June 22, 2010
Healthcare bill kills Medicare at the Mayo Clinic
President Obama has often commented that he’s impressed with the way the Mayo Clinic performs calling it a model of health-care excellence and efficiency. “It's got the best quality and the lowest cost of just about any system in the country. We want to help the whole country learn from what Mayo is doing," said the president. On a number of occasions he stated, "They offer the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm. We need to learn from their successes and replicate those best practices across our country." These quotes were even posted on the White House web site. But it seems the folks at Mayo weren’t being suckered into the rhetoric and actually paid attention to the language in the health care bill even before it was signed into law.
The Mayo Clinic no longer accepts Medicare payments at its primary care facility in Glendale, Arizona. Now more than 3,000 patients are required to pay cash if they choose to continue seeing doctors at this clinic. For the time being the change in policy only affects the Glendale clinic. As the actual health care bill becomes more understood and implemented other Mayo facilities may opt out of Medicare. There are other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota.
But why would a globally respected medical institution that’s routinely lauded for providing health care of "the best quality and the lowest cost" voluntarily opt out of the government's premier single-payer insurance program? The answer is the most obvious--money. In 2009 the Mayo Clinic in Glendale lost $840 million serving its Medicare patients. Medicare reimbursements covered approximately 50 percent of the total cost of treating eligible primary-care patients. There isn’t a medical organization in the world that can remain viable when doing business with an insurance program that only pays half of the costs. If our auto insurance company paid only 50 percent of the cost each time we filed a claim we’d cut them loose.
You may be surprised to learn that the Mayo Clinic isn’t simply reacting irrationally to the recent legislation. In 2008 the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission released a report confirming that 29 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, nearly one in four, are struggling to find a primary care doctor who will treat them. Also that same year the Texas Medical Association determined that only 38 percent of that state's primary care physicians were accepting new patients whose primary insurance was Medicare.
But if you think things are bad now, just wait until the actual legislation takes full effect in 2012. At that time the new health care legislation Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and doctors will drop even lower.
According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a branch of the US Department of Health and Human Services, it’s estimated that another $493 billion will be cut from Medicare over the next 10 years. A spokesman for these departments said, "Providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries." With government now in the driver’s seat for health care and wielding the power to establish medical reimbursement and actual payment amounts, consider another lost freedom for taxpayers.
While this will be breaking news to many people, more than six months ago the Mayo Clinic began sounding the alarm of problems ahead. Rather than improving American health care and making it more affordable for the majority of citizens, Mayo warned that the legislation, if passed, "will do the opposite" and "the real losers will be the citizens of the United States."
Additionally, a year ago federal officials confirmed that fraud, waste and abuse was habitual in several specific areas of Medicare, but to date have taken no action to fix these known problems and the program continues losing tens of billions of dollars. What are the Feds waiting for? The program's long-term deficit is approaching a mindboggling $40 trillion. Oversight for Medicare has been virtually non-existent since its inception in 1966 when the annual cost was $3 billion. The annual estimated cost for 2010 is $453 billion. Even with this staggering amount on the books in red ink, the program’s reimbursement to medical providers is so slow and miniscule that rapidly growing numbers of them are saying they can no longer afford to treat Medicare patients, it’s a losing proposition. If Medicare was the role model for health care reform then we’re truly in a lot of trouble nationwide.
President Obama said he wanted the country to "learn from what Mayo is doing." Really? If that’s true and Mayo is the role model, then expect more doctors and hospitals to opt out of Medicare leaving thousands of patients in a lurch.
Hang on folks, because from all accounts the pain inflicted from the recently enacted health care legislation will get much worse before it shows any sign of relief.
May 5, 2010
Technological Age Discrimination
Like many of you, I’m significantly addicted to my computer, and reading and sending emails are an integral part of my daily routine. But online marketers, through various means, have gotten their hands on my email address and constantly load my inbox with a variety of seemingly discriminatory messages—they seem to have figured out that I’m getting older. Here are a few obvious examples of what I consider technological age discrimination.
