the crime, someone can use stolen insurance information, like the basic member ID and group policy number found on insurance cards, to impersonate you — and receive everything from a routine physical to major surgery under your coverage. This is surprisingly easy to do, because many doctors and hospitals do not ask for identification beyond insurance information.

Even more common, however, are cases where medical information is stolen by insiders at a medical office. Thieves download vital personal insurance data and related information from the operation’s computerized medical records, then sell it on the black market or use it themselves to make fraudulent billing claims.

In a widely reported case in 2006, a clerk at a Cleveland Clinic branch office in Weston, Fla., downloaded the records of more than 1,100 Medicare patients and gave the information to her cousin, who in turn, made $2.8 million in bogus claims.

When people are not aware their medical identities have been stolen, insurance companies may simply continue to pay the fraudulent claims without the victim’s knowledge. The person might learn of the fraud only when trying to make a legitimate claim, and the insurance company informs them they have reached their lifetime cap on benefits.

Or victims may eventually discover erroneous information in their medical files during a doctor or hospital visit. And that may pose a bigger danger than the financial risks. The medical records may now contain vital information like blood type, allergies, prescription drug use or a history of disease that is just plain wrong. In an emergency, doctors could treat you based on this erroneous information.

And there are none of the consumer protections for medical identity theft victims that exist for traditional identity theft. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act you can get a free copy of your credit report each year, put a fraud alert on your account and get erroneous charges deleted from your record. If your credit card is stolen and the thief goes on a spending spree, you’re not liable for more than $50 worth of the charges.

With medical identity theft, though, the fraudulent charges can remain unpaid and unresolved for years, permanently damaging your credit rating. Under the federal law known as Hipaa — the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act — you are entitled to a copy of your medical records, but you may have to pay a hefty fee for them.

Worse, Hipaa privacy rules can actually work against you. Once your medical information is intermingled with someone else’s, you may have trouble accessing your files. Privacy laws dictate that the thief’s medical information now contained in your records must be kept confidential, too.

Even when you are able to correct a record, say in your doctor’s office, the erroneous information may have been passed on to dozens of other health care providers and insurers. Victims must track down and resolve these errors largely on a case-by-case basis, Ms. Dixon says.

Medical providers contend that they are taking precautions against identity theft. At Cleveland Clinic, for example, security personnel routinely audit electronic medical record systems and all records are password-protected. Many Blue Cross Blue Shield insurers use software to screen for spikes in claims from providers that look suspicious. They also work with providers on encrypting medical files and carrying out data access restrictions, said Calvin Sneed, senior antifraud consultant at the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

And some medical centers and doctors’ offices now require patients to show photo ID and attach photos to patient charts.

But privacy advocates worry that these steps do not go nearly far enough, especially in light of President Obama’s plans to spend $20 billion to increase the use of electronic medical records nationwide as part of the stimulus package. “Without aggressive safeguards, we could be building an infrastructure for massive medical fraud,” said Ms. Dixon.

Dissecting the Kennedy Health Bill

2009-06-19T11:59:00.000-04:00

points to consider - raised by a very credible source

Massachusetts is living under this type of plan now - and yet Kennedy went to the Carolina's to get care.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15

Dissecting the Kennedy Health Bill

No, you won't be able to keep your insurance if you like it.

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state.

Last September Sen. Barack Obama promised that under his health-care proposal "you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves." On Monday, President Obama repeated that promise in a speech to the American Medical Association. It's not true.

The president is barnstorming the nation, urging swift approval of legislation that is taking shape in Congress. This legislation -- the Affordable Health Choices Act that's being drafted by Sen. Edward Kennedy's staff and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- will push Americans into stingy insurance plans with tight, HMO-style controls. It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).

Members of Congress "enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country," according to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. They "can choose from among consumer-driven and high deductible plans that offer catastrophic risk protection with higher deductibles, health saving/reimbursable accounts and lower premiums, or fee-for-service (FFS) plans, and their preferred provider organizations (PPO), or health maintenance organizations (HMO)." These choices would be nice for all of us, but they're not in the offing. Instead, if you don't enroll in a "qualified" health plan and submit proof of enrollment to the federal government, you'll be tracked down and fined (sections 3101 and 6055).

For a health plan to count as "qualified," it has to meet all the restrictions listed in the legislation and whatever criteria the Secretary of Health and Human Services imposes after the bill becomes law. You may think you're in a "qualified" plan, but the language suggests that only plans with managed-care controls such as the "medical home" will meet the definition (sections 3101 and 2707).

"Medical home" is this decade's version of HMO-style insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office, with a primary-care provider to manage your access to costly services such as visits to specialists and diagnostic tests. Medical home providers in "qualified" plans, states the Kennedy bill, will have a "payment structure" based on "incentives" rather than payments for each doctor visit or procedure (section 3101).

These requirements are reminiscent of the unpopular controls HMOs imposed two decades ago that caused public outrage and led to state laws reining in abuses. In December 2008, a Congressional Budget Office report evaluating early drafts of major federal health insurance proposals noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the HMO gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control is a priority.

That report specifically referred to a payment incentive called the "withhold." When HMOs became dominant in the early 1990s, they would withhold 10% or more of physicians' fees until the end of the year and give it back only to the physicians who met targets for limiting how many referrals to specialists or diagnostic tests their patients used.

The targets were so stringent that, if they were exceeded, what a doctor prescribed for you came out of your doctor's own pocket at the end of the year. This set up a conflict of interest between you and your doctor.

Mr. Obama tried to put a positive spin on such cost controls in his June 13 weekly radio address. He said "if doctors have incentives to provide the best care, instead of more care, we can help Americans avoid unnecessary hospital stays, treatments and tests that drive up costs." Fair enough -- if you want your doctor paid to police your care and to be financially penalized for that extra test or referral you get.

It is reasonable to require that people who accept a government subsidy for health insurance tolerate cost controls to protect taxpayers. But according to the terms of the Kennedy bill, you must enroll in a "qualified" plan or face a fine, even if you and your employer are paying the entire cost of the plan you already have (section 161).

The president has promised that if you like your plan you can keep it. Mr. Kennedy's bill says that too. It's doubletalk, as the consequences of nonenrollment make clear. How big a fine will you face? The bill doesn't specify or set a limit. It says the fine will be enough to "accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage" (section 161).

If legislation similar to the Kennedy bill lands on Mr. Obama's desk, he has an obligation to keep his promises to the American people and veto it. And whatever health-insurance law is passed should apply to members of Congress. If it isn't good enough for them, it shouldn't be imposed on the rest of us.

Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15

Why does a medicine cost so much?

2009-06-18T16:52:00.001-04:00

most people are clue less

the American governments regulations on health care providers, pharmacies, health care facilities and ancillary services is so counter productive, that cost containment is impossible

Here is an easy way to prove it to yourself
try to get a common antibiotic like penicillin
add in the cost of the doctor's visit, and the trip to the pharmacy
those simple common meds become a 60.00 investment, if YOU PAY CASH

big pharma and lobbies had nothing to do with it

it was ALL GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

we let it become so cumbersome in the U.S.

we allowed GOVERNMENT to CONTROL everything

all that record keeping, CYA documentation, meeting of regulations took a 4.00 prescription to a 60.00 total cost

and if you need a "controlled substance" medication - the cost doubles

You want to know why it costs so much

go look in a mirror

Bill to reduce uninsured by 16M carries $1T price tag

2009-06-16T16:07:00.003-04:00

As we get closer to the Congressional proposals being made into law, it's the cost that is staggering to grasp, much less to afford

these are numbers for JUST the next 10 years, from the Congressional Budget Office.

Anyone know how we can pay for this?

And am I the only person who thinks these numbers are nuts?

1,000,000,000,000 / 10 years =
100,000,000,000 / year to provide coverage for a net gain of 16,000,000 more people

= $ 6,250 in cost /insured person /per year for adding 16 million into the coverage

(by the way - if you think 1 trillion is correct - coverage for a 52 yo male at the levels planned is close to 1,500 per month, or 18,000 per year )

and that still leaves somewhere around 30 million to go (46 million uninsured - 16 million)

these numbers could go higher, given that coverage will extend to people making up to 500% of the poverty level

which is:

2008 Countable Income Limits
500% FPL
Family Size	Gross Annual Income	Gross Monthly Income
1	52,000	4,335
2	70,000	5,835
3	88,000	7,335
4	106,000	8,835
5	124,000	10,335

Bill to reduce uninsured by 16M carries $1T price tag

By Dan Bowman

Is reducing the number of uninsured people in the United States by 16 million worth $1 trillion over a 10-year time span? That's what the Congressional Budget Office estimates a bill to reform healthcare in the United States will accomplish should it pass as is, according to the Washington Post.

A letter to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) points out that "based on major provisions" in "an incomplete draft of the bill," 23 million individuals would wind up without insurance--15 million who were formerly covered through employers, and another 8 million covered by "other sources." However, 39 million people overall would become covered through other exchanges, creating a net of 16 million individuals covered.

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf did write that the $1 trillion price tag could rise, considering the organization did not account for "proposals" offering federal subsidies to individuals making between 150 and 500 percent of the federal poverty level, according to Modern Healthcare. "Taking all of its provisions into account could change our assessment of the proposal's effects on the budget and insurance coverage rates though probably not by substantial amounts relative to the net costs already identified," wrote Elmendorf.

American Indians receiving 'substandard' healthcare

2009-06-15T18:57:00.001-04:00

Gee - is this the future?

Why should we presume that the federal system will treat anyone else better?

American Indians receiving 'substandard' healthcare

By Dan Bowman

In a sad, but all too true case of healthcare negligence in the United States, the Associated Press reports that the Indian Health Service System's level of care for it's 2 million patients in 35 states is "grossly substandard" a good portion of the time. Among other reportable statistics, death rates for American Indian infants were found to be 40 percent higher than their white counterparts.

Many qualified American Indians don't apply for services such as Medicare and Medicaid because they don't have access to the sign-up process, says the Associated Press. A lack of federal dollars also is a big reason for the poor health statistics of American Indians; Congress approved a budget of $3.6 billion for the Indian Health Service System for this year, not nearly enough to attract top-tier doctors, or purchase top-of-the-line equipment.

Heck, even inmates in federal prison have it better when it comes to healthcare: 2005 data points out that one-third more is spent, per capita, on the healthcare of felons in federal prison than on healthcare for reservations. While Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) has attempted to bring this issue to light, he has not had any luck getting any legislation passed. Furthermore, a problem of political "clout" exists: Ron His Horse is Thunder, chairman of the Standing Rock tribe, pointed out to the Associated Press that his tribe is "not one congruent voting bloc in any one state or area."

Universal / National health Care and health Care reform are touted as saving money

2009-06-11T21:33:00.000-04:00

Universal / National health Care and health Care reform are touted as saving money

why then are these NEW TAXES being researched by the current administration?

"HOW TO PAY FOR IT - Here, of course, is where the "rubber meets the road." It looks like the Senate Finance Committee will take the lead on developing strategies to pay for health care reform. Possibilities include:

* Limiting the income tax exclusion on employer-provided health care coverage.
* Either repealing the itemized deduction for medical expenses or raising the floor from 7.5% of adjusted gross income so fewer taxpayers can claim it.
* Curbing HSAs and FSAs.
* Requiring all state and local government employees to pay the Medicare tax.
* Clamping down on nonprofit hospitals.
* Hiking the tax on alcoholic beverages.
* Imposing a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.

VAT TAX – The Administration has launched a trial balloon for a new national Value-Added Tax (VAT) to pay for health care. Ezekiel Emanuel, whose book on health care uses a VAT to fund the new government program and brother of White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel, has been hired by the White House budget office to help design the health care plan."

I want the United States Government to be my source for health care.

2009-06-09T21:31:00.001-04:00

I want the United States Government to be my source for health care.

It will provide great care, and all of the services I could ever need, in a timely manner.

The Federal government has demonstrated it’s ability, with a proven record of accomplishment, it’s resume is worthy of consideration for management of any position, and that is demonstrated by:
The war on poverty
The war on illiteracy
The war on drugs
The war on crime
The war on pollution
Eliminating violence
Eliminating discrimination
Eliminating racism
Eliminating sexual harassment
Providing good quality health care for those over 65

Providing above average health care for the American Indian

Providing good quality health care for all who served in the military
The quality of life for those living on government programs is superb
Our seniors living on social security want for nothing
The health care for our former government workers is the best they can find, and they had to contribute nothing towards it
CHIP has made sure all children have health care
Those in prison are well cared for
They do their time with no risk
The Social Security trust fund is solvent
The Medicare trust fund is solvent
The IRS is efficient and collects properly from everyone who owes
There is no financial mismanagement
There is no corruption
The controls the government places on private financial institutions are correct and just
Special interests cannot influence the government
All laws and practices are fair and equal to all
Our government officials always serve the people
Our government officials always put the citizen’s needs first
Our government is the most efficient and productive entity that exists
Our government agencies are a pleasure to do business with
The services the government provides are timely and above average
The immigration process is the best in the world
The safety and security of its people is above any other country’s
The government’s process are transparent and above reproach
The laws apply to all equally
The members of government live under the same laws and benefits they choose for us
The justice system never makes a mistake
The executive branch makes no unjust laws
The financial branch manages monies well
The government can account for every dollar it spends

After reviewing this list, I am sure you can see why the United States Government, by the people and for the people, is the best qualified to decide what and how to provide health care for you and I

Now – to be fair – please reply and list the programs and services that I missed that are worthy of consideration.

