Consider the following health related issues. Which of them are individual life choices? Ask yourself what is the cost to society resulting from each one? Finally, how will the Healthcare Bill just passed by the House of Representatives reduce the societal costs of each?
· Obesity-We hear on network TV and in the print media that America is facing an obesity epidemic. Doctors tell us that obesity causes heart problems, type II diabetes, high blood pressure and strokes. If one chooses to be obese, what is society’s responsibility?
· Lack of Exercise-We hear a great deal about the sedentary existence that is common in America. The phrase “couch-potato” is regularly used. Parents complain that their children are glued to the TV and the computer instead of being outside playing. Few would think of playing a round of golf without an electric golf cart and how many hunters have you seen using ATVs. This is frequently linked to obesity.
· Out-of-wedlock Child Births-Today 60% of black children and 35% of white children are born out of wedlock many to teenage parents. Who pays for these expenses? Think about the stresses involved in teenage parenthood.
· Crack-babies-An inner-city epidemic of babies born from one or both parents being drug users. What does it cost to birth and care for these infant drug addicts. Who pays?
· Drug rehabilitation-It is no secret that drug use, both illegal and prescription, is on the rise. We hear about celebrities going for Betty Ford Rehab at their own expense. What about all those that can’t afford expensive private treatments? Where does that money come from?
· HIV AIDS-Since 1980, Americans have been treated to horror story after horror story about AIDS suffering. It is likely the Magic Johnson pays for his own treatment, but what about the others. We know how AIDS is transmitted, homosexual sex and sharing of illegal drug needles. Care to estimate the cost to society?
· Smoking-Since 1963, America has waged in a war on smoking, still 20% of Americans smoke. We all know that smoking contributes to emphysema, COPD, lung and mouth cancers and a whole host of other maladies. What does this voluntary behavior cost society?
· Job related stress-This is the latest in a long line of life choice cause of diseases that make headlines.
· Abortions-This isn’t on my list for religious or moral reasons. Will abortions be included in the “public option” currently being debated nationally? If it is, will the number of abortions increase or decrease if the federal government will pay, no questions asked?
· Fast food-One can hardly get through an evening news report without American’s dietary habits being mentioned. The story usually makes some connection to obesity, but then there are cholesterol, heart disease and the diabetes links.
· The Sun-Who over 50 hasn’t had their doctor warn them about “pre-cancerous” growths on their bodies. The whole idea about sunshine vitamin D benefits and the healthy look have turned to warnings and ever increasing sun-block ratings on all kinds of lotions. Untreated or misdiagnosed, skin cancer is deadly or at least disfiguring.
· The Great Seat Belt Debate-We could include the motorcycle helmet argument here too. Police continue to fight a loosing battle on these law imposed safety measures. Americans make choices regarding safety and injuries that require tax payer medical services are frequent.
· Illegal Aliens-We know that many healthcare facilities have closed because state legislatures and the courts have required that emergency room services must be provided at tax payer expense to everyone, irrespective of citizenship. Most reasonable people know that this is a major contributor to the State of California’s current fiscal problems.
· Drunk Driving-This is a cause of innocent victim death and injuries. It is often complicated by lack of insurance coverage. Who pays?
· Children Raising Children-No one in America needs a license or permit to become a parent. Maybe it is 24 X 7 X 365 cable news, but child abuse cases seem to be on the increase. For these cases that require medical treatment, who pays?
As you listen to the current debate on universal healthcare, each of us must consider that most of our most common health related needs are self-induced. A few of us change our life styles after a “life changing” experience, i.e. an early heart attack or a near death experience on a motorcycle. Still many of us do nothing to improve our general health condition, despite decades of warnings. Is it society’s responsibility to take care of the health related conditions that result from a lifetime of poor choices?
The above list is extensive, but not exhaustive and I’m sure that other behaviors can be added. Remember, many in America could check off six or more behaviors in which they currently engage. The cumulative affect must be considered as well in any serious discussion of healthcare. Thinking Americans know that the above realities will turn universal government run-taxpayer financed healthcare into another Medicare and Medicaid only much more expensive.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Healthcare Cost Reduction: An Out of the Nine Dots Solution
I am prepared to sign away my right to sue for any aspect of healthcare, including doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical manufacturers, rehabilitation centers, dentists, ophthalmologists, clinics, hospice services, etc. Any attorney from any of these can write the agreement and I’ll sign it. Some reading this may think that I’m crazy. But, I do expect something in return. I want a healthcare insurance premium which is 50% or lower than what we are paying today.