The most prominent and hardest sell ads are those offering a myriad of erectile dysfunction products. Why do they automatically assume that old guys can’t stand up on their own in this particular area? From what I understand most women in the senior age range prefer it if we simply let nature take its course. Besides, I spend enough time dealing with medical-related issues; the last thing I need is an emergency room visit because I’ve been involuntarily standing at attention longer than four hours.
As a follow on to the above topic, there’s no plausible reason that Internet marketers should assume that I need daily offerings of “hot babes” who are anxious to meet me. Then again, maybe they assume that I’ve been duped into loading up on the hardwood pills and want to sneak into the woods.
Aside from the obvious presumption that seniors are edging closer to the end of life’s yardstick, odds are we have an ample amount of life insurance. Even so, the offers roll in with warnings that one can never have too much life insurance. Want to bet? How’d we get suckered into the mindset that we have an obligation to convert our heirs into instant millionaires after we pass on? Aside from my wife, everyone else is on their own and shouldn’t expect a free financial handout. Besides, I like most animals better than a majority of the humans I’ve met, so if I have the final say my stuff is going to legitimate animal care organizations.
Unless I’m lying in a hospital bed hearing my last rights, I don’t need a fast loan with a mere 30+ percent interest rate? I’d love to see these sleazy operations out of business and maybe it’s incumbent on the most elderly seniors to make it happen. If these businesses are still around when I hit age 100, I plan to drive (you have a problem with that?!) to each one of them and take out as big a loan as they’ll give me. And I hope one of them turns me down; I’m itching to file an age discrimination lawsuit just to see how the system handles it.
I enjoy venturing off the retirement compound periodically for a little vacation, but the last option coming to mind when planning one of these overnight outings is a time share. Not long ago I got a phone call from one of them so I listened to the opening pitch. The representative introduced himself, and then asked if I had received their email about the spectacular sales offering. I told him yes, because I get at least one time share email daily that I never open, so there was a good chance that his had arrived and was deleted. After listening to the too-good-to-be-true sales promotion I asked for the cost of the annual maintenance fees along with mentioning that our usual number of overnight stays per year was five. I told the representative that dividing the annual fee by five gave an average cost per night comparable to the rack rate of the room in a five star luxury hotel. He hung up.
But on occasion, I do receive a legitimate email that lands in the spam file, so I read it. For example, printer ink. Like it or not, even a computer junkie needs things printed in hard copy sometimes. Given the astronomical retail price of printer ink, the online offerings from recognized provides can save a bundle of money. I also shop for a few vitamin-mineral supplements via the Internet, and the reputable companies typically offer a good value.
From what I’ve seen age discrimination is now prevalent in the world of technology via unsolicited emails, an elaborate assemblage of intriguing, unanticipated seemingly personalized offerings combined with an enticing blend of mystery and incentive; there’s always just enough to keep us fascinated with the possibilities. Maybe life is, in fact, intended to be ongoing potential age discrimination, so technology is an obvious entrant in the bias mix.
April 30, 2010
Trust in the federal government plummets
Americans' trust in government, or a lack of it, has plummeted to a near-historic low according to recent survey results released by the Pew Research Center.
A mere 22 percent of Americans that were surveyed by Pew said they can trust government in Washington "almost always or most of the time." This figure is among the lowest measures recorded during the past 50 years since pollsters began asking the question.
Possibly more concerting is the number confirming that about 1 of every 3 people said they believe government is a major threat to their personal freedoms and want federal power significantly diminished.
The Pew pollsters asked people to indicate whether they were content, frustrated or angry with the federal government, and 3 of every 4 respondents said they were either frustrated or angry. Historically, the tone of the country diminishes during Democratic administrations, and this was first measured and confirmed in 1958. Follow-on downturns of notable proportions were recorded during the Carter and Clinton administrations. When such fervor erupts among the masses for the long-term the midterm elections tend to favor Republicans. However, an interesting twist will be in play this November as Independents. This growing segment of voters has influential political clout by habitually voting, and they currently favor republicans over Democrats by a margin of 66 percent to 13 percent according to Pew. During the Bush era these trust numbers dipped accordingly and the results of the shift are now being felt. The political pendulum does swing both ways and it appears it’s gaining momentum as it swings from left to right once again, but by election time it could slow down somewhere around the middle.