Would you retain the services of any company that failed so often, and so magnificently?
If so - why not hire me - because I could exceed your expectations by showing up for work half the time and failing only half the time

People - hope and dreams and wishes do not make it a workable idea

Those other countries have systems that do work better than ours, they have much smaller governments

and the bureaucrats have to live in the system they create

2009-05-25T10:06:00.001-04:00

Medicare Waste Could Total $2.8 Billion

By MATTHEW PERRONE

posted: 27 MINUTES AGO

filed under: Financial Crisis

PrintShare

Text SizeAAA

WASHINGTON (May 18) - A federal program with a history of making billions of dollars in erroneous payments for wheelchairs, oxygen machines and other medical equipment continues to grossly underestimate its own mistakes, according to federal investigators.

The Medicare program spends about $10 billion annually in payments to suppliers of medical equipment for the elderly and disabled. For years, federal inspectors have documented payment errors that expose the program to fraud and abuse. Last year the inspector general who oversees Medicare estimated the waste could be as high as $2.8 billion annually.

BloggingStocks: Healthcare Costs to Hit Record High

A sampling of payments for fiscal year 2008 conducted by an outside contractor found that roughly 70 percent should not have been approved, according to a new report by the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services. But Medicare estimated the error rate at less than 10 percent, citing its own contractor, AdvanceMed of Richmond, Virginia. The review was not comprehensive and consisted of a sample of just 250 payments.

Peter Ashkenaz, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said Tuesday that the agency "has made significant changes to how it measures the error rate and, in addition, has clarified its medical review instructions for contractors."

Ashkenaz added that AdvanceMed is reviewing fiscal 2009 payments to make sure all errors are accurately counted. A company spokesman could not immediately comment on the report Tuesday afternoon.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, requested the review after uncovering similar discrepancies with the agency's fiscal 2006 error numbers.

"This report reveals that the way the government is tracking erroneous Medicare payments for durable medical equipment still isn't working," Grassley said in a statement. "Medicare officials owe it to taxpayers and beneficiaries to get a handle on the level of waste, fraud and abuse."

Medicare officials estimated their total payment error rate for fiscal 2008 was 3.6 percent. That figure includes payments to doctors and hospitals, along with payments for medical equipment.

An error does not necessarily mean the government was defrauded, but it can leave the program open to fraud.

More than 100,000 companies are registered as suppliers for Medicare. Acting as government contractors, they generally handle the logistics of submitting a claim and obtaining government payment for patients' medical equipment.

The largest equipment suppliers include companies like Lincare Holdings Inc., which provides home oxygen equipment, and Invacare Corp., which distributes wheelchairs, adjustable beds and other supplies.

The majority of last year's errors occurred because Medicare contractors reimbursed suppliers despite incomplete documentation that the the equipment was necessary, according to the inspector general. Instead of relying on patient medical records and physician prescriptions, Medicare's contractors often used documents from supply companies and prior Medicare claims.

Medicare's own rules state that information from a patient's medical records must show the need for the reimbursed device.

However, Medicare officials acknowledged those rules are "vague," when it comes to how contractors may interpret medical information.

"Contractors have interpreted the manuals differently, especially regarding the use of clinical judgment," Charlene Frizzera, acting head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a letter responding to the report.

Frizzera said the agency plans to clarify how much interpretation contractors are permitted when processing payments. She also said the agency plans to bolster its review of claims that are most vulnerable to fraud — including those for scooters and oxygen machines — by conducting interviews with the requesting patients. She added, however, that "it would be very resource-intensive for us to do this type of review" for all types of equipment.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

2009-05-18 16:50:36

2009-05-25T08:19:00.000-04:00

IRS Sets HSA Amounts

By NU ONLINE NEWS SERVICE

Published 5/18/2009

Subscribe to Life & Health

2009-05-25T08:18:00.000-04:00

Study: Disability Discriminates

By NU ONLINE NEWS SERVICE

Published 5/18/2009

Subscribe to Life & Health

Health problems that keep single, middle-income workers off the job can hit them with losses equal to 20 times the amount of their pre-disability annual income.

Researchers at Milliman Inc., Seattle, have included that estimate in an analysis of the effects of disability prepared for America's Health Insurance Plans, Washington, and the Life and Health Insurance Foundation for Education, Arlington, Va.

AHIP and LIFE commissioned the analysis in connection with Disability Insurance Awareness Month.

Milliman analysts estimated the effects of disability by considering 4 representative individuals: A single male, age 40, who earned $50,000 per year before becoming disabled; a married male, age 40, who earned $50,000 per year before becoming disabled, and with a spouse earning $25,000 per year; a single female, age 50, who earned $200,000 per year before becoming disabled; and a married female, age 50, who earned $200,000 per year prior to disability, and whose spouse earns $100,000 per year.

One scenario the Milliman analysts considered was a disability lasting until the individual turned 65.

For the high-income, married female, the present value of income reduction, expense increase and tax reduction would be about 3.8 times pre-disability income.

The impact would be about 10 times pre-disability income for the single, high-income female and also about 10 times pre-disability income for the married, middle-income male.

For the single, middle-income male, the impact would be almost 20 times income, Milliman analysts estimate.

If the disability lasted 5 years for all 4 representative individuals, the impact would be about 1.7 times pre-disability income for the high-income, married female; 2.6 times income for the married, middle-income male; 3.7 times income for the single, high-income female; and 4.6 times income for the single, middle-income male.

"In these scenarios," the analysts write, "the financial impact of disability is significantly higher for single individuals than for those who are married to a working spouse, because typically only a portion of total household income is lost when a married individual becomes disabled, and because medical insurance may be available through the spouse's employer if the disabled individual is unable to continue coverage."

The impact of disability also is harder on lower-income individuals than on higher-income individuals, in part because tax savings are lower, and in part because "the added health care costs incurred during disablity are a greater portion of income at lower income levels," the Milliman analysts write.

When you hear advocates of Universal Health Care...

2009-05-05T16:16:00.003-04:00

...think about this:

Who amongst us would:
- take a car back to a mechanic who already screwed up the last service, and made it worse each and every time he messed with it;
- take laundry to a laundry mat where the washers stained the last batches of clothes;
- go eat where the service is lousy and the food tastes worse each time we go?

Am I missing something here?

Yes - I agree the current health insurance system is not working to the best level it could.
But I'd rather be on it than the current Universal Care System for the over 65, called Medicare, or Medicaid, for the under 65.

We sometimes forget, in all the hype that anyone who needs Emergency care can still get it if they go to a hospital.
Note that because of what is happening, this may change in UTAH

People who want Universal Health Care need to be asked to explain why the following is happening with the Government Universal Health Care system we already have.

They should also be reminded that before we do a political biased change to scrap what we have now, and create another Government system, prudence and (un?) common sense would point out that we need to get the current Government systems fixed, first.

If not, Doctors, Nurses and Providers that are not enslaved to the Government have the right to refuse to treat patients. Hospitals that are not federally owned will have the right to refuse all but emergency care to those on Medicare.

Here is the current Universal Health Care system at work:

UT hospitals struggling under Medicaid cuts

By Anne Zieger

Hospitals in Utah are reeling under a 25 percent Medicaid reimbursement cut that was much larger than anticipated, and now are warning that they might be forced to offset costs by increasing fees on insured patients or cutting back on charity care.

Hospital association leaders said the hospitals failed to factor in the effects of using a funding stream to offset the cuts occurring in 2009. Meanwhile, technical changes in the payments to hospitals for "nonphysicians services" such as nursing care also had an impact on such reimbursement. To help address this huge change in funding, the state is looking at increasing its tobacco tax or imposing a tax on hospital stays.

If the state can't come up with a solution, state hospitals could theoretically refuse to treat Medicaid beneficiaries entirely, observers note.

To learn more about Utah's Medicaid situation:
- read this Kaiser Daily Health Policy Review item

Budget reconciliation process on Health Care affects your health.

2009-05-01T12:55:00.003-04:00

Hopefully the plan for health care in the U.S. will be under bi-partisan craftsmanship. The Budget reconciliation process, if used here, will create a plan that will have almost 1/2 of the population left out of the creation process.

This would not be a good situation for a president who campaigned, in part, on his ability to reach across the isle.

It would not be a good for the population, as if it is fast tracked, the overall concerns of "We, the People" will not be fully heard.

Providers will choose alternative channels, since there is no way to force them to accept more patients and give less care for less money. Those with short memories need only look what happened in MD about 10 years ago, or what is happening in Massachusetts and other states, today.

If we've learned anything at all from the last year of Congress, with the Stimulus Bill and TARP, Congress moving quickly spells major expenses and lack of control for us now, and our future generations.

"We, the People" have an obligation, and a right to be heard, and be involved fully in the process. Do not let Congress adversely affect the quality of life just to "do something".

Those who have followed my posts know the risks we have if we allow "any" system to be put in place. A plan like used in most European nations, Canada, or our own VA or Medicare system will leave us with limited access to providers.

Such a system will have more Doctors retiring, more going to limited "boutique" access practices, and less accepting the public limited access and limited fee system.
Massachusetts's is on the leading edge, with several state mandates, and they are experiencing Doctor shortages, lack of care, and major increases in ER use.

Trends showing increased lack of care, denial of care, limited access to medications, denied coverage are well documented in Medicare recipients, as well as in Universal "one payer" (one controller of health care access) systems.

I, for one, with 5 family members as Medical providers, am scared to turn 65, because I loose coverage levels and access I enjoy now.

Please, follow the process, and remain active in the political agenda. Your health depends on it.

Health May Go On Fast Track

By ARTHUR D. POSTAL

Published 4/28/2009

Democratic congressional leaders have come out with a 2010 budget resolution conference agreement that includes health reform and estate tax provisions.

Democrats and Republicans have posted separate texts and analyses of the 2010 budget resolution agreement on the Senate Budget Committee website, at http://budget.senate.gov

The conference agreement resolves differences between the Senate version, S. Con. Res. 13, and the House version, H.Con. Res. 85.

Here is a "side by side" comparison posted by the Republican members of the Senate Budget Committee.

Congress has agreed to handle health reform measures through the ordinary legislative process until Oct. 15, officials say. If no legislation passes by that date, Congress may consider health reform through the budget reconciliation process.

Supporters of a bill usually need to get the cooperation of 60 senators to get the bill to the Senate floor. When Congress includes a measure in the budget reconciliation process, supporters need just 51 votes in the Senate.

Robelynn Abadie, president of the Association of Health Insurance Advisors, Falls Church, Va., says she is disappointed that health reform could end up becoming part of the budget reconciliation process but welcomes the decision to let lawmakers try to craft a bipartisan health reform plan through the ordinary legislative process until October:

“A health care bill written entirely by Democrats would almost certainly create a new public health insurance program,” Abadie warned.

Continuing with bipartisan efforts offers the best chance of coming up with “an agreement on health care that will stand the test of time,” says John Greene, a vice president at the National Association of Health Underwriters, Arlington, Va.

“Reconciliation would make it difficult to achieve bipartisan health care reform that addresses the core issues of cost, access, and quality together,” says Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, Washington.

Universal Healthcare already in place is failing

2009-04-22T23:18:00.001-04:00

Here is a link to a simple summary of what is being looked at by Congress, and it raises interesting issues. http://www.staysmartstayhealthy.com/watch.cfm?v=20

One point it raises, that is not spoken of often, is the issue of "unhealthy" lifestyles. There are many studies and programs going on that screen employees for alcohol, diet and exercise issues and this video implied how that may need to be managed because of the cost impact on all.

In this day's conversation about Health Care coverage, the people should know how well the existing system, which is being offered as the Universal model for the U. S., is working.

Again - those computer savvy should Google "Medicare issues" and "infections in Veteran's Hospitals" and get up to speed on what certain congressmen want us to live under.

In the interest of full disclosure - once that plan is in place, the exodus of people leaving the Universal plan will rival the exodus out of New Orleans pre- Katrina.

Agents like myself stand to make a nice income providing people with plans that do not limit access or care, and allow the affluent access to better care than that offered in the social programs proposed.

The other factor is it will create a class difference and discrimination between those who are on the social program, and those who can afford "real" care.

Having health care providers bid for the right to provide coverage by offering the lowest price per service has it's own issues. This is part of the structure the VA already uses, with the result that Doctors prescribe medication that is not available to patients in the Pharmacy system.

Witnesses: Sam, Heal Yourself

By ALLISON BELL

Published 4/21/2009

Print This Article

Normal Text

Large Text

ShareThis

If the federal government really wants to reform health care, it should start by fixing Medicare.

Witnesses from the insurance industry made that case today at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on reforming the U.S. health care delivery system.

Ronald Williams, chairman of Aetna Inc., Hartford, and Dr. Allan Korn, chief medical officer at the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Chicago, appeared on a panel that also included representatives from think tanks such as the Brookings Institute, Washington; employer groups such as the Pacific Business Group on Health, San Francisco; and provider and consumer organizations.

The round table was convened by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the highest-ranking Republican member on the committee.

Baucus and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, wrote Monday in a letter to President Obama that they want their committees to move quickly on passing broad health reform legislation.

