Home | Site Map | About Us | Email | Quotes & Proposals | Contact Form | Privacy Policy | Links

Developments, articles of note, news, consumer updates, coverage alerts, and opinion. Bookmark this page to stay abreast of weblog entries that may interest consumers, business owners, and employers in Colorado, Wyoming, or elsewhere. Edited by Rick Viehdorfer . To be notified of updates, email me.

3/23/10 - OBAMA - "the significant domestic goal of his Administration" - TIME

Health care reform legislation passed, by virtue of legislative gimmicks, dirty tricks, outright bribery and chicanery. A dark and sad day for Americans who believe our legislators should govern based on our best interests, not ours.

Further news updates suspended until someone actually reads the bill they voted on.

1/21/10 - Pelosi: House lacks votes to OK Senate health bill..Developing...

Health care reform and you, from The Wall Street Journal: "A Reckless Health Care Bill that No One Believes In" ...and this just in - if you thought the "public option" was dead, check out the $871 billion in taxpayer subsidies from insurance coverage provisions, according to the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate. The CBO writes that the net cost "reflects a gross total of $871 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; [but] those costs are partly offset by $149 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $108 billion in net savings from other sources."

BaucusCare, not ObamaCare - From the Wall Street Journal: "Congress - already by far the largest U.S. health-care purchaser - will change its price controls and payment policies to weight the practice of medicine in directions it finds amenable or politically convenient, even if it harms innovation or ends up restricting useful treatments to manage the inevitable cost overruns".

Senator Max Baucus, D-WY, has unveiled a "compromise" health care proposal (found here) that dumps the "public" or government plan but retains most of the other (unpleasant) aspects of the House bill, including standardized benefits plans, curbs on policy design and premium variation, an individual mandate, and new tax schemes, including a 35% excise tax on insurers, and an across-the-board tax that will be passed down to all consumers, driving ever higher insurance costs.

Inherent in all of this new legislation is the destruction of the indvidual health insurance industry, as we know it; WSJ says "the government...will soon control the entire health-care market".

IRS Tax Data to Be Divulged Under Health Care Bill UPDATE 9/3/09 - Quote: "The primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national heath care will be...the Internal Revenue Service."

Public Option - Mass Confusion or Artful Duplicity? 9/3/09 - Amidst breathless media reports that POTUS Obama has reluctantly signaled abandonment of the so-called public or government option (more accurately called Medicare 2.0), a curious state of affairs exists - is it true, or isn't it?

The backdrop of all of this is the on-again, off-again nature of the proposal, and Obamas' embarrassingly public embrace of two distinct policy tracks - the old "tell 'em one thing while we do another" tactic.

This morning, I am unable to find anything to suggest that abandonment isn't anything but a negotiating technique floated by Team Obama to tamp down public discontent, and intended to do nothing more than confuse the opposition into accepting health care reform simply because the most odious part has been changed to make it smell a bit better. I am referring to the mainstream media report about Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, negotiating with the Obama Administration on some sort of "trigger" that would activate a "public option" if certain events were to transpire, such as market-based reforms failing to cover the uninsured. In other words, the public option is "in" if the insurance companies don't give up and give them everything they want. Some compromise - give up that which is unthinkable, unpassable, in exchange for a package guaranteed to require the adoption of that which we are giving up. I think this is how unions negotiated with GM, and we know how that turned out.

If Senator Snowe is truly considering this as a way to pass health care reform, she is missing the point: incrementally, health care reform as envisioned by the Democrats and spelled out in HR 3200 is a game changer, even without the awful thought of a government-run Medicare Option. Republicans, or anyone in Congress who views the public option with mistrust, need to be very careful about what they may be willing to agree to if Democrats "give up" the centerpiece of health care reform - because the rest of the bill has so many bad provisions, there can be no way that a public, government plan (the single-payor option: the ultimate goal) won't ultimately be relied upon to "fix the mess" caused by passage of the rest of this 1100 page disaster - a mess that the Democrats have been shrewdly engineering for twenty years (something that Ann Coulter accurately calls "the liberal two-step").

For proof that the abandonment of the public option is a media ploy and a negotiating tactic intended to move the ball forward incrementally, one only has to read current news reports and follow the rhetoric emanating from inside the base camp. Nancy Pelosi has staked her career on the public option and doesn't appear to be wavering; neither is her power base, the Progressive Caucus (House Progressive Caucus Co-Chairperson Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., said today that it would be a "grave error" not to have a public option). The editorial boards of most liberal newspapers echo this position; unions and think-tanks, progressive organizations and blogs all have the characteristic knee-jerk reaction for, not against, the public plan.

For further proof, head over to barackobama.com, the Organizing For American website for Obamanistas. A Health Care Organizing Event, set for 9/11, Patriot's Day, is whipping up a Public Plan Call-A-Thon, "as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists", intended to "defeat anti-Democratic forces of hate who conspire to remain healthy + wealthy while the public languishes under the burden of our present health care system".

All I can say is, the socialists are in full bloom over at Obama Central.

To his credit, the Republican Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, has said there are other problems with the bill beyond the public option, and that Republicans need to see additional changes. I say, put a stake in its heart.