Like many of my generation (I was born in 1944), I had a family doctor that treated my family in a day when doctors made house calls. Our family doctor, Eli Wallach of Jersey City NJ, would come out in a blizzard or a hurricane to treat our family. I can assure you that my father would never have considered suing Dr. Wallach even if one of us died while under his care. Maybe, Americans were more accepting of death back then. Or, maybe they had more realistic expectations. Patients died and doctors were rarely blamed.
You see, until I was twenty two, I lived under a “best efforts” healthcare system. Now in the autumn of my life, I’m prepared to do it again. That’s right; lawyers will play no part in my healthcare plan. If I die, I die. If the doctor fails to save me while giving his/her best, no one in my family will sue…period. The same goes for hospitals, nurses and all the others that provide the best healthcare in the world.
Once I sign away my right to sue forever, I’ll advertise my “healthcare on a best efforts basis” status to the world healthcare community. My guess is that doctors, hospitals and drug companies will want me as a customer. They will contact me on a regular basis. I’ll likely get “sweet-heart” offers on all kinds of services and the rates will be cheap. My guess is that I will get preferred patient status with these healthcare providers too. Who wouldn’t want me as a patient? Malpractice rates will go down for physicians that have a critical mass of patients like me. There will be no endless tests that lawyers and insurance companies require that are actually unnecessary as part of the diagnostic phase of my care.
What is needed is an insurance company or two to create such an offering. I’m not sure what the critical mass of customers will be for this to make sense to an insurance company, but I’ll bet that it is 50,000 families or less. Actually, it would be best if about a dozen companies would take a chance and make an offering. This competition will further depress premiums.
I’d rather have a system like this than say, get sick in England. This would be easier for me to deal with than having some bureaucrat decide if I’m young enough for the kidney transplant. I’d sleep better if I knew that my family doctor actually cared about my health instead of the prospect of an expensive law suit. He/she would work hard to keep patients like me alive and healthy.
Just think about it. I’m ready to sign up and sign away my right to sue.
Contact: J Cascarelli, 719-783-2146 or ctr59537@centurytel.net.
Like many of my generation (I was born in 1944), I had a family doctor that treated my family in a day when doctors made house calls. Our family doctor, Eli Wallach of Jersey City NJ, would come out in a blizzard or a hurricane to treat our family. I can assure you that my father would never have considered suing Dr. Wallach even if one of us died while under his care. Maybe, Americans were more accepting of death back then. Or, maybe they had more realistic expectations. Patients died and doctors were rarely blamed.
You see, until I was twenty two, I lived under a “best efforts” healthcare system. Now in the autumn of my life, I’m prepared to do it again. That’s right; lawyers will play no part in my healthcare plan. If I die, I die. If the doctor fails to save me while giving his/her best, no one in my family will sue…period. The same goes for hospitals, nurses and all the others that provide the best healthcare in the world.
Once I sign away my right to sue forever, I’ll advertise my “healthcare on a best efforts basis” status to the world healthcare community. My guess is that doctors, hospitals and drug companies will want me as a customer. They will contact me on a regular basis. I’ll likely get “sweet-heart” offers on all kinds of services and the rates will be cheap. My guess is that I will get preferred patient status with these healthcare providers too. Who wouldn’t want me as a patient? Malpractice rates will go down for physicians that have a critical mass of patients like me. There will be no endless tests that lawyers and insurance companies require that are actually unnecessary as part of the diagnostic phase of my care.
What is needed is an insurance company or two to create such an offering. I’m not sure what the critical mass of customers will be for this to make sense to an insurance company, but I’ll bet that it is 50,000 families or less. Actually, it would be best if about a dozen companies would take a chance and make an offering. This competition will further depress premiums.
I’d rather have a system like this than say, get sick in England. This would be easier for me to deal with than having some bureaucrat decide if I’m young enough for the kidney transplant. I’d sleep better if I knew that my family doctor actually cared about my health instead of the prospect of an expensive law suit. He/she would work hard to keep patients like me alive and healthy.
Just think about it. I’m ready to sign up and sign away my right to sue.
Contact: J Cascarelli, 719-783-2146 or ctr59537@centurytel.net.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Speaker of the House LAUGHS at Constitutional Question
You may have wondered whether our representatives have been taking the Constitution seriously lately. There seems to be so much evidence to the contrary--that the Constitution is ignored, despite the fact that each of our representative servants takes an oath to uphold this document while in office.
In an editorial at the Las Vegas Review Journal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi laughs off the question of whether provisions of health care bills being debated in Washington are constitutional:
One of the missions of the Southern Colorado Patriots Club is to educate our citizens about what--specifically--the Constitution says. And in doing so, we hope to turn our nation around and once again see this nation governed by this powerful, simple document.