“Right now, all of the incentives in our system encourage health care providers to deliver more care, not better care,” Baucus said today at the hearing. “Today’s conversation is about how to lower costs and improve quality in the system for the millions of hard-working Americans that are tired of seeing their health care costs rise faster than inflation.”

Panelists talked about creating incentives in the Medicare program to eliminate waste, using health information technology to improve provider communications, and conducting more research on the comparative effectiveness of various treatments.

Panelists also talked about ways to reduce fraud and abuse in federally financed health care programs.

Williams spoke at length about the importance of health IT efforts and wellness efforts.

The United States has the highest per-capita health care spending in the world, but the quality of care delivered by our health care system falls far short of expectations, Williams said.

“Our seat belt laws and anti-smoking efforts have achieved great results, and we need this same type of commitment in the wellness challenges facing us in the areas of obesity and encouraging healthy behaviors,” he said.

Williams also talked about provider compensation.

“Improving our delivery system starts with reforming our payment system to focus on quality and value,” Williams said. “Aetna supports transforming the payment system into one that aligns provider reimbursement incentives with achieving high quality outcomes for patients.”

Reimbursement changes are especially important for the Medicare and Medicare Advantage programs, Williams said.

The programs must be revised so that the focus of health care services “rests on value and quality rather than volume,” Williams said.

Under Medicare’s current fee-for-service payment structure, providers are paid on the basis of volume rather than value, often with suboptimal results, Williams said.

“Moreover, lower payment rates paid by public programs result in cost shifting to those who are privately insured,” he added.

If Congress wants to reduce the cost of Medicare Advantage as compared to Medicare as part of a down payment for financing a health reform program, Congress also must examine Medicare's operational structure and the Medicare Advantage bidding process, Williams said.

“If we decide to follow a pathway to Competitive Bidding in Medicare Advantage, we should look at the development of a viable structure that includes several guiding principles,” Williams said.

Williams said the principles should include generating meaningful cost savings from the Medicare Advantage program; maintaining access for all beneficiaries and minimizing disruption; and providing incentives to improve quality.

Korn also talked about the importance of wellness and prevention programs, comparative effectiveness research, and health IT.

Like Williams, he called for changes in provider compensation arrangements, especially in the Medicare program.

Korn described a “3-tier” Medicare reform strategy that would start with efforts to pay physicians based on quality, build up to promoting wellness and condition management programs, and eventually work up to encouraging providers to combine to form “virtual” care delivery system.

Eventually, Korn said, Medicare should pay the virtual care delivery groups bundled amounts for treating health care “episodes,” rather than paying individual providers separate fees for each type of service delivered.

Korn criticized the Obama administration proposal to create a new, government-run health insurer that would be open to healthy, working-age U.S. residents with above-average incomes.

“Private plans in general and Blue plans in particular, have been active innovating in these priority areas,” Korn testified. “Creating a new government plan that would compete with the private sector would undermine the ability of the health care sector to implement meaningful delivery system reforms. The private sector has led the way in developing innovative programs (e.g., chronic care management, wellness programs, and Centers of Excellence) that would not be possible under a government plan due to enormous political pressure.”

The next financial crisis

2009-04-22T11:23:00.000-04:00

all of the government workers have been counting on this.

after all, this was one of the few perks to that low paying government job.

almost 50% of the population is affected by this - since this affects federal, state, city and local government services, including police, teachers, administration, roads and public service workers, etc.

Anyone want to bet $10.00 against me that this will be a bailout inside 10 years?

Before you take that bet - I'd remind you that each member of Congress has a bias to, and vested interest in, voting FOR a bailout - it's their pension plan - it's just like they vote themselves pay raises.

PUBLIC PENSION DEFICIT A CONCERN – What is the deal here? Has everybody been asleep? A current article proclaims that investment losses from the current financial crisis have significantly eroded the funding status of public pension plans, affecting entities from school districts, to local governments, to state governments, and there is growing concern that increasing deficits in public plans will force taxpayers to make up for the shortfall.

The slope gets a little more slippery, and a little steeper

2009-04-22T11:04:00.002-04:00

The slope gets a little more slippery, and a little steeper, as a Government agency wants the right to manage private industry, and be able to take it into receivership.

Without oversight from we, the people, a law could be crafted that would allow any private enterprise to be taken by the government.

In property law, that action is called eminent domain. For those of you that are computer search savvy, I invite you to Google "eminent domain issues" and find out how well that has gone.

Then search the history of Cuba, and see how the current Cuban government came about.

Geithner: Expand Our Mission

By ARTHUR D. POSTAL

Published 4/21/2009

WHAT THIS COUNTRY NEEDS IS MORE SMOKERS

2009-04-20T11:18:00.000-04:00

And in case this sounds crazy - look up the study that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study was done in England (a country with "universal" health care), and looked at the lifetime health care costs of smokers vs. non smokers.

WHAT THIS COUNTRY NEEDS IS MORE SMOKERS - Smoking takes years off your life and adds dollars to the cost of health care. Yet nonsmokers cost society money...by living longer. House members described huge health care costs associated with smoking as they approved landmark legislation last week giving the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco products. No one mentioned the additional costs to society of caring for a nonsmoking population that lives longer. A White House statement supporting the bill, which awaits action in the Senate, echoed the argument by contending that tobacco use "accounts for over a $100 billion annually in financial costs to the economy." However, smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs. Vanderbilt University studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents. Sell just 10 trillion packs and we can pay for the Obama budget!

DEFICIT AND BUDGET SHORTFALL

2009-04-18T11:06:00.002-04:00

Here it is - the actual numbers for the first half of the year.

The deficit for the first half of 2009 is within a hair of being 4 x the deficit for 2008.

DEFICIT AND BUDGET SHORTFALL - The U.S. has posted a record budget deficit for the first half of fiscal year 2009 of $956.8 billion, a number inflated by governmental spending on financial and economic programs, and this year's budget shortfall is more than triple 2008's deficit. For March, the government filed a record monthly deficit of $192.27 billion. For the same month last fiscal year, the gap was only $48.21 billion.

so you know - 4 x 48.21 billion is 192.84 billion.

7 signs a health plan might be junk

2009-04-10T15:22:00.002-04:00

I offer you this ConsumerReports.org link. It's for those of you who had looked for coverage on line, or those of you that follow health insurance issues, or those who wonder why AARP changed the offered plans.

You can read it below, or click on this link below, or copy and paste it into your browser:
http://www.consumerreports.org:80/health/insurance/health-insurance/7-signs-that-the-plan-is-junk/health-insurance-7-signs-the-plan-is-junk.htm

If you want Health Insurance, contact me for coverage options.
John Spek
410-302-4122

7 signs a health plan might be junk

WATCH THE WORDING “Affordable” health plans, like this one purchased from AARP, may end up costing you much more in the long run.

Do everything in your power to avoid plans with the following features:

Limited benefits

Never buy a product that is labeled “limited benefit” or “not major medical” insurance. In most states those phrases might be your only clue to an inadequate policy.

Low overall coverage limits

Health care is more costly than you might imagine if you’ve never experienced a serious illness. The cost of cancer or a heart attack can easily hit six figures. Policies with coverage limits of $25,000 or even $100,000 are not adequate.

“Affordable” premiums

There’s no free lunch when it comes to insurance. To lower premiums, insurers trim benefits and do what they can to avoid insuring less healthy people. So if your insurance was a bargain, chances are good it doesn’t cover very much. To check how much a comprehensive plan would cost you, go to ehealthinsurance.com, enter your location, gender, and age as prompted, and look for the most costly of the plans that pop up. It is probably the most comprehensive.

No coverage for important things

If you don’t see a medical service specifically mentioned in the policy, assume it’s not covered. We reviewed policies that didn’t cover prescription drugs or outpatient chemotherapy but didn’t say so anywhere in the policy document—not even in the section labeled “What is not covered.”

Ceilings on categories of care

A $900-a-day maximum benefit for hospital expenses will hardly make a dent in a $45,000 bill for heart bypass surgery. If you have to accept limits on some services, be sure your plan covers hospital and outpatient medical treatment, doctor visits, drugs, and diagnostic and imaging tests without a dollar limit. Limits on mental-health costs, rehabilitation, and durable medical equipment should be the most generous you can afford.

Limitless out-of-pocket costs

Avoid policies that fail to specify a maximum amount that you’ll have to pay before the insurer will begin covering 100 percent of expenses. And be alert for loopholes. Some policies, for instance, don’t count co-payments for doctor visits or prescription drugs toward the maximum. That can be a catastrophe for seriously ill people who rack up dozens of doctor’s appointments and prescriptions a year.

Random gotchas

The AARP policy that some bought began covering hospital care on the second day. That seems benign enough, except that the first day is almost always the most expensive, because it usually includes charges for surgery and emergency room diagnostic tests and treatments.

Federally-funded organization is not committed to buying American

2009-03-24T11:53:00.005-04:00

Folks - even the federally funded organizations choose to buy overseas, take federal dollars overseas, and possibly end another US. Industry.

Even the federally funded organizations choose to buy overseas, take federal dollars overseas, and possibly end another US. Industry.

These are your tax dollars going to overseas jobs, and adding to unemployment here at home.

Congress, in it's great wisdom, has chosen to end the legal requirement for the federal government to buy American.

This will allow Federal purchasing to ignore American suppliers in favor of overseas manufacture, and in doing so, add to the unemployment of American workers.

Here is an article on the latest, and although the product may be a bit unusual, the amount of purchase, and the resulting impact on another community is not.

Most people, when they see this and other fiasco's, can agree that Congress just does not get it.

American condom-makers layoff workers as production heads overseas

Bruce Watson
Mar 23rd 2009 at 7:00PM

Filed under: Sex Sells, Extracurriculars

Some of the world's greatest condom manufacturers are based in America. There was a time when the words "made in the USA," stamped on a box of prophylactics, were a reassuring mark of quality, a veritable guarantee that the enclosed pessary would not fail in its appointed duty.

And now...well, American condoms have fallen on hard times. Recently, in fact, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a federally-funded organization that provides economic, social, and medical aid to overseas companies, decided that, when the rubber hits the road, they are not committed to buying American. In a surprising change of direction, USAID switched from American-made condoms to sheaths that are manufactured in China and Korea.

Puns aside, this is no laughing matter for Eufala, Alabama. The small town, whose citizens have been making condoms for almost 40 years, is reliant upon rubbers for a fair bit of the local economy. USAID, which has distributed an estimated 10 billion condoms overseas, was a major client, and its decision may cost Alatech, the local manufacturer, up to 300 jobs. As the consequences ripple through the area, Eufala can expect to lose many, many more jobs.

This decision wasn't made lightly, but Alatech, unfortunately, charges more than five cents per condom. While this price seems very low to anyone who has ever purchased a retail propholactic, when multiplied across a massive order like USAID's, it becomes quite high. Overseas suppliers, notably Korea's Unidus corporation and China's Quingdao Double Butterfly Group, can supply condoms for as little as two cents apiece.

Of course, China and Korea don't have to deal with America's pesky labor laws, but that's another matter entirely...

Moreover, Alatech and the government have previously had disputes over delivery and product specifications, although Alatech claims that its delivery problems have long since been handled. The primary problem, apparently, lies in the fact that Alatech's condoms are very thick, which has caused some overseas beneficiaries to reject them. The Alabama company asserts that it can manufacture the condoms to almost any specification, and made USAID's sheaths thick because those were the requirements that the government demanded.

For that matter, it's worth noting that, as recent pet food and lead-toy scandals have demonstrated, China's manufacturing industry is far from perfect. In fact, by its own admission, its condoms are often too thick, too uncomfortable, and have poor quality control.

The government, meanwhile, has hired a Massachusetts company to act as a middleman, shielding it from a bid protest. In this, USAID has been helped by Congress' decision to drop the "buy American" provision in a recent spending bill. In doing so, it opened the door for USAID to seek overseas vendors.

If the government's stimulus program won't help condom manufacturers to retain their employees, then maybe it's time for consumers to pick up the slack. The next time you find yourself trying to choose between Durex or Trojan condoms, ask yourself if you'd rather put food on an American table or one in England. When it comes to rubbers, remember your patriotic duty and keep America's prophylactic makers in business!

No Republicans voted for the legislation

2009-02-13T15:39:00.003-05:00

Well - speaking of a country very divided.

Seems the House definitely found the isle, and did not cross it either.

The sad part is, we, the people, will end up finding out the hard way who is correct in their party's opinion.

Stay tuned for what it becomes.

from the Baltimore Business Journal

Friday, February 13, 2009, 2:37pm EST

House passes $787 billion stimulus

Baltimore Business Journal - by Kent Hoover Washington Bureau Chief

The House passed a $787 billion economic stimulus bill Friday by a 246-183 margin.

No Republicans voted for the legislation.

Senate passage of the 1,071-page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1) is expected later Friday.

The legislation includes billions of dollars in spending on items including infrastructure, education, tax breaks for individuals and businesses, help for unemployed workers and aid for state governments.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the the bill can be “summed up in one word: jobs.” The White House estimates the legislation will save or create 3.5 million jobs over the next two years.

Republicans contended the bill will do little to help the economy and will hurt the country in the long run because of the debt burden it will add to taxpayers.

“This legislation will not put people to work right away,” said House Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va. “Nor does it contain the time-honored incentives for work, investment, innovation and job creation that are proven to stimulate growth.”