Interestingly, the results of the Pew survey conducted in March, were so surprisingly bleak that the organization conducted three follow-up surveys to verify its findings to ensure not only accuracy but also credibility. The results of each survey remained essentially unchanged.
In fairness, about 55 percent of Americans routinely express frustration about the federal government, according to Pew surveys going back to 1997. But there’s a notable difference today with the growing numbers who expressed "intense anti-government views." The percentage of Americans who say they are angry has doubled since 2000.
The recent Pew also found that intense anti-government sentiment was highest among Republicans, Independents and those who agree with the Tea Party movement. Another noteworthy finding was that Anti-government frustration was intense among the 30 percent of those surveyed who said that "government is a major threat to my personal freedoms.”
Possibly the most interesting result was the growing disaffection for big government among independents. Independents who are extremely frustrated with government have expressed an intense commitment to voting in the November election. The survey also found that nearly one third of Independents said that the Tea Party accurately reflects their view.
Before President Obama took office, the public was virtually evenly divided regarding what size government was best for the country, with 42 percent advocating a smaller government and 43 percent for an expansion in Washington. Today, 50 percent of those surveyed want a smaller government; only 39 percent want a bigger one. An impressive 61 percent of those surveyed said they believe stricter regulation of financial companies is warranted.
The bottom line of all of this is that Washington has managed to turn a blind eye to the public at large in many instances and the repercussion is a mounting lack of trust in government and politicians in general. The November election may seem far away, but the antics to those currently in power will continue to be under close scrutiny by the ever-increasing number of people who say they are intent on voting.
Hello, Washington, is anybody there?
December 14, 2009
Prolonged Presence in Afghanistan is a Mistake
The “Yes We Can” president just rolled the dice for us again last week during his speech at West Point by opting to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. The problem is that he immediately followed that declaration with another one presuming his decision would result in a mission accomplished and vowed to begin a withdrawal in 2011.
Interesting how most of his colleagues applauded his decision as being rational and strategically sound, but a similar ploy by the former president drew immediate fire from the left side of the political aisle and quickly backfired. But President Obama differentiates his action from the former president’s by stating that his decision was made after a long, thoughtful, gut-checking analysis. Those questioning his rationale offer two reasonable objections: Where will he get the troops and how is he going to pay for it. If the president wanted to end both wars quickly he’d man up and demand that Congress implement the draft, something that hasn’t been openly discussed because of the guarantee of a political firestorm less than a year before House and Senate members come up for re-election.
The president has taken the least problematical step, escalating the war in Afghanistan. Bringing it to an end and getting every troop home will be challenging beyond current comprehension.
This dilemma was brilliantly stated by Andrew Bacevich, a retired U.S. Army colonel and Boston University professor of history, when he said on the radio show, “He (President Obama) seems to assume that war is a predictable and controllable instrument that can be directed with precision by people sitting in offices back in Washington, D.C. I think the history of Vietnam and the history of war more broadly teaches us something different. And that is, when statesmen choose war, they really are simply rolling the dice.’’
In effect, the president is willing to gamble with the lives of those in uniform and the future of our country. If he loses this gamble, which many sincerely believe is likely, every one of us stands to lose something in the process. But those with the most to lose are the ones on the front lines in actual conflict. I don’t believe the United States will pull out of Afghanistan in 2011. At that point the problem will be two-fold; we can’t afford to stay because we aren’t winning, lives are being lost and the country remains in turmoil, but we can’t afford to get out and observe that region, along with its neighbor Pakistan, become safe havens and uninterrupted training grounds for terrorists.
Within a short time after President Obama’s address at West Point, his top security advisor, General James Jones, said, “In no manner, shape or form is the United States leaving Afghanistan in 2011…"
Further degrading the validity of the president’s remarks was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She commented during an address to the North Atlantic Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO's) highest political body, that eventual troop withdrawal was significantly dependent on a gradual and continuous transfer of responsibility to Afghan security forces. She also stated, "The pace, size, and scope of the drawdown will be predicated on the situation on the ground. If things are going well, a larger number of forces could be removed from more areas. If not, the size and speed of the drawdown will be adjusted accordingly." She never referred to the 18 month timetable as an objective. Maybe she comprehends that telling your enemy your plans ahead of time gives them somewhat of a strategic advantage. The president should visit the U.S. Army War College and Institute for Strategic Studies sometime soon; he might learn something about tactics and war planning. He could also scan a classic book by Sun Tzu titled “The Art of War.”