When you contact your representatives, ask them about the conformity of what they do or propose with the Constitution. After all, they took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Don't you think they should honor that oath?
In an editorial at the Las Vegas Review Journal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi laughs off the question of whether provisions of health care bills being debated in Washington are constitutional:
When a reporter for CNSNews.com last Thursday asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., where the Constitution delegates Congress the specific power to order Americans to buy health insurance -- a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of Obamacare -- Ms. Pelosi responded: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"As you can see, whether proposed legislation is or isn't in accord with our Constitution is simply a silly question to ask. What oath? What Constitution?
"Yes, yes I am," the reporter for CNSNews.com replied.
Ms. Pelosi shook her head and took a question from another reporter, never giving an answer. Her spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then advised CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individual Americans buy health insurance was not a "serious question."
"You can put this on the record," said Mr. Elshami. "That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."
One of the missions of the Southern Colorado Patriots Club is to educate our citizens about what--specifically--the Constitution says. And in doing so, we hope to turn our nation around and once again see this nation governed by this powerful, simple document.
When you contact your representatives, ask them about the conformity of what they do or propose with the Constitution. After all, they took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Don't you think they should honor that oath?
Members of Patriots Club Interviewed by Netherlands' NOS
You've heard plenty of news about grassroots organizations protesting the ever-extensive (and unconstitutional) reach of the US federal government via domestic news outlets. But did you know our own Southern Colorado Patriots Club had members interviewed by NOS of the Netherlands (sort of like NPR)?
As is apparently typical of these sorts of shows, lots of footage was taken, and lots of footage was clipped before the final cut. And--since this is to a Dutch audience, after all--the commentary is in Dutch, instead of English. But you'll understand the bits of interview done in English.
Now I wonder if we can get a bit more attention from our domestic news outlets?
As is apparently typical of these sorts of shows, lots of footage was taken, and lots of footage was clipped before the final cut. And--since this is to a Dutch audience, after all--the commentary is in Dutch, instead of English. But you'll understand the bits of interview done in English.
Now I wonder if we can get a bit more attention from our domestic news outlets?
Monday, November 9, 2009
More Government Requirements, Courtesy of H.R. 3962
If I remember the words found in the Declaration of Independence, it's the government that serves the people--not the other way around. Yet more and more items are being unearthed from the 1,900-page bill that passed the House of Congress over the weekend.
Consider this article by Betsy McCaughey at the Wall Street Journal. These reveal some amazing requirements of citizens by their government. Who is serving who here? See the following excerpt from McCaughey's article:
These are just two of the 14 points exposed in this article, which I'd encourage you to read. Does this sound like the land of the free and home of the brave to you? You can see the full text of this bill for yourself here.
This bill must still pass a vote in the Senate to become law, but from what I see here, there's nothing in this for the citizens of the USA. If you contact your representatives, ask them why they would support a bill with these provisions and see what they say. For those of us in Colorado, I'm sure you'd be proud to know Representative John Salazar voted for this bill. Is he representing you? Will your Senators represent you?
Lots of talk abounds on why this bill is so great for the needed reforms to our health care situation in this country. Why not decide for yourself? After all, if you don't, someone else will decide for you.
Consider this article by Betsy McCaughey at the Wall Street Journal. These reveal some amazing requirements of citizens by their government. Who is serving who here? See the following excerpt from McCaughey's article:
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
These are just two of the 14 points exposed in this article, which I'd encourage you to read. Does this sound like the land of the free and home of the brave to you? You can see the full text of this bill for yourself here.
This bill must still pass a vote in the Senate to become law, but from what I see here, there's nothing in this for the citizens of the USA. If you contact your representatives, ask them why they would support a bill with these provisions and see what they say. For those of us in Colorado, I'm sure you'd be proud to know Representative John Salazar voted for this bill. Is he representing you? Will your Senators represent you?
Lots of talk abounds on why this bill is so great for the needed reforms to our health care situation in this country. Why not decide for yourself? After all, if you don't, someone else will decide for you.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
House Passes H.R. 3962
Coming down to a weak 220 to 215 vote, H.R. 3962 passed last night. That means if only three more members of Congress voted against this bill, it would have failed. Make no mistake--we've seen far more controversy over this bill than unanimity. Why?