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, conceded the bill is not perfect but said no legislation is. If anything, he said, the legislation is not large enough because of cuts made to win Senate approval.

“You show me a smaller problem we have to confront, and I’ll be happy to produce a smaller bill,” Obey said.

Data base to reduce healthcare costs how will it work

2009-02-11T15:31:00.002-05:00

So how is this data base supposed to work - when everyone and their brother can get information?

maybe this article will help explain it, from a fellow blogger

UCI students victims of health insurer leak – United Healthcare

After several students had issued filing tax returns, the investigation is now pointed towards United HealthCare. After not being able to file tax returns and finding out someone else had used their information to file fake returns, the criminal investigation continued. So far, all the victims were covered by United Health Care after running a series of data queries to find what they all had in common.
As it appears now, the campus systems did not have a leak, and the jury is still out until finalized. It makes you wonder how safe is all your personal data and information and what are the full efforts that can be taken. When it comes to personal health records, I don’t think I am willing to trust an insurer at this time and would prefer either a Microsoft or Google account, or perhaps even a usb stick to carry with me.

IRVINE – A computer security breach at a health insurance company was responsible for an identity theft at UC Irvine that affected 1,132 students, and led to fake tax returns filed for at least 155 of them, officials said Thursday.
A criminal investigation is still underway in the case, which came from a leak at Minnesota-based UnitedHealthcare, the insurance provider for UCI graduate students.

Japan’s Big-Works Stimulus Is Lesson

2009-02-06T16:09:00.001-05:00

Japan’s Big-Works Stimulus Is Lesson
Shiho Fukada for The New York Times

The soaring Marine Bridge in Hamada, Japan, built as a public works project, was almost devoid of traffic on a recent morning.

And it is not just the bridge. Two decades of generous public works spending have showered this city of 61,000 mostly graying residents with a highway, a two-lane bypass, a university, a prison, a children’s art museum, the Sun Village Hamada sports center, a bright red welcome center, a ski resort and an aquarium featuring three ring-blowing Beluga whales.

Nor is this remote port in western Japan unusual. Japan’s rural areas have been paved over and filled in with roads, dams and other big infrastructure projects, the legacy of trillions of dollars spent to lift the economy from a severe downturn caused by the bursting of a real estate bubble in the late 1980s. During those nearly two decades, Japan accumulated the largest public debt in the developed world — totaling 180 percent of its $5.5 trillion economy — while failing to generate a convincing recovery.

Now, as the Obama administration embarks on a similar path, proposing to spend more than $820 billion to stimulate the sagging American economy, many economists are taking a fresh look at Japan’s troubled experience. While Japan is not exactly comparable to the United States — especially as a late developer with a history of heavy state investment in infrastructure — economists say it can still offer important lessons about the pitfalls, and chances for success, of a stimulus package in an advanced economy.

In a nutshell, Japan’s experience suggests that infrastructure spending, while a blunt instrument, can help revive a developed economy, say many economists and one very important American official: Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who was a young financial attaché in Japan during the collapse and subsequent doldrums. One lesson Mr. Geithner has said he took away from that experience is that spending must come in quick, massive doses, and be continued until recovery takes firm root.

Moreover, it matters what gets built: Japan spent too much on increasingly wasteful roads and bridges, and not enough in areas like education and social services, which studies show deliver more bang for the buck than infrastructure spending.

“It is not enough just to hire workers to dig holes and then fill them in again,” said Toshihiro Ihori, an economics professor at the University of Tokyo. “One lesson from Japan is that public works get the best results when they create something useful for the future.”

In total, Japan spent $6.3 trillion on construction-related public investment between 1991 and September of last year, according to the Cabinet Office. The spending peaked in 1995 and remained high until the early 2000s, when it was cut amid growing concerns about ballooning budget deficits. More recently, the governing Liberal Democratic Party has increased spending again to revive the economy and the party’s own flagging popularity.

In the end, say economists, it was not public works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to Japan’s Lost Decade. This has led many to conclude that spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations.

In the United States, it has also led to calls in Congress, particularly by Republicans, not to repeat the errors of Japan’s failed economic stimulus. They argue that it makes more sense to cut taxes, and let people decide how to spend their own money, than for the government to decide how to invest public funds. Japan put more emphasis on increased spending than tax cuts during its slump, but ultimately did reduce consumption taxes to encourage consumer spending as well.

Economists tend to divide into two camps on the question of Japan’s infrastructure spending: those, many of them Americans like Mr. Geithner, who think it did not go far enough; and those, many of them Japanese, who think it was a colossal waste.

Among ordinary Japanese, the spending is widely disparaged for having turned the nation into a public-works-based welfare state and making regional economies dependent on Tokyo for jobs. Much of the blame has fallen on the Liberal Democratic Party, which has long used government spending to grease rural vote-buying machines that help keep the party in power.

But some Western economists who have studied Japan’s experience say the stimulus accomplished more than it is now given credit for. At a minimum, they argue, it saved the economy from an outright, 1930s-style collapse.

Moreover, they say, any direct comparison of Japan and the United States is inevitably misleading, because Japan has spent so much more over the years on infrastructure. Having neglected its roads, bridges, water treatment plants and more over the years, the United States is bound to generate a greater payback for such spending than would Japan.

Beyond that, proponents of Keynesian-style stimulus spending in the United States say that Japan’s approach failed to accomplish more not because of waste but because it was never tried wholeheartedly. They argue that instead of making one big push to pump up the economy with economic shock therapy, Japan spread its spending out over several years, diluting the effects.

After years of heavy spending in the first half of the 1990s, economists say, Japan’s leaders grew concerned about growing budget deficits and cut back too soon, snuffing out the recovery in its infancy, much as Roosevelt did to the American economy in 1936. Growth that, by 1996, had reached 3 percent was suffocated by premature spending cuts and tax increases, they say. While spending remained high in the late 1990s, Japan never gave the economy another full-fledged push, these economists say.

They also say that the size of Japan’s apparently successful stimulus in the early 1990s suggests that the United States will need to spend far more than the current $820 billion to get results. Between 1991 and 1995, Japan spent some $2.1 trillion on public works, in an economy roughly half as large as that of the United States, according to the Cabinet Office. “Stimulus worked in Japan when it was tried,” said David Weinstein, a professor of Japanese economics at Columbia University. “Japan’s lesson is that, if anything, the current U.S. stimulus will not be enough.”

Most Japanese economists have tended to take a bleaker view of their nation’s track record, saying that Japan spent more than enough money, but wasted too much of it on roads to nowhere and other unneeded projects.

Dr. Ihori of the University of Tokyo did a survey of public works in the 1990s, concluding that the spending created almost no additional economic growth. Instead of spreading beneficial ripple effects across the economy, he found that the spending actually led to declines in business investment by driving out private investors. He also said job creation was too narrowly focused in the construction industry in rural areas to give much benefit to the overall economy.

He agreed with other critics that the 1990s stimulus failed because too much of it went to roads and bridges, overbuilding this already heavily developed nation. Critics also said decisions on how to spend the money were made behind closed doors by bureaucrats, politicians and the construction industry, and often reflected political considerations more than economic. Dr. Ihori said the United States appeared to be striking a better balance by investing in new energy and information-technology infrastructure as well as replacing aging infrastructure.

Japan’s experience also seems to argue for spending heavily to promote social development. A 1998 report by the Japan Institute for Local Government, a nonprofit policy research group, found that every 1 trillion yen, or about $11.2 billion, spent on social services like care for the elderly and monthly pension payments added 1.64 trillion yen in growth. Financing for schools and education delivered an even bigger boost of 1.74 trillion yen, the report found.

But every 1 trillion yen spent on infrastructure projects in the 1990s increased Japan’s gross domestic product, a measure of its overall economic size, by only 1.37 trillion yen, mainly by creating jobs and other improvements like reducing travel times.

Economists said the finding suggested that while infrastructure spending may yield strong results for developing nations, creating jobs in higher-paying knowledge-based services like health care and education can bring larger benefits to advanced economies like Japan, with its aging population.

“In hindsight, Japan should have built public works that address the problems it faces today, like aging, energy and food sources,” said Takehiko Hobo, a professor emeritus of public finance at Shimane University in Matsue, the main city of Shimane. “This obsession with building roads is a holdover from an earlier era.”

The fruits of that obsession are apparent across Shimane, a rural prefecture about the size of Delaware where Hamada is located. Each town seems to have its own art museum, domed athletic center and government-built tourist attraction like the Nima Sand Museum, a giant hourglass in a glass pyramid. The prefecture, with 740,000 residents, even has three commercial airports able to handle jets, including the $250 million Hagi-Iwami Airport, which sits eerily empty with just two flights per day.

In Hamada, residents say the city’s most visible “hakomono,” the Japanese equivalent of “white elephant,” was its own bridge to nowhere, the $70 million Marine Bridge, whose 1,006-foot span sat almost completely devoid of traffic on a recent morning. Built in 1999, the bridge links the city to a small, sparsely populated island already connected by a shorter bridge.

“The bridge? It’s a dud,” said Masahiro Shimada, 70, a retired city official who was fishing near the port. “Maybe we could use it for bungee jumping,” he joked.

Koichi Matsuoka, a retired professor of policy at the University of Shimane in Hamada, said useless projects like the Marine Bridge were the reason that years of huge spending had brought few long-term benefits here. While Shimane has had the highest per capita spending on public works in Japan for the last 18 years, thanks to powerful local politicians like the deceased former Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita, its per capita annual income of $26,000 ranked it 40th among Japan’s 47 prefectures, he said. He said the spending had left Shimane $11 billion in debt, twice the size of the prefectural government’s annual budget.

Still, local officials in Hamada warn that their city’s economy will collapse without public works, though they recognize the spending cannot continue forever. They offered their own lesson to American communities in the Obama era: when you choose public works projects, be sure to get ones with lasting economic impact.

Among Hamada’s many public works projects, the biggest benefits had come from the prison, the university and the Aquas aquarium, with its popular whales, they said. These had created hundreds of permanent jobs and attracted students and families with children to live in a city where nearly a third of residents were over 65.

“Roads and bridges are attractive, but they create jobs only during construction,” said Shunji Nakamura, chief of the city’s industrial policy section. “You need projects with good jobs that will last through a bad economy.”

Makiko Inoue contributed reporting.

The first (less than) 20 days

2009-02-06T06:19:00.000-05:00

We have the first non-white president.

He campaigned on change - so how are we doing?

I would say change is in the air - lots of change - but it's not what the public thought they would get when they voted for him.

Too bad this soon, less than 20 days after this great moment, his presidency is getting blasted, and much of the media is turning on his program.

We are already dealing with his own party betraying his campaign mission with personal pork; a plan that does almost nothing until 2011; and a bigger debt load than this country has ever seen, with social programs that will force, as many annalists are saying, a depression to rival the Great Depression.
- a predicted outcome, and with much regret conservatives are restraining from saying "I told you so." But. Public polls for his stimulus program resemble falling rocks.
The change we got was more pork, and less effective legislation.

The people responsible for vetting potential cabinet members have failed him in recommending cabinet choices, and he's got at least 10 cabinet picks that will not pass ethics standards, before they are even fully reviewed.
The change we got was more corrupt people being proposed for cabinet offices.

He has met with the military leaders, and now knows we went into the war because if we did not, Israel would have nuked the country and 10,000,000 would have died (yes, I got that from someone deep inside)and he has had to back pedal on the withdrawal promise. He has proposed adding many more troops to Afghanistan, which the Russians already tried, and the Brits tried before them, and both failed. I spoke yesterday to a former ranking 30 year officer from Pakistan, who knows the area almost as well as he knows his hand. We are fighting against people who need no supplies, live off the land, have held a rifle since age 10, consider it an honor to kill another (American Indians anyone?) and we expect to maintain a supply line for 5,000 miles and beat them?
The change we are getting is greater troop deployment, and greater expense, with greater lives lost.

Soon he will be dealing with the fallout of having detainees released, and them creating more terror; yes they were released during the Bush administration, and yes the terror is being committed now and then; but no one will care about that. It will have the effect of throwing the closing of the detention camp into question.
The change we will get will be from a prevention to a post act terrorism world. We will wait until something happens, investigate who did it, try to decide who is responsible, go RE-capture them, put on a trial, and let the liberal lawyers argue that it was the trauma of American actions that made him/her do it. Yes - this is a prediction, but did Clinton not have Osama and let him go?!! Remember the first World Trade Center bombing?!! Then everyone will point fingers at everyone else for letting them go. And if I were a victim of a subsequent attack - I'd be 1st in line to sue the asshole responsible for letting the terrorist go.

So - we got change - and all those who voted for the man just because you wanted change - we have not yet had 20 days - how do you like it so far?

stress management technique

2009-02-05T01:19:00.000-05:00

Just in case you are having a rough day, here is a stress management technique recommended in all the latest psychological journals. The funny thing is that it really does work and will make you smile.

1. Picture yourself lying on your belly on a warm rock that hangs out over a crystal clear stream.
2. Picture yourself with both your hands dangling in the cool running water.
3. Birds are sweetly singing in the cool mountain air.
4. No one knows your secret place.
5. You are in total seclusion from that hectic place called the world.
6. The soothing sound of a gentle water fall fills the air with a cascade of serenity.
7. The water is so crystal clear that you can easily make out the face of the person you are holding underwater.