You may recall that the president cited 43 nations as having vowed their support to help win the war in Afghanistan by deploying an estimated 10,000 additional troops. The president said, “Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility. What’s at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.”
No, Mr. President, what’s primarily at stake are the lives of our service members who volunteered to ensure the safety and security of those of us at home by defeating an enemy based mainly in the Middle East. When you make a decision of this magnitude it should be done with the sheer intent of winning, offering a clear and concise statement of what that means, and providing your enemy with nothing more than an unwavering message that we have the will, resources, and tenacity for accomplishing that mission.
October 20, 2009
Deciphering President Obama’s Nobel Prize
Earlier this month, President Barack Obama hit the motherload when he received a Nobel Peace prize. But let’s take a closer look at how that may be perceived by many Americans and others around the world.
To date, the Obama presidency hasn’t accomplished any significant campaign promises, and certainly nothing tangible on the global front that could be attributable to him or his hand-picked cabinet members. On the global scene the Middle East remains in turmoil, Afghanistan is spiraling out of control as confirmed by the senior military commander appointed by Obama to fix that mess, the Israelis and Palestinians continue their long-standing disagreement, Iran thumbs its nose at the Americans even though they’ve agreed to an alleged nuclear inspection of their uranium enrichment sites, and Guantanamo Bay prison remains operational. Nationally, employment and foreclosure numbers continue to rise while the economy sputters, and health care overhaul bills have become so laden with earmarks and generally unintelligible that even lawyers are having trouble understanding them. And when he blows-off a meeting with the Dalai Lama in lieu of a face-to-face chat with China's President, where’s the peace part of the puzzle?
Here’s the deal: the prize he received should have been called the Nobel Piece Prize, because that’s what President Obama has managed to accomplish. He’s taken a piece of the auto industry, the housing market, Wall Street, and the largest banks and financial institutions in the country, tucked them under the wing of the federal government, and allowed the tab to be picked up the usual group of chumps, the taxpayers . Throw in an ongoing push for cap and trade that will hammer businesses even harder and you start to get a glimpse of how an actual peace price winner looks in today’s world of behind the scenes wheeling, dealing and, conscienceless functionality.
However, in his defense, President Obama has taken advantage of every conceivable opportunity for getting in front of a news camera to apologize for the way the United States has, over the years in good faith, given direct assistance to numerous countries in actual lives, goods, and humanitarian services. Unfortunately, most have squandered the potential benefits through foolish, conscious decisions or outright corruption. As if his opportunistic apologies aren’t adequate insults to the American people and especially those who were actively involved in these actions, both living and deceased, consider his resolute attempts to make friends with some the sleaziest world leaders (e.g., Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez). But the president intentionally ignored opportunities to assist recognized peace activists in Burma and Myanmar thereby allowing them to rot in prisons to this day.
I wonder how much a Nobel Prize would cost on eBay or Craigslist given the diminished value of it on a global scale.
August 25, 2009
Trouble on the home front
Good news: The House and Senate are in recess which means they can’t do any immediate damage. In fact, they’re attempting to perform personal damage control to save themselves with their constituents because of the health care debacle. And it didn't take long for them to run headlong into their voters who are miffed to the max about the House's "Health Care for all Americans" legislation, a conglomeration of multiple committees that simply guts health care for most Americans.
They’ve been attempting to peddle the bill like it was a bottle of 1800’s miracle medicine. But in keeping with their current mindset of get-it-done-quickly, not a single one of them has read the 1,018 page document that was hackneyed together the night before they left Washington even though they’re all experts on its contents.