Many point to this bill as missing its intended purpose, which is stated to solve our broken health care condition in this country. I don't dispute our current health care is sub-par and could use big improvements. However, is this within the realm of the federal government? If so, to which part of the Constitution is the federal government granted powers to enact such laws? Shouldn't this be--at most--an issue for the states? Is anyone in Washington even asking such a question with the bills they "write" (but don't read) anymore? It would seem not.
H.R. 3962 is a bloated stack of kludges that nobody has read. I wonder, then, how our representatives can demonstrate they're maintaining their vow to uphold the Constitution of these United States, if they repeatedly vote bills into law without even reading them. I wonder, also, who is writing these bills? Whatever happened to the promise to make such bills available to the American citizens several days before a vote? Was the full bill even available to those expected to vote on it several days before the vote? If not, isn't it safe to say upholding their Constitutional duties is impossible with behavior of this sort?
Anyway, it seems the real purpose of this bill has been diluted into solving the problem--not of access to good, affordable health care for U.S. citizens--but of an unacceptably low percentage of citizens holding health insurance. (Nothing like aiming high, eh?) What is ultimately the solution proposed in this bill? Simple. Citizens are now mandated to have health insurance, never mind the cost. Oh, that was easy--why didn't we do this before? If you don't get "acceptable" insurance, you'll be slapped with a fine. If you don't pay the fine, you can be criminally prosecuted for tax evasion.* Nanny state to the rescue, though I can find nothing in the Constitution to even allow such "rescues".
Of course, it's easy to throw stones (and particularly easy to throw stones at our so-called representatives), but that still leaves us with the problem of sub-par health care, doesn't it? How might a reasonable person address this problem?
I've recently read an excellent article in the fall edition (Southern Colorado) of the Good American Post by Sean McCarthy, which draws, in part, from another article in the Wall Street Journal by John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods Market) which I highly recommend reading as well for eight solid health reform ideas.
If you look around, you might locate a copy or two of this edition of the Good American Post around town, and I highly encourage you to read it and consider the ideas therein. McCarthy's basic assertion in his article is that--as with all government programs--discouraging a particular activity (such as smoking) uses tools such as regulation and taxation, whereas encouraging a particular activity requires relaxation of these tools. Therefore all the options being discussed in Washington regarding health care appear to be headed in exactly the wrong direction, by increasing both regulation and taxation!
With all the good ideas available out there in tackling this health care issue, isn't it a wonder that our servants in Washington haven't stumbled across any of them? Of course a cynic like myself might wonder if that's really their intended purpose in the first place. From their poor approval numbers, it looks like I'm not alone.
Please make a priority to inform yourself of viable, Constitutionally-sound alternatives to the broken proposals seen on Capitol Hill. Learn, think, debate, and contact your representatives and let them know what you think. After all, they don't even read the bills they pass into law--how can you expect them to read your mind?
Remember, this recent legislative disaster passed the House with only three votes' margin. Could your involvement with your representative have changed that outcome? What will you do when this bill hits the Senate floor? Anything?
*Edit: I've found several articles backing up these claims, as well as the language in the H.R. 3962 bill itself, and decided to add it to this post, for reference. See Section 59B under Part VIII for the special tax on individuals without "acceptable" health insurance coverage. Because this is a special tax, it's subject to enforcement by the IRS. See this article at the National Underwriter for why non-payment of the special tax can result in criminal prosecution. And this article at the National Federation of Independent Business details 15 reasons why this bill is necessarily bad for independent/small businesses.
Many point to this bill as missing its intended purpose, which is stated to solve our broken health care condition in this country. I don't dispute our current health care is sub-par and could use big improvements. However, is this within the realm of the federal government? If so, to which part of the Constitution is the federal government granted powers to enact such laws? Shouldn't this be--at most--an issue for the states? Is anyone in Washington even asking such a question with the bills they "write" (but don't read) anymore? It would seem not.
H.R. 3962 is a bloated stack of kludges that nobody has read. I wonder, then, how our representatives can demonstrate they're maintaining their vow to uphold the Constitution of these United States, if they repeatedly vote bills into law without even reading them. I wonder, also, who is writing these bills? Whatever happened to the promise to make such bills available to the American citizens several days before a vote? Was the full bill even available to those expected to vote on it several days before the vote? If not, isn't it safe to say upholding their Constitutional duties is impossible with behavior of this sort?
Anyway, it seems the real purpose of this bill has been diluted into solving the problem--not of access to good, affordable health care for U.S. citizens--but of an unacceptably low percentage of citizens holding health insurance. (Nothing like aiming high, eh?) What is ultimately the solution proposed in this bill? Simple. Citizens are now mandated to have health insurance, never mind the cost. Oh, that was easy--why didn't we do this before? If you don't get "acceptable" insurance, you'll be slapped with a fine. If you don't pay the fine, you can be criminally prosecuted for tax evasion.* Nanny state to the rescue, though I can find nothing in the Constitution to even allow such "rescues".