There!!
See?
It really does work.

You're smiling already.

Feel free to forward this if you know others who might benefit from this technique.

Economic Stimulus Payment

2009-02-03T23:40:00.001-05:00

This year, taxpayers will receive another Economic Stimulus Payment.

This is a very exciting program from the new administration. Please note this is one of the first changes from business as usual as promised by the new President.

WHEN WILL THE STIMULUS PACKAGE "KICK IN"? - An initial Congressional Budget Office analysis found that only $26 billion out of $274 billion (7%) in infrastructure spending would be delivered into the economy by next fall. An update determined that just 64% of the stimulus would reach the economy by 2011.

Since the majority of the infrastructure spending will not arrive until AFTER 2011 - it is up to the taxpayer to spend the next stimulus check wisely to start the economy.

This year, taxpayers will receive another Economic Stimulus Payment, late 2009.

As I said, this is a very exciting program from the new administration. Please support the new President.

In Part 1 I will explain this program using the Q and A format.

Please note that those who did not follow the recommendations of Part 2 may be held liable for prolonging the recession.

Q. The Stimulus package is said to be 1.2 Trillion dollars, and it's supposed to jump start the economy, so why is there only $ 274 Billion in infrastructure spending?
A. Because we are also going to give you another Economic Stimulus Payment.

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.

Q. So where is all of the other money going?
A. To fix things we wanted fixed but could not get approved thru the last 8 years.

Q. Will that create jobs?
A. A few, for our favorite people.

Q. And isn't all of this the same method attempted by the Bush administration ?
A. Security! Security! Remove this conservative Republican hate monger!

Part 2

Part 2 is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by
doing your patriotic part and spend your stimulus check wisely:

Please note:

If you spend the money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.

If you spend it on gasoline, it will go to the Arabs.

If you purchase a computer, it will go to India.

If you purchase fruit and vegetables, it will go to Mexico, Honduras, Chile
and Guatemala (unless you buy organic).

If you buy a car, it will go to Japan.

If you purchase useless crap, it will go to Taiwan.

And none of it will help the American economy.

We need to keep that money here in America. Here are options on how to spend it wisely, so those dollars stay in the American economy.

You can do that by spending it on:
upgrading your boat,
painting your house,
buying your landscape plants,
swap meets,
yard sales,
going to a baseball game,
corner restaurants.
and local Church suppers,

For those less Godly, try spending it on
American strippers, dancers, prostitutes,
pot (West Coast grown),
domestic beer,
whiskey and wine (again, domestic ONLY),
getting tattoos, or by buying American guns, since these are some of the few businesses still in the US.

Enjoy your stimulus payment - now do your part in supporting the new administration !!

More on the Stimulus Package and new Bills

2009-02-03T10:00:00.003-05:00

So what does this all look like?

from Financial E news

THOUGHT PROCESS - Here is a hint to the thought process behind the economic stimulus package from the "second most powerful person in America"...the President's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel:
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before. This is an opportunity. What used to be long-term problems -- be they in the health care area, energy area, education area, fiscal area, tax area, regulatory reform area -- things that we had postponed for too long that were long-term are now immediate and must be dealt with. And this crisis provides the opportunity for us, as I would say, the opportunity to do things that you could not do before."

MONEY TREE? - Where do we get the money to do this? Just print more? Spending-stimulus advocates claim that government can "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. This raises the obvious question: Where does the government acquire the money it pumps into the economy? Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Therefore, every dollar Congress "injects" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another.

HOW MUCH IS $1.2 TRILLION? - "All sides agree the plan carries a hefty price tag: It will be paid for with borrowed funds and could swell an already mammoth $1.2 trillion deficit forecast for this year to more than $2 trillion." Well, it is hard to get your arms around, but $1.2 trillion is enough to pay $4,000 to every man, woman and child in the U.S.

SOME TAX CUTS - The stimulus legislation currently offers a payroll tax cut of $500 to individuals who earn less than $75,000 a year, and a $1,000 credit to married couples who earn less than $150,000 a year. Since many of the people who would be eligible pay no income taxes, a cynic might dub part of the cuts as welfare. The final version may also include an AMT "fix," at least for 2009.

SCHIP PROGRAM - Both the House and Senate have passed H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, legislation supported by the President. Funded by an increase in the federal tobacco tax, the bill authorizes the expenditure of $32 billion over the next 4 years to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program to an estimated 11 million children from 7 million today.

If you do the math - that is 3,000 per child in federal monies, plus matching state funds

10 Reasons to Whack Obama's Stimulus Plan

2009-02-02T21:30:00.000-05:00

U.S.News & World Report
10 Reasons to Whack Obama's Stimulus Plan
Tuesday January 27, 3:45 pm ET
By James Pethokoukis
Some people are going to oppose President Obama's ginormous stimulus package just because they're on a different political team. But when you look at the economic evidence, it sure seems like an economic recovery package that's heavy on government spending and light on tax cuts is just the opposite of what we should be doing right now. Try this closing argument on for size:
1) A 2005 study by Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig "analyzed three types of policy shocks: a deficit-financed spending increase, a balanced budget spending increase (financed with higher taxes) and a deficit-financed tax cut, in which revenues increase but government spending stays unchanged. We found that a deficit-spending shock stimulates the economy for the first 4 quarters but only weakly compared to that for a deficit-financed tax cut." In other words, FDR vs. Clinton vs. Reagan, Reagan wins.
2) Harvard economist Robert Barro looked at the multiplier effect of World War II military spending -- supposedly the Mother of All Stimulus Plans and found that "wartime production siphoned off resources from other economic uses -- there was a dampener, rather than a multiplier." Barro prefers eliminating the corporate income tax to massive government spending.
3) Alberto Alesina of Harvard and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago want to address the fear and confidence issue by creating "the incentive for people to take more risk and move their savings from government bonds to risky assets. There is no better way to encourage this than a temporary elimination of the capital-gains tax for all the investments begun during 2009 and held for at least two years."
4) An initial CBO analysis found that a mere $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending, just 7 percent, would be delivered into the economy by next fall. An update determined that just 64 percent of the stimulus would reach the economy by 2011.
5) University of Chicago economist and Nobel laureate Gary Becker doubts whether all this stimulus spending will do much to lower unemployment: "For one thing, the true value of these government programs may be limited because they will be put together hastily, and are likely to contain a lot of political pork and other inefficiencies. For another thing, with unemployment at 7% to 8% of the labor force, it is impossible to target effective spending programs that primarily utilize unemployed workers, or underemployed capital. Spending on infrastructure, and especially on health, energy, and education, will mainly attract employed persons from other activities to the activities stimulated by the government spending. The net job creation from these and related spending is likely to be rather small. In addition, if the private activities crowded out are more valuable than the activities hastily stimulated by this plan, the value of the increase in employment and GDP could be very small, even negative."
6) Christina Romer, the new head of the Council of Economic Advisers, coauthored a paper in which the following was written about taxes: "Tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output. Since most of our exogenous tax changes are in fact reductions, the more intuitive way to express this result is that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects." And former Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey tack on this addendum: "The macroeconomic benefits of tax cuts can be two to three times larger than common estimates of the benefits related to spending increases. The relative advantage of tax cuts over spending is even clearer when the recession is centered on the household balance sheet."
7) Economists Susan Woodward and Robert Hall find that the multiplier effect from infrastructure spending maybe just 1-for-1, less than that 3-to-1 ratio for tax cuts that Romer found: "We believe that the one-for-one rule derived from wartime increases in military spending would also apply to increases in infrastructure spending in a stimulus package. We should not count on any inducement of higher consumption from the infrastructure stimulus."
8) Economist John Taylor thinks it better to let the Federal Reserve deal with the short-term problems in the economy, while fiscal policy should attend to long-term issues: "In the current context of the U.S. economy, it seems best to let fiscal policy have its main countercyclical impact through the automatic stabilizer ... It seems hard to improve on this performance with a more active discretionary fiscal policy, and an activist discretionary fiscal policy might even make the job of monetary authorities more difficult. It would be appropriate in the present American context, for discretionary fiscal policy to be saved explicitly for longer-term issues, requiring less frequent changes. Examples of such a longer-term focus include fiscal policy proposals to balance the non-Social Security budget over the next ten years, to reduce marginal tax rates for long run economic efficiency, or even to reform the tax system and Social Security."
9) Massive stimulus didn't work in the Great Depression. As this Heritage Foundation study notes: "After the stock market collapse in 1929, the Hoover Administration increased federal spending by 47 percent over the following three years. As a result, federal spending increased from 3.4 percent of GDP in 1930 to 6.9 percent in 1932 and reached 9.8 percent by 1940. That same year-- 10 years into the Great Depression--America's unemployment rate stood at 14.6 percent." Same goes for Japan and its Great Stagnation of the 1990s.
10) Olivier Blanchard, the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, coauthored a paper which found "that both increases in taxes and increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

Bottom line: There is another model out there. One that worked in 2003, 1997 and 1981. But will America use it?
Sources:
1) http://sfb649.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/papers/pdf/SFB649DP2005-039.pdf
2) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258618204604599.html
3) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249646698200289.html
4) http://cboblog.cbo.gov/
5)http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2009/01/on_the_obama_st.htm
6)http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf
7)http://woodwardhall.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/measuring-the-effect-of-infrastructure-spending-on-gdp/
8)http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/Papers/Reassessing+Revised.pdf
9) http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/bg2222.cf
10) http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003355302320935043?cookieSet=1&journalCode=qjec
11) http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/951hvyxc.asp?pg=

WHEN WILL THE STIMULUS PACKAGE "KICK IN

2009-02-02T09:30:00.002-05:00

An initial CBO analysis found that a mere $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending, just 7 percent, would be delivered into the economy by next fall. An update determined that just 64 percent of the stimulus would reach the economy by 2011.

No Earmarks was the Presidential Promise

2009-02-01T10:00:00.001-05:00

Let's see if he keeps his word - If not - I expect everyone who voted for him because of that promise to raise all kinds of fuss - because they were fooled again.

from one of my news release sources, Financial E News:

"STIMULUS" BILL PASSES – Under the guise of "stimulus" and a Presidential promise of no earmarks, the House has passed President Obama's "emergency" bill that includes the following. The expectation is that the Senate will remove a number of these appropriations, but time will tell.

$200 million to rehabilitate the National Mall.
$276 million to fix the computer systems at the State Department.
$650 million to repair dilapidated Forest Service facilities.
$50 million outlay for the National Endowment for the Arts.
$44 million for repairs at the Agriculture Department headquarters.
$336 million for sexually transmitted disease efforts.
$360 million for new child care centers at military bases.
$1.8 billion to repair National Park Service facilities.
$276 million to update technology at the State Department.
$500 million for the Transportation Security Administration to install bomb detectors at airports.
$1.5 billion for a "carbon-capturing contest."
$600 million for General Services Administration to replace older vehicles with alternative fuel vehicles.
$2.5 billion to upgrade low-income housing.
$400 million for NASA scientists to conduct climate change research.
$426 million to construct facilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
$4.1 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities"...groups like ACORN.
$572 million for the Coast Guard for "acquisition, construction, & improvements."
$800 million to clean up Superfund sites.
$150 million for the Coast Guard to repair or remove bridges deemed a hazard to navigation.
$6.7 billion to renovate and improve energy efficiency at federal buildings.
$400 million to replace the Social Security Administration's 30-year-old National Computer Center.

One could argue the value to society of any or all of the above. One could also argue that some of them will result in job creation. The question, however, is to what degree in the shorter term this spending package will help the tens of thousands of Americans who have lost their private-sector jobs, including the 100,000 plus just last week.

Whatever you give a woman, she will make greater.

2009-01-31T09:07:00.000-05:00

Ladies - please forward to the men in your life - that may help them understand the finer things in life.

Whatever you give a woman, she can make greater.

If you give her sperm, she'll give you a baby.

If you give her a house, she'll give you a home.

If you give her groceries, she'll give you a meal.

If you give her a smile, she'll give you her heart.

She multiplies and enlarges what is given to her.

So, if you give her any crap, be ready to receive a ton of shit.

Information not reported in the media on a greater health risk than guns.

2009-01-29T08:41:00.003-05:00

This is a public service message.

Everyone has a position on gun bans, or the right to have guns, or how dangerous or not dangerous guns are.

Unfortunately, there are some interesting facts on a greater risk to the population that is being left out of the media.

We want to make you aware of a very common and much higher life risk than guns.

Please review the following statistics on our medical profession and gun ownership.

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. Is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
by doing the math:
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

( Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.)

Now think about this:

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. Is 80,000,000.
(Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) Many own multiple guns, some have extensive collections, a conservative estimate is over 320,000,000 guns in the U.S.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, for all age groups, is 1,500.
again, doing the math
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.

( Statistics courtesy of FBI )

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

So, 'Guns don't kill people, Doctors do.' would be a more accurate phrase.

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!

This is a public service message intended to show you how much the media distorts and sensationalizes for advertising sales.

Perhaps the slogan for the generation that said "don't trust anyone over 40" should, for the new decade, be "Distrust the Media".