Much to the representatives’ surprise and dismay, the taxpayers have awakened to the fact that the bill is potential disaster and have turned out in droves to the town hall meetings and spoken their minds. The politicians were so taken aback by the questions and comments that many of them have abruptly cancelled all of their planned town hall meetings and opted for phone and online offerings which are nothing more than safe havens for the interim until they can return to their private sanctuaries in Washington.
It became quickly obvious these legislators weren’t particularly adept at fielding legitimate questions and selling something they knew almost nothing about. One of the most popular and valid queries being heard is whether or not the taxpayers will have access to the same health care coverage as their elected representatives. As you might imagine the bureaucrats can’t offer an acceptable response and are often and rightfully “booed.” It’s obvious that none of them are fully knowledgeable of the contents of the rough draft and are attempting to spew rhetoric rather than information actually contained in the current bill. I’d like to make it even easier for the politicians, so here’s my proposal. All they have to do is promise us, the voters, they will totally dismantle their current executive insurance program and, once a bill is passed, select an option from those that will be offered to you and me.
Regarding the current bill, if any of them had skimmed it they’d have seen early on that page 16 contained a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal. That’s right—against the law. The provision would prohibit individual private coverage. Listed under the heading "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of the year the legislation becomes law.”
This shouldn’t come as a surprise since the naysayers have been warning us for months that the moment the Feds get into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage the private insurance market will be smothered. And why wouldn’t the government want that to happen? With the Feds offering a public option that could be 30% to 40% less costly than today’s typical annual premiums, who wouldn’t want to buy in. Of course, you know there’s a catch; we, the taxpayers, will be funding it, so employers will have no incentive to keep their private plans and will sign up for the government’s version of health coverage.
Various estimates have concluded that private carriers could end up with an estimated 50 million fewer customers. Many won’t go out of business, but their coverage costs will skyrocket. But keep your eye on the prize, the actual coverage, because that will shrink over time leaving many people virtually uncovered due to medical conditions deemed exclusionary and outside the cost effectiveness range for coverage.
While I’m still wading through the mishmash, I’ve already uncovered many hidden flaws in the bill, but another noteworthy one is found on page 425: Everyone currently receiving Social Security benefits regardless of age or circumstances (e.g., disability) will be required to attend mandatory counseling every five years to learn how to select from a list of options available/approved for eliminating your end of life suffering. In effect, you’ll be required to choose your form of death. Another little caveat is that the government can deny health care based on age, and $500 billion will be systematically cut from this senior-related health care plan. What that means is a radical reduction in health care offerings and the oldest and most ill citizens will become expendable or non-cost effective.
There’s also some ambiguous language that implies even those who can afford to pay for private health care may be prohibited by law to purchase and partake of it if their combination of age and health diagnosis doesn’t fit the approved government template, one that was created by bureaucrats rather than medical professionals. The government intends to manage our lives from cradle to grave, and they’ll begin by controlling the end—the forced termination of our life. If this frightens you as much as it does me, then I’ve accomplished my task of making you aware of the potential lethality of the current health care bill. Don’t buy into the notion that those seen speaking up at town hall meetings have been hand-picked shills by a right wing conspiracy.
I’ll close with another unmentioned pitfall in the health care legislation, one that’s going to wipe out health savings accounts. The government now has to demolish that choice to ensure that individuals have virtually zero control over their personal medical care. By now you may be getting the picture that we’re heading for a true welfare state with the majority of Americans dependent upon the government for nearly everything from jobs to life itself. A logical and “free” person would assume that Washington couldn’t muster the constitutional authority to outlaw private health care markets in which the citizens could choose to voluntarily participate. With a little luck the politicians, those people who are supposed to be working for rather than against us, won’t be able to pull it off, but only if voters continue voicing their vehement objections to this gigantic step toward a societal takeover.
Keep in mind this is only the draft legislation, not the final version that will likely emerge if we, the taxpayers, voters and health care recipients continue to oppose and don’t allow the Feds to have their way. It's frightening to consider how many additional personal liberty infringements will emerge in the final bill, but for the moment assume the worst.
Maybe we should push for legislation that would require our elected officials to extend their summer vacations to 11 months per year. That way they could spend a reasonable amount of quality time dodging their constituents and only enough time in Washington to do minimal damage.