Of course, it's easy to throw stones (and particularly easy to throw stones at our so-called representatives), but that still leaves us with the problem of sub-par health care, doesn't it? How might a reasonable person address this problem?
I've recently read an excellent article in the fall edition (Southern Colorado) of the Good American Post by Sean McCarthy, which draws, in part, from another article in the Wall Street Journal by John Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods Market) which I highly recommend reading as well for eight solid health reform ideas.
If you look around, you might locate a copy or two of this edition of the Good American Post around town, and I highly encourage you to read it and consider the ideas therein. McCarthy's basic assertion in his article is that--as with all government programs--discouraging a particular activity (such as smoking) uses tools such as regulation and taxation, whereas encouraging a particular activity requires relaxation of these tools. Therefore all the options being discussed in Washington regarding health care appear to be headed in exactly the wrong direction, by increasing both regulation and taxation!
With all the good ideas available out there in tackling this health care issue, isn't it a wonder that our servants in Washington haven't stumbled across any of them? Of course a cynic like myself might wonder if that's really their intended purpose in the first place. From their poor approval numbers, it looks like I'm not alone.
Please make a priority to inform yourself of viable, Constitutionally-sound alternatives to the broken proposals seen on Capitol Hill. Learn, think, debate, and contact your representatives and let them know what you think. After all, they don't even read the bills they pass into law--how can you expect them to read your mind?
Remember, this recent legislative disaster passed the House with only three votes' margin. Could your involvement with your representative have changed that outcome? What will you do when this bill hits the Senate floor? Anything?
*Edit: I've found several articles backing up these claims, as well as the language in the H.R. 3962 bill itself, and decided to add it to this post, for reference. See Section 59B under Part VIII for the special tax on individuals without "acceptable" health insurance coverage. Because this is a special tax, it's subject to enforcement by the IRS. See this article at the National Underwriter for why non-payment of the special tax can result in criminal prosecution. And this article at the National Federation of Independent Business details 15 reasons why this bill is necessarily bad for independent/small businesses.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Contact your Representatives TODAY!
Mike just sent me the following information for contacting our representatives by email! But you can also find their phone numbers and mailing addresses at our Representatives page (which I'll update with this information shortly).
http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=contact
I have found some contact info this am trying to contact Salazar which i hope to you can add to our website.Edit: I've received notice from Mark Udall's email address that this is NOT a monitored email address. You can send an email directly online through the following link:
Udall email: Senator_Mark_Udall@markudall.senate.gov
http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=contact
Bennet email: senator_bennet@bennet.senate.govPlease contact your representatives today, since it seems the Health Care bill will be pushed for a vote sometime today. Is this bill, H.R. 3962, constitutional? Have your representatives read all 1,900 pages of the bill to know what they're doing with this powerful piece of legislation? Do you care? If so, please contact your representatives and let them know your thoughts. With the information above, this should be easier than ever.
Salazar email: you have to go to his website and then you can email him: www.house.gov/salazar/contact.shtml
Also please check this website for more contact info: www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html
Mike
Friday, November 6, 2009
H.R. 3962 to Cost at Least $15,000 per Family!
Gee, thanks, representatives! The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed expected costs of H.R. 3962 (Pelosi's health care bill) are expected to cost each family a minimum of $15,000 per year by 2016. Here's an excerpt:
Care to opt out? Well, you can do that, but you risk big fines and imprisonment if you don't purchase an "acceptable" health insurance plan. Isn't that nice? Whatever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness anyway?
Although premiums under H.R. 3962 would vary by geographic area to reflect differences in average spending for health care and would also vary by age, the table shows the approximate national average for that lower-cost reference plan—about $5,300 for single policies and about $15,000 for family policies in 2016. Enrollees could purchase a more expensive plan or more extensive coverage for an additional, unsubsidized premium—and CBO anticipates that many enrollees would do that, so the average premiums actually paid in the exchanges would be higher (although average cost-sharing amounts could be lower than those shown in the table). The figures are presented for 2016 in order to illustrate the likely situation after the proposed changes in insurance markets were fully implemented. (A downside of that approach is that the figures are harder to compare with those observed in 2009.)
Care to opt out? Well, you can do that, but you risk big fines and imprisonment if you don't purchase an "acceptable" health insurance plan. Isn't that nice? Whatever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness anyway?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