Aflac Schedules Conference Call - Regulatory,Legislative and Tax Issues - Life and Health Insurance News

2009-01-28T05:01:00.001-05:00

Aflac Schedules Conference Call - Regulatory,Legislative and Tax Issues - Life and Health Insurance News

Posted using ShareThis

"The Laws of War Have Served Us Well"

2009-01-27T11:43:00.003-05:00

The United States is operating on a catch and release system with terrorists and criminals.

We are about to conduct the largest release of admitted terrorists who already plead guilty, without ever verifying that they are indeed guilty, and acting accordingly.

This is not as simple an issue as the media would present, and we are being treated as simpletons by the media in their presentation of the issues to us.

Those that are celebrating a Cuban detention camp closing need to watch the INTERNATIONAL news and dig a little deeper - several who were already released from the US camp in Cuba have rejoined the active terrorist cells they originally belonged to, and are committing worse atrocities to others than they did before, or our detention did to them.

For an education on more on that aspect, try the Wall Street Journal from 1/24/2009 - Opinion: "The Laws of War Have Served Us Well"
This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser.
http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2FSB123275527507711793-email.html&nonsubURI=%2Farticle_email%2FSB123275527507711793-lMyQjAxMDI5MzIyNDcyNTQ1Wj.html

We already do a catch and release. It's one of the biggest jokes on ourselves.
Osama Bin Laden was caught and let go under a past administration.
We lost the towers on 9/11 due in part to that folly.

Now we are doing catch and release on the detainees we had in Cuba.

No wonder so many around the globe hate Americans.

We catch them,
We let them go,
they go kill more people in the name of whatever cause is the moment,
We then go to capture them again,
and destroy towns and cities while trying to capture them again.

We decide we can't get our hands dirty,
so we give them to other countries to torture for us,
then we decide the other countries are too inhumane,
so we do it ourselves,
then we decide we are against holding them, or torture, or any other war related action,
and we turn them loose.

If you think any of this is made up - feel free to contact me - I have articles that show this process is how the US conducts it's business abroad.

Bitter truths, soon forgotten

2009-01-23T10:33:00.002-05:00

We have a wave of great thoughts and much discussion about wealth redistribution and social programs that will cure all that ails this country

Let's reflect for a moment on truths that have arisen out of the ashes of great cultures in history,
and for many, ashes is all that remains.

History is a dry subject that many ignore at their own risk.

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
Those who do not study the history of such cultures are soon doomed to be a part of that history.

Now we have a choice - make history, or be a part of historical teachings

Congratulations America!!

2009-01-20T18:21:00.000-05:00

Subject: A London Daily Mail Editorial on Obama's victory

I could not believe this came from an English newspaper. Leave it to the creators of the language, the English, to express distinctly what happened in the election of Obama. We all should examine who, how and why this cult of personality was created. Obama doesn't have a clue about what he is about to undertake. This individual could not have gotten a security clearance if he had joined the military service. Now he is about to be the Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces.

An editorial from the London Daily Mail Obama's Victory

A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory for Obama-worshippers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality.

A victory for Hollywood, the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros and Sarandon. Victory for those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion.

Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition.

A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer teachers' unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity.

A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs.

Congratulations America!

SCHIP Action Moves To Senate

2009-01-15T08:16:00.004-05:00

Maybe it 's just me looking at this as crazy, or maybe the U. S. Public went back to sleep.

from the following article:

"SCHIP now covers about 7 million children and is set to expire March 31".

"Analysts say H.R. 2 would add about 4.1 million children to SCHIP, at a cost of about $32 billion."

"The Senate SCHIP bill would add 3.9 million children to SCHIP at a cost of $31.5 billion, analysts say"

for this math - call it 7 million plus an even 4 million children

that's 11,000,000 children insured for $ 31,500,000,000 - that's $ 3,000 per child, per year, of Federal dollars.

That cost does not include the matching state dollars, plus the co-pay schedule at the Dr.'s office.

Yet I can do children's policies all day long for $ 1,500 per child, per year, and be profitable.

Now does anyone wonder why Universal Healthcare is going to break the Federal Bank, when we, the taxpayer will pay twice as much for the service?

SCHIP Action Moves To Senate

BY ARTHUR D. POSTAL
Washington Bureau -- NU Online News Service, Jan. 14, 2009, 3:38 p.m. EST

House members today voted 289-139 to pass H.R. 2, a bill that would extend and expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The Senate Finance Committee will vote on a similar bill Thursday morning, according to Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of the committee.

SCHIP now covers about 7 million children and is set to expire March 31.

Analysts say H.R. 2 would add about 4.1 million children to SCHIP, at a cost of about $32 billion.

The Senate SCHIP bill would add 3.9 million children to SCHIP at a cost of $31.5 billion, analysts say.

Both bills would extend SCHIP for 4.5 years.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, Washington, has issued a statement praising the House vote.

“Today, the House voted to ensure children in working families have comprehensive coverage for essential health care services, including primary care, preventive care, and immunizations,” AHIP President Karen Ignagni.

SCHIP expansion is “an important building block for comprehensive health care reform,” Ignagni says.

Ignagni notes that AHIP has worked with a broad coalition of groups in support of SCHIP reauthorization.

“We expect minimal hiccups on the path to passage and enactment” of an SCHIP extension bill, Beth Mantz Steindecker and Ira Loss, health care experts at Washington Analysis, Washington, write in a commentary.

House Republicans have been trying to draw attention to provisions in the House bill that relate to children who are legal immigrants.

The House bill would let states waive a federally mandated 5-year waiting period for public benefits for children and pregnant women who are legal immigrants.

Provision supporters say it would help states add 400,000 to 600,000 children to SCHIP.

But more than 100 House Republicans have signed a letter opposing the bill because the bill does not specifically outlaw coverage of the children of illegal immigrants.

“Without strict limits on who is eligible for the program, the ability of disadvantaged children to access this program will be jeopardized,” according to a spokesman for Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the House minority leader.

Government Bailouts Could Backfire - no kidding

2009-01-14T08:27:00.001-05:00

it looks like someone is finally saying what many are thinking - and if this does happen, once again, Congress got it wrong.

Government Bailouts Could Backfire

BY DANIEL HAYS
NU Online News Service, Jan. 13, 2009, 3:51 p.m. EST

Massive efforts to support troubled financial institutions might end up increasing instability, by affecting the “precarious fiscal positions” of the United States and other countries.

The World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland, presents that prediction in the 2009 Global Risks Report, a world risk assessment conducted by forum staffers with help from experts at Swiss Reinsurance Company, Zurich; Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc., New York; Zurich Financial Services Group, Zurich; and the Wharton School Risk Center, Philadelphia.

The authors of the report note that the United States is currently running a deficit equivalent to 4.6% of the country’s gross domestic product.

But the warning against excessive spending applies to Australia, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom as well as to the United States, the authors of the report write.

Trying to address immediate economic concerns without remedying the root causes could sow the seeds of new problems that may have a strong impact at a later date, the report authors warn.

Global equity values already have fallen an average of 50%, and there continues to be vicious circle involving declining asset values, write-downs and pressure on financial institution capital positions, the report authors write.

Sellers have flooded the markets with more assets than they can absorb, triggering further price drops and further financial institution capital charges, the authors write.

Meanwhile, chronic diseases, wars and terrorism continue to mar the lives of many, and the threat of a major influenza pandemic continues to loom in the background, the authors write.

The authors acknowledge the need for better governance globally but warn against a knee-jerk overreaction that could increase transaction and compliance costs and ultimately prove ineffective in the face of the next crisis.

But this year could prove to be an opportune moment to strengthen global governance and build the political will to restore global financial stability and focus on the longer-term challenges of managing scarce resources and climate change, the report authors write.

“If business leaders and decision-makers can overcome the behavioral biases toward immediate, short-term solutions and switch to longer-term thinking, then they will have made significant progress in adopting an attitude suited to the mitigation of increasingly complex and interlinked global risks,” says Howard Kunreuther, co-chair of the forum's Global Agenda Council on Mitigation of Natural Disasters.

Happy New Year 2009

2009-01-10T11:20:00.001-05:00

from a friend

Happy New Year 2009

As I reflect on 2008, I can say we had a great year:

Blacks are happy; Obama was elected.

Whites are happy, OJ is in jail.

Democrats are happy; George Bush is leaving office.

Republicans are happy: Democrats will finally quit saying George Bush stole the election.

And all of us are so happy; The election is finally over!

I think 2009 will be even better:

Immediately after his inauguration, Obama will:

balance the budget,

revive the economy,

solve the real estate problem,

solve the auto industry problem,

solve our gas/alternative energy problem,

stop the fires and mudslides in California,

ban hurricanes and tornadoes,

stop identity theft,

reverse global warming,

find Osama,

solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,

get rid of corruption in government

and achieve world peace .

Then on the 7th day, He will rest.

My best wishes for 2009.............and remember:

"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else."

Obama cabinet short on business experience

2008-12-25T10:35:00.003-05:00

this new Presidential Cabinet and it's lack of business understanding will have a profound effect on the economy.

the mantra of "they just don't get it" will start resounding loudly during the next 4 years

Already - smaller U. S. toy makers are being put out of business in 2009 by the regulations our Democratic Congress put in place to prevent China from lacing toys with lead and poison paint.

In 2016, all U.S. light bulb production will be gone - another industry lost to overseas, done by Congressional legislation.

The tax package proposed by "our president elect" will shut down or push off shore businesses in the next 4 years. Exxon Mobile is already putting together an exit strategy to leave the U.S.

As more large employers leave the U.S. market, the TAX BURDEN WILL HAVE TO SHIFT TO SMALLER EMPLOYERS.

As more become dependent on government funds, the taxes that pay for those dependents have to increase on those who are not.

That's not just people - states are asking for more monies - Maryland is planning to request more federal funds to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure, because they are loosing tax revenue from existing residents.

The laws of unintended consequences will continue to fracture our economy, and further the recession.

Stay tuned for more on this as it develops.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008, 9:31am EST

Obama cabinet short on business experience

Baltimore Business Journal - by Kent Hoover Washington Bureau Chief

President-elect Barack Obama’s Cabinet will have a lot less business experience than President Bush’s first round of key appointees.

Bush, the only U.S. president with an MBA, turned to corporate America for several key positions, starting with vice president. Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton Corp., a Houston-based oilfield services company, before joining Bush’s ticket in 2000.

Another Texas oilman, longtime Bush friend Don Evans, was appointed secretary of Commerce. Former Alcoa Chairman and CEO Paul O’Neill was Bush’s first secretary of Treasury, but lasted less than two years.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had served as chairman and CEO of two companies, pharmaceutical giant G.D. Searle & Co. and broadcast technology developer General Instrument Corp. He also chaired Gilead Sciences Inc., a biopharmaceutical company.

Mitch Daniels, who headed the Office of Management and Budget, was a senior vice president at pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Co.

Obama, by contrast, largely turned to people with extensive government experience for his Cabinet.

The Commerce Department, for example, will be headed by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who also has served in Congress, as United Nations ambassador and as secretary of Energy. Obama’s pick for secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geithner, is president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and served in the Treasury Department during three administrations.

Obama picked a Maine venture capitalist, Karen Gordon Mills, to lead the Small Business Administration, but it’s not clear whether the SBA administrator will be part of his Cabinet. That post was not part of the Cabinet during the Bush administration.

Not counting Mills, Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, Obama’s pick for secretary of Interior, appears to have the most business experience of anyone in the president-elect’s Cabinet. Salazar, a fifth-generation rancher, and his wife have owned and operated several small businesses, including a Dairy Queen and radio stations in Pueblo and Denver.

Shaun Donovan, Obama’s choice to run the Department of Housing and Urban Development, worked at Prudential Mortgage Capital Co. before becoming New York City housing commissioner. He was a deputy assistant secretary of HUD during the Clinton administration, and also has worked as an architect.

Steven Chu, Obama’s pick to be secretary of Energy, is a Nobel laureate physicist who runs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a government-supported lab managed by the University of California. He once served on the technical staff at AT&T Bell Labs.

That’s about it as far as business experience goes on Obama’s Cabinet. Should business owners be concerned?

“I don’t think it’s a huge red flag,” said Molly Brogan, vice president of the National Small Business Association. “President-elect Obama spoke out frequently on small business issues during the campaign, and we have no reason to think they won’t continue to be a priority. A lack of business background in Cabinet members can easily be accommodated for by a president taking proactive steps to ensure that small business is at the table.”

Those steps should include making the SBA administrator a Cabinet-level position and hosting a White House Conference on Small Business early in the administration, Brogan said.

“My concern is less with direct business experience than Cabinet members’ history and willingness to work with business leaders,” said Karen Kerrigan, president and CEO of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. “For example, Gov. Richardson’s record on business issues is quite good even though he lacks experience in the trenches.”

Kerrigan is concerned about Obama’s appointees to regulatory agencies “and whether the new leadership will put less of a priority on tools and outreach to help businesses comply with regulation, or whether we’ll see a hostile crackdown with respect to enforcement.”

“Those with business experience would relate to the business owner’s difficulty in understanding regulatory complexity and costs,” she said, “and may lean towards education, tools and efforts to promote voluntary compliance.”

presidential line of succession

2008-12-23T10:33:00.001-05:00

This is a list of the current presidential line of succession, as specified by the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. § 19) and subsequent amendments to include newly created cabinet officers.