The media, aided and abetted by leftist's bloggers, has consistently pointed out, erroneously, that Republicans don't have any position other than "NO". My advice to anyone on the Republican side would be to throw out incremental negotiations over a dead carcass and start with a bold, fresh approach that changes the game as much as the Dems' socialism has changed health care.

You could start with getting the Federal Government out of the delivery of health care completely.How bold is that?

U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Government-run Health Care is "Bad Policy" 9/2/09 - In a statement, the United States Chamber of Commerce has weighed in with five facts about current health care reform legislation:

1. 88 million Americans are projected to lose their employer-sponsored health care if a government-run plan is put in place.
2. More than 8 in ten people with employer-sponsored plans report they are satisfied with their health care plans - yet more than half are projected to lose this health care.
3. The costs associated with other government-run health care programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) consistently have outgrown projections of state and federal budgets.
4. Government-run health care will mean growing federal deficits - which are already projected by the White House to reach three-quarters the size of the national economy by 2019.
5. Polling shows that half of all Americans believe the current legislation will make the quality of care worse, not better.

Consensus: "No Public Option" 9/1/09 - Two Republican Senators, both actively involved with on-going negotiations with their Democrat counterparts, have stated that the so-called government or "public option" won't be part of any package on health care reform. This position is apparently acceptable to a small, bipartisan group of Senators working on the issue.

In the Republican weekly radio address, Senator Mike Enzi, R-WY, said that health care legislation must lower costs for Americans without increasing deficits and the national debt. "The bills introduced by congressional Democrats fail to meet these standards", he said.

Enzi called for more competition among health insurance carriers, the ability for small businesses to come together across state lines to negotiate lower cost insurance, and for reducing malpractice lawsuits through tort reform.

Both government and private studies have concluded that, even with the Democrats most ambitious health care package, neither costs savings nor universal coverage is likely. The Democrats health care bill, according to congressional budget officials, will add to the deficit.

Senator Grassley, R-IA, the chief negotiator for the Republicans, has stated that there are limits, based on instructions from his caucus, on what he can accept in a bill; he doesn't expect the public option to be in any final legislation.

Senator Max Baucus, D-MT, has reiterated the threat of legislation presented with or without bipartisan support, most likely through a controversial parliamentary tactic known as reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes.

AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Richard Trumka, in remarks to the progressive think tank Center for American Progress, said that there would a political price to pay if lawmakers abandon the public option. Unions have pushed heavily for a government plan, presumably to shed themselves of the runaway costs incurred for negotiated health care packages that could become insolvent.

No word from House Democrats on changes to the public option; Democrats in the House of Representatives have always said that no health reform package can be passed without it.

Health Care Reform After the Wake 8/30/09 - Democrats are clearly looking for a "Wellstone moment" with the death of Senator Ted Kennedy; Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has been quoted to the effect that Senator Kennedys' death will be of help to Democrats with health care reform. Yet it remains to be seen how his death will affect the debate over health care as Democrats move forward. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed intent on using Kennedy's legacy when she said in a statement that "Kennedy's dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and inspiration".

Obama has reaffirmed his commitment to health care reform, even suggesting the possiblity of moving forward without the GOP; key Senators, though, are calling for the President to move more slowly, given the obvious concerns over catastrophic deficits and a deep economic recession.

It's been indicated through news reports that contentious issues are emerging with the bipartisan group on the Senate Finance Committee working to trim costs; proposals to reduce the size of insurance tax credits to families and scale-back insurance coverage mandates are some of the sticking points. They will be meeting again early in September, before the return of legislators to Washington.

President Obama: the quotes versus reality 8/28/09 - To an audience in New Hampshire: "Under the reform we're proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan"...

Oh, really? Here are the reasons why this statement is untrue:

• All health care plans must meet a new federal definition for a "qualified" health care plan - Section 102(b), HR 3200
• Not valid if you rely on a Health Savings Account, as they will be outlawed - Section 122 (c)(3) HR 3200
• Any changes in your employer-provided health plan, such an an amendment or change in coverage triggers the mandate to have a government approved plan - Section 102 (c), HR 3200
• If your insurance company makes any changes to your plan, it triggers the mandate for a government approved health plan - Section 102 (a), HR 3200
• If your employer finds it cheaper to dump you on the public option, Medicare-based government plan, obviously, you can't keep your present coverage - Section 412, HR 3200
• And, the biggest reason of all: After the Federal government collapses the private market with it's Medicare II public option, it will be the ONLY option - you lose your plan anyway.

IRS Tax Data to Be Divulged Under Health Care Bill 8/28/09 - Under HR 3200, the House bill known as Obamacare by its critics, the IRS must divulge taxpayer information, such as filing status, gross income information, number of dependents, and other information to the new Health Choices Commissioner (the "health czar"), which will be used by state and Federal governments for qualification purposes, such as would be needed for "affordability credits".

Under the bill, the Social Security Administration can also obtain tax return data on anyone who might be eligible for somthing called a "low-income prescription drug subsidy", even if that someone has not applied for it.

This begs the question - just how many thousands of state and Federal employees will have access to your tax information for routine, or even unnecessary, purposes? So much for privacy.