#	Office	Current Officer
1	Vice President and President of the Senate	Dick Cheney
2	Speaker of the House of Representatives	Nancy Pelosi
3	President pro tempore of the Senate	Robert Byrd
4	Secretary of State	Condoleezza Rice
5	Secretary of the Treasury	Henry Paulson
6	Secretary of Defense	Robert Gates^[1]
7	Attorney General	Michael Mukasey
8	Secretary of the Interior	Dirk Kempthorne
9	Secretary of Agriculture	Ed Schafer
10	Secretary of Commerce	Carlos Gutierrez (not eligible)†
11	Secretary of Labor	Elaine Chao (not eligible)†
12	Secretary of Health and Human Services	Mike Leavitt
13	Secretary of Housing and Urban Development	Steve Preston
14	Secretary of Transportation	Mary Peters
15	Secretary of Energy	Samuel Bodman
16	Secretary of Education	Margaret Spellings
17	Secretary of Veterans Affairs	James Peake
18	Secretary of Homeland Security	Michael Chertoff

CONGRESS GETS A PAY RAISE. DO THEY DESERVE IT?

2008-12-23T10:17:00.000-05:00

CONGRESS GETS A PAY RAISE. DO THEY DESERVE IT?
Under existing law, as part of a deal to give up outside income from speeches and other sources, Congress receives an automatic pay raise unless it votes otherwise. In January, Congress will receive a raise of $4,700, this will increase the average Member's pay to about $174,000, or a 2.8 percent increase.

Does Congress deserve a raise this year? A bill was introduced to reject the pay increase, but it died in committee. Tell Congress what you think.

It is now time for Atlas to Shrug...

2008-11-05T11:40:00.002-05:00

It is now time for Atlas to Shrug...

As it appears that Obama has won this election, following Fox News calling both Ohio and PA for him, I think it is now time for the businessmen and women who run this country to make it quite clear what the consequences are to those people who sold out their freedom for empty promises.

Soon, Small Business owners, your taxes are now going to be raised. You now will face the difficult choice of either cutting your costs by laying people off, or by passing the increased costs of taxation on to your customers. This time I want you to take the time to tell that laid off employee exactly why he has lost his job. Tell him that the Obama tax increase has forced you to take his salary and give it to "the middle class". If he protests that he is part of the middle class, then explain that he should make good use of the $500 he sold his vote for, because it cost him his job.

For the manufacturers: When you move your production facilities overseas because the US has the second highest corporate income taxes in the world, and one more state increase is just too much, make sure your workers understand that their Union is mostly to blame, and they should go talk to them about why it was a good idea to vote for the guy who would make all union votes public.

For your customers: Explain that the price of your product has gone up because of your taxes being increased, and because the rising price of oil because of keeping the caribou happy has forced you to charge them more. Tell them you tried inflating your tires, but unfortunately it did not put any more gasoline in your tanks.

Consumers: When you go shopping, and are considering buying a high ticket item, when you change your mind, make sure that they know that if you had only kept that extra 3% of your salary.... the "chump change", you could have bought their item.

In short: It is time for us all to become John Galt.

Make them understand that capitalism requires capital, and unfortunately Obama gave the capital you needed to somebody who was more deserving than them.

Ask them how it feels to be "rich".

Tell them that you are sure they will be OK, because Obama told them it would be so.

Ask them how they are enjoying their "Change", and if they have any more "Hope" for the future.

And every time someone complains, remind them that this is what they voted for, so shut up and swallow the bitter pill.

As my mother told me -
be careful what you wish for
you may just get it.

Health Care plan assesment for Nov 4

2008-11-02T21:26:00.013-05:00

This is a breakdown of the current health insurance system, as well as the system presented as part of the Obama and McCain health care plans.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an agent in the Mid-Atlantic region.
Further - It is my opinion that if the European plan were offered here, the sale of supplemental and replacement plans will be an economic windfall for health agents, as it has overseas.

I have tried to provide a reasonably unbiased review of the stated and posted plan of each candidate, pulled off of the candidate's own web site, and with nothing else added, with one exception. That exception was in a concern for the tax that has been stated will occur on health insurance offered by businesses.

To evaluate each candidate's promises and the impact, an understanding of what exists is appropriate

Current system
1) Employer provided
- employer pays all or part of the employee premiums, and sometimes pays for the spouse and children as well
- employer cost is usually between 350 - 1100 per month per person
this cost is a tax deductible expense for the employer, and any benefit plan under IRS section 125 offers additional payroll tax reductions. Employer expenses for health plans is usually subtracted from the profit before calculations of corporate taxes
- premium cost is usually a factor of the average age of the organization, and the history of incurred medical costs, called experience rating
- normally 75% or more employee participation is mandatory to have group coverage
- coverage is usually through the provider network of physicians
upside:
- no pre-existing coverage issues, anyone is accepted
- coverage until recently was offered with no deductibles to meet and minor co-pay costs
- no lifetime maximum per individual
downside:
- out of network care costs can go to 100% employee expense
- employers often change insurance companies to reduce premiums, this involves changing the provider network, and can result in having to change established Dr / Patient relationships
- the system encourages age discrimination by the employer, as younger workers reduce the average insurance age
- the employee cost share can become prohibitive, resulting in younger and health employees opting out, and going to individual coverage, leaving increased group costs for older and unwell employees
- unhealthy and older employees are tied to the employer for health care coverage, very much like the last centuries' "being indebted to the company store"
- when the employee is terminated / laid off / otherwise no longer employed, the employee and family usually have the option to accept COBRA - which is the coverage provided by the employer, at the full employer cost plus 4% admin fee
once COBRA ends, or if COBRA is not selected, the employee and family may purchase individual coverage on the open market, in many cases subject to underwriting and pre-existing medical condition exclusions or rate adjustments

2) Self purchased
- insured pays all of the premiums for self, spouse and children.
- cost is usually between 150 - 400 per month for an individual, family coverage cost is between 350 and 1100 per month
- the lesser premium cost is usually coupled with a deductible of some manner
upside:
- this cost is a tax deductible expense along with other medical costs on schedule A
- for the self employed, all medical, dental, LTC ins. and out of pocket expenses are a tax write off on schedule C per IRS Section 105, so it can be subtracted from profit before calculations of corporate taxes, and in the case of a husband and wife sole proprietorship or "C" corporation
- coverage costs are age adjusted, but adjustments for health issues are normally not allowed by state laws
- since this is the individual's coverage, the individual has no ties to an employer for health care coverage, allowing job mobility
- lifetime maximums of 5 to 8 million per person are available, although lesser levels are more commonly selected due to consumer ignorance of implications
- established lifetime Dr / Patient relationships are possible
downside:
- usually medically underwritten, and premiums can be adjusted at issuance based on health issues or coverage can be declined
- policies vary and can be confusing, to the point that some people may find coverage insufficient for their needs, or gaps can exist that do not cover brand name drugs or services

3) Federal, State or Local Government provided
- taxpayer pays all or a large part of the employee premiums, and sometimes pays for the spouse and children as well
- cost is usually between 400 - 1300 per month per person
- premium cost is usually a contractual amount, vaugly a factor of the average age of the organization, and the history of incurred medical costs, called experience rating
- coverage is usually through the provider network of physicians
upside:
- no pre-existing coverage issues, anyone is accepted
- coverage has no deductibles to meet and very minor co-pay costs
- no lifetime maximum per individual
downside:
- out of network costs can be shocking to the insured
- the employee and family have no clear understanding of actual coverage or service costs, resulting in a large financial surprise when they leave the government position
- unhealthy and older employees are tied to the employer for health care coverage, very much like the last centuries' "being indebted to the company store"
- when the employee is terminated / laid off / otherwise no longer employed, the employee and family usually have the option to accept COBRA - which is the coverage provided by the employer, at the full employer cost plus 4% admin fee
once COBRA ends, or if COBRA is not selected, the employee and family may purchase individual coverage on the open market, in many cases subject to underwriting and pre-existing medical condition exclusions or rate adjustments

4) Low income, CHiP and State High Risk Plans
- State pays all or part of the person' premiums, based on household income
- State underwrites the cost of covering the medically unwell
- individual cost is usually between 350 - 1100 per month per person, based on plan choice and deductibles selected
upside:
- no pre-existing coverage issues, anyone is accepted
- coverage until recently was offered with no deductibles to meet and minor co-pay costs
- this cost is a tax deductible expense along with other medical costs on schedule A
- for the self employed, all medical, dental, LTC ins. and out of pocket expenses are a tax write off on schedule C per IRS Section 105, so it can be subtracted from profit before calculations of corporate taxes, and in the case of a husband and wife sole proprietorship or "C" corporation, reduce the self employment tax as well
- coverage costs are age adjusted, but adjustments for health issues are normally not allowed by state laws
- since this is the individual's coverage, the individual has no ties to an employer for health care coverage
downside:
- premium costs are usually higher than a medically underwritten policy
- lifetime coverage level can cap at 1 to 2 million, which can be insufficient for the individual

5) over 65 or severely medically challenged
Medicare part A (paid for by government)
and parts B and D, are usually paid out of the recipient's social security check
medicare advantage programs can combine the systems and provide an inclusive coverage package, forming an 80 /20 cost sharing for the consumer
upside:
- no pre-existing coverage issues, anyone is accepted
- coverage is offered with minor co-pay costs
open enrollment is every Oct 15 thru Dec 31, with an additional plan adjustment period the first months of each year
downside
- the schedule for medical procedure payments is set by the Federal Government, and many qualified physicians decline to treat people with limited payment systems and Medicare
- without assistance, many over 65 do select plans which are insufficient for their needs, or fail to purchase part D, and so are penalized for not having the coverage when they enroll later, or do not have coverage when they need prescriptions
- plans can change every 6 months, so a viable plan can alter to the detriment of the insured

6) Uninsured
there are about 45 million who currently do not have coverage
22 million are here illegally, and they can not purchase coverage
it is estimated that another 10 million have ot been able to find coverage due to medical issues
the balance find the costs unacceptable, and choose to allocate funds for other purposes

European Systems:
Most operate on the same basic principal. Taxpayers fund the government sponsored plan, which pays 70 - 80% of the cost of care inside the plan offered by the country. The resident pays the remaining 20 - 30 % of the care costs. If a person can afford it, and they want a better level of care, they apply for a voucher, opt out of the government plan, and purchase a policy on the open market.
What this does is create a clear class system, much like is occurring with our similar, medicare system. Those who can afford to, opt out, and get better and quicker care, or even come to the US for care.

Obama's proposal
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums. This exists in some states already, and comparable policy premiums are 10 -15 % higher. Fair and stable premiums artificially established by the Federal Government will require the Federal Government to re-insure the risk - it may be counter productive since the taxpayer becomes the financial entity responsible for covering the major cost of the financial risk. Without any controls in place, you and I will pay for the person who lives an unhealthy lifestyle, and the health risks they take. That also removes any incentive for the company to encourage the individual to adjust their lifestyle to minimize their personal health risks. In effect - the smoker who drinks a quart of booze per day and eats McFat burgers every day is put on the same economic level as someone who acts responsibly about their health
Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees. This will be a reduction in taxes paid in - if it is above and beyond the already existing effect of the Section 125 provisions, it will reduce employer taxes and decrease revenue for the government, a small employer tax cut if you will.
Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees. This will require the Federal Government to re-insure the risk - it may be counter productive since the taxpayer becomes the financial entity responsible for covering the major cost of the financial risk. Without any controls in place, you and I will pay for the person who lives an unhealthy lifestyle, and the health risks they take. That also removes any incentive for the company to encourage the individual to adjust their lifestyle to minimize their personal health risks.
Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors. This will require tort reform, or caps on victim compensation - Obama did this to the sexual harassment laws in Il, reducing the amount an individual can collect from an employer. Premiums will not drop until the settlement is capped. We saw the impact of this in MD when the labor and Delivery malpractice costs were affecting the ability of Dr's to pay for coverage. Since no one can force an insurance company to cover a Dr, the private insurance companies recourse is to decline to issue coverage, since the stockholders (you and I and our 401K) will see this as an unsound risk. the next step will be that the Federal Government becomes the insurance company, and you and I become the persons accountable for paying the judgments and taking the financial risk
Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care. This is the Federal Government telling the business how to run their business. No longer will workforce supply and demand control the benefits offered, now the Government will tell the employer what they can and can not offer. This will ultimately drive more industry off shore, since the costs to provide goods and services will include increased Federally mandated coverage levels. This practice is already in place for Federal and State contracts of all kinds. The costs the Federal and State governments pay for services are considerably higher than for the same service purchased by the private sector, and we, the taxpayer, pay for the coverage levels mandated by the Government in everything the Government purchases.
Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage. The congressional plan costs the taxpayer about 1200 per month per covered person. Given that most people d not have that level of income, the only way a private individual can afford the plan is with extensive Government subsidies, which the taxpayer will be paying for. Even assuming the average age of this coverage plan drops, and the rates reduce accordingly, covering 20 million plus uninsured and under insured people will still cost the taxpayer about $10,000 of the $12,000 per year premium per person, (this is Obama's own statement of premiums) or $20,000,000,000.00. If the plan is better and cheaper than the existing coverage the individual already has, it is very probable the coverage level will jump to 100 million plus people, which will cost the taxpayers an additional $100,000,000,000.00 per year as they subsidize the costs. (I'd take it as well, since it's better than any plan I can buy or sell) Interestingly enough, the GAO already reports the existing Federal, State and Local health care plans are underfunded and will go deficit spending, BROKE, by 2015 - see page 8 and 13 of http://www.kslegislature.org/postaudit/GAO.pdf
Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums. This will reduce taxable income, income taxes paid in, and reduce tax revenue to the Government, increasing the deficit.

Reduce Costs and Save a Typical American Family up to $2,500 as reforms phase in:
The average individual family policy I write in MD is less than 6500 per year

Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market. To do this, patent laws will need to be changed, so that companies will lose rights to ownership and development. The incentive to create and develop drugs and procedures and technology will disappear, and the US is one of the last countries on the forefront of medical development.
Require hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data. There is an increased risk for identity theft and privacy being compromised. Personal data will be widely available - anyone following the news has seen where laptop and data base files are being breached and compromised. the more data is electronically available, the more data can be and is accessed by individuals who have malicious intent. Google "government laptop losses" for an education on how bad it already is.
Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees. This will require the Federal Government to re-insure the risk - it may be counter productive since the taxpayer becomes the financial entity responsible for covering the major cost of the financial risk. Without any controls in place, you and I will pay for the person who lives an unhealthy lifestyle, and the health risks they take. That also removes any incentive for the company to encourage the individual to adjust their lifestyle to minimize their personal health risks.
Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care. Interesting idea - except there are currently many companies that compete in the individual and group sectors. MD has 6 major group providers and their offerings are dictated by the consumers, and the state laws and mandates. To do this, other insurance companies will have to be created, state regulatory laws will have to be challenged or removed, and the Government will need to subsidize companies to enter into and compete in a mature market.

The Obama-Biden plan will promote public health. It will require coverage of preventive services, including cancer screenings, and increase state and local preparedness for terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Adding preventative and early detection services will not add to many policy costs, as most are already covering those costs. It is a logical move. What is being missed is that over 50% of the population in this country already has it, thru their Federal, State and Local Government and Learning institution health care package. Also, most major employers have hugely beneficial preventative health focused plans already. individuals with HSA plans even have some, as most HSA plans allow certain early detection and testing without having to meet the deductible.

I am having a math problem with this one, only because there are no incentives in the Obama plan for healthy actions by the individual.

McCain's proposal
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/healthcare.htm

Cheaper Drugs: John McCain will look to bring greater affordability and competition to our drug markets through safe re-importation of drugs and faster introduction of generic drugs. Will require the Federal testing and approval system FDA, to be streamlined.

Chronic Disease: Chronic conditions account for three-quarters of the nation's annual health care bill. By emphasizing prevention, early intervention, healthy habits, new treatment models, new public health infrastructure and the use of information technology, we can significantly reduce these costs. We should dedicate more federal research to treating and curing chronic disease. There will be a financial impact on the taxpayer, to find the research, but there are already existing Federal funding programs in place on many diseases.

Coordinated Care: Coordinated care - with providers collaborating to produce the best health care for the patient - offers better outcomes at lower cost. We should pay a single bill for high-quality care which will make every single provider accountable and responsive to the patients' needs. Accountability and responsibility will have an additional effect, in that malpractice may go down - reducing the multiple bills to a patient eliminates the confusion and double billing. however, the current delivery system has each provider as a separate entity, a separate company so to speak. To have one bill, there would need to be a structure to assimilate all bills into one, much like a general contractor manages sub-contractors.

Greater Access And Convenience: Families place a high value on quickly getting simple care. Government should promote greater access through walk-in clinics in retail outlets. Local care provided by easily accessed providers is a model that existed when we had the general practitioner of old, the town Doctor. This deliver system is one already in use for pharmaceuticals, and seems to work well.

Information Technology: John McCain will promote the rapid deployment of 21st century information systems and technology to improve patient safety, enhance quality and lower costs. Communication of new practices and methods would be enhanced doing this. If it applies to patient records, there is an increased risk for identity theft and privacy being compromised. Personal data will be widely available - anyone following the news has seen where laptop and data base files are being breached and compromised. the more data is electronically available, the more data can be and is accessed by individuals who have malicious intent. Google "government laptop losses" for an education on how bad it already is.

Medicaid And Medicare: John McCain will reform the payment systems in Medicaid and Medicare to compensate providers for diagnosis, prevention and care coordination. Medicaid and Medicare should not pay for preventable medical errors or mismanagement. We also need to implement a zero tolerance policy towards Medicare and Medicaid fraud that is increasingly stripping away resources from the sick and the elderly. A good idea all around - some insurers are already refusing to pay for the results of medical mistakes. An increased focus on prevention will as a minimum keep the costs the same to the taxpayer, but provide early detection and improve quality of life.

Smoking: John McCain will promote the availability of smoking cessation programs. Most smokers would love to quit but find it hard to do so. Working with businesses and insurance companies to promote availability, we can improve lives and reduce associated chronic diseases through smoking cessation programs. The New England Journal of Medicine ran an article after a review of lifetime medical costs for smokers and non-smokers. The overall result was that smokers die sooner and incur less lifetime medical costs than non-smokers. Given that, this may have a negative economic impact on Medicare costs, and a negative impact on programs funded by the tobacco taxes.

Tort Reform: John McCain will lead the fight for medical liability reform that eliminates lawsuits directed at doctors who follow clinical guidelines and adhere to proven safety protocols. Every patient should have access to legal remedies in cases of bad medical practice but that should not be an open invitation to endless, frivolous lawsuits that drive up health care costs for everyone and make the practice of medicine unaffordable for good doctors everywhere. Currently, even though the Doctor can do everything right, he/she can still be sued, and in many cases the settlement is out of court since trial costs are excessive. This process, if done right, will allow peer reviews to determine if the proper procedure was performed. the risk is that the peer review process could be corrupted by professional interests.

Transparency: John McCain believes we must make information on treatment options and doctor records more public, and require greater transparency regarding medical outcomes, quality of care, costs and prices. We must also facilitate the development of national standards for measuring and evaluating treatments and outcomes. Given that most people have no concept of the actual medical costs, the public being aware can affect the amount of frivolous testing occurring. The risk is that new tests, new procedures may take overly long to be approved and accepted.

Reforms To Make Health Insurance Innovative, Portable And Affordable

Health Care Costs: John McCain will reform health care making it easier for individuals and families to obtain insurance. Americans are working harder and longer, yet the amount workers take home in their paychecks is not keeping pace because of rising health care costs. An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and promote portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines. This process already occurs in large, multi state companies, where the plan may be based in SC while the employee works in MD or DE. Currently, the cost of a policy varies due to profit, claims. state mandates and insurance overhead costs. Allowing sales across state lines will weaken state regulation and put the consumer at greater risk of no state representation, or having to go to the policy state for assistance. This may be an unacceptable option for the consumer.

Making the Tax Subsidy Fair: By making the tax code more equitable and transparent, John McCain will give every family a refundable tax credit - cash towards insurance - of $5,000 (Individuals receive $2,500). Every family in America, regardless of the source of their insurance or how much they make will get the same help. Families will be able to stay with their current plan, or choose the insurance provider that suits them best and have the money sent directly to the insurance provider. This portion is a plus for the consumer as there is no difference for the insured based on employer or employment.

Making Insurance More Portable: Americans need insurance that follows them from job to job. Too many job decisions today are controlled by a fear of losing health care. Americans want insurance that is still there if they retire early and does not change if they take a few years off to raise the children. John McCain will lead the reform for portable insurance. This is a solution to a real problem - if I can not keep my insurance in effect, I am at risk of not being able to acquire a replacement policy due to pre-existing issues.

since there has been much talk about taxes on benefits, I searched also for this, and found Mc;Cain's speech on health care, see:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/2c3cfa3a-748e-4121-84db-28995cf367da.htm

from that speech:

"Americans need new choices beyond those offered in employment-based coverage. Americans want a system built so that wherever you go and wherever you work, your health plan is goes with you. And there is a very straightforward way to achieve this.

Under current law, the federal government gives a tax benefit when employers provide health-insurance coverage to American workers and their families. This benefit doesn't cover the total cost of the health plan, and in reality each worker and family absorbs the rest of the cost in lower wages and diminished benefits. But it provides essential support for insurance coverage. Many workers are perfectly content with this arrangement, and under my reform plan they would be able to keep that coverage. Their employer-provided health plans would be largely untouched and unchanged. "

Only if this benefit would no longer be a tax reduction for a business would it have the effect of reducing the amount of coverage a business would pay for.

To do that, it would require a change to the tax code (not likely) and such a change would only affect about 25 - 30% of the employed. Here is why:

Since the government pays no taxes to it's self, changing where those benefits fall on the balance sheet would have no impact on government workers. Those that are self employed, and those in the the public service sector, like Public Schools, Police and Fire, State and local municipalities and services, would also not see any changes to coverage. Add to that the 6% unemployed ( just under 30 million), the 45 million uninsured, plus those on Welfare programs, those who are retired or on Medicare and out of 360 million in the US, it's safe to say over 7o% of the population will see no impact of such a change.

"But for every American who wanted it, another option would be available: Every year, they would receive a tax credit directly, with the same cash value of the credits for employees in big companies, in a small business, or self-employed. You simply choose the insurance provider that suits you best. By mail or online, you would then inform the government of your selection. And the money to help pay for your health care would be sent straight to that insurance provider. The health plan you chose would be as good as any that an employer could choose for you. It would be yours and your family's health-care plan, and yours to keep. "

This would encourage the healthy uninsured to get coverage, since they could not get the credit without the insurance.

"The value of that credit -- 2,500 dollars for individuals, 5,000 dollars for families -- would also be enhanced by the greater competition this reform would help create among insurance companies. Millions of Americans would be making their own health-care choices again. Insurance companies could no longer take your business for granted, offering narrow plans with escalating costs. It would help change the whole dynamic of the current system, putting individuals and families back in charge, and forcing companies to respond with better service at lower cost.

It would help extend the advantages of staying with doctors and providers of your choice. When Americans speak of "our doctor," it will mean something again, because they won't have to change from one doctor or one network to the next every time they change employers. They'll have a medical "home" again, dealing with doctors who know and care about them.

These reforms will take time, and critics argue that when my proposed tax credit becomes available it would encourage people to purchase health insurance on the current individual market, while significant weaknesses in the market remain. They worry that Americans with pre-existing conditions could still be denied insurance. Congress took the important step of providing some protection against the exclusion of pre-existing conditions in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in 1996. I supported that legislation, and nothing in my reforms will change the fact that if you remain employed and insured you will build protection against the cost of treating any pre-existing condition.

Even so, those without prior group coverage and those with pre-existing conditions do have the most difficulty on the individual market, and we need to make sure they get the high-quality coverage they need. I will work tirelessly to address the problem. But I won't create another entitlement program that Washington will let get out of control. Nor will I saddle states with another unfunded mandate. The states have been very active in experimenting with ways to cover the "uninsurables." The State of North Carolina, for example, has an agreement with Blue Cross to act as insurer of "last resort." Over thirty states have some form of "high-risk" pool, and over twenty states have plans that limit premiums charged to people suffering an illness and who have been denied insurance."

for another opinion, see:
http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2008/03/detailed-analysis-of-barack-obamas.html

The press and the election

2008-11-02T15:43:00.000-05:00

Many are not going to like the question I raise

many are not even going to want to read this, or think for themselves

because many of us BLINDLY "trust" the news to give us clear and real information

many of us count on the news to give us facts, which we accept,

and will use to decide our vote with in a few days

but here is a big issue to ponder

Let's start with the totals I was working with:

People murdered in California in 5 years: 12, 047

with a population of under 36,000,000

163,696 sq mi

non-military, domestic state, with gun laws

People murdered in Texas in 5 years: 7,000

with a population of under 24,000,000

268,820 sq mi

non-military, domestic state, with right to carry laws

Combat deaths in Iraq for just over 5 years: 3,389

with an Iraq population of over 29,200,000

169,234 sq mi

active combat zone

Last time I looked - California and Iraq are about the same geographical size

Although I don't want to see anyone killed
- I came across one big problem with the news reporting for the last 5 years.

look at those numbers, and then ask yourself these questions

Why is the murder of over 2,250 people / year, in one state in America, which is NOT a war zone, being ignored by the news media?

There are over 6 people per day being murdered in one state, in peaceful USA

3 x more people are being killed in one state of this Union, than soldiers in a war zone

Anyone want to explain why murders at home not make the same news as a soldier in Iraq?

what if the "facts" we are getting are slanted and biased?

what if there is an agenda?

perhaps - it's more popular to bash a policy and to report on what is happening elsewhere than it is to be honest and report what is here under our nose

Now for the big question

If the news media is slanting the news in this manner, and not reporting this to We, the People

What else is the news media hiding, or being less than open and fair about?

To me, that there is a bias and agenda are blatantly clear

the bias is even being reported as making the news

so much for fair and complete news reporting

by the way - more people are also murdered in IL and AZ combined
with a population of just over 19,000,000
than US soldiers in Iraq during the war
these are states that would be lost inside the Iraq boarders

in case anyone would like to argue the numbers - here is the link for crimes - 1960 to 2007 for California
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm

the newspapers report the soldiers deaths daily, so I won't bother

The new Fat Tuesday

2008-11-02T11:35:00.002-05:00

Fat Tuesday

a friend forwarded this - how fitting for either side on voting day