Oh, Happy Day: Health Care Deform Pledged

President Obama and the Democrats announced yesterday that absolutely, certifiably and whether we need or like it or not, health care reform will be passed by July 31.

I've begun dubbing it "health care deform," as in deformation, since the consequences are going to be so awful. Read what Labor Law Guy wrote about the consequences of nationalized health care in Great Britain--if your treatment costs too much, you're on your own; the government won't pay for it. Oh, happy day, and this is exactly where we're headed.

Obama said the job must be done because "the stars are aligned." Yeah, and they were for Julius Caesar on the Ides of March.

Peering Through the DoubleSpeak to Clarity

Here's a piece on Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and his "principles" on health care reform:

Rockefeller's principles. On April 21, 2009, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care, outlined his principles for a 21st century health care delivery system as the Finance Committee unveiled a series of roundtables leading up to health care reform legislation. Sen. Rockefeller’s principles for reforming the health care delivery system are: (1) create a National Director for Health Care Quality; (2) strengthen the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and provide expedited implementation of its recommendations; (3) provide the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality with greater authority to coordinate public and private quality improvement; and (4) require health information technology as a “condition of participation” in Medicare by 2015.

Translation: We're gonna ration it, baby. You'll have access to health care (for an unspecified yearly and per-visit price), but you'll get nothing in return if it's too expensive. However, those of us in government--and our cronies--will have taxpayer-funded, gold plate, everything-is-available-and-free health care. These are my principles, sucka.

Health Care Reform: Denying Services to Cut Costs

I've been warning here all along about the Trojan Horse known as health care reform. In truth, there is no reform, just an expansion of the government option. Already, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) has been reauthorized, replenished and renamed without the state part, so it's now just CHIP.

Dropping that "S" was actually highly significant because, under Obamacare, the feds are taking over, dude. Now, mind you, in some states a family can make up to $106,000 a year and yet qualify for subsidized health care for their children under CHIP.

Senator Jim DeMint, R.-S.C., points out that children growing up with "free" health insurance aren't going to want to have to fend for themselves when they grow up. So the logical thing to do, from a liberal's perspective, is just give everyone "free" health care.

'Cept it ain't free. It's rationed, and that's the word that should be substituted for "reform." What we're going through right now is more appropriately called "health care rationing."

Senator DeMint correctly points out in an opinion piece that $1 billion in the stimulus bill is going for comparative effectiveness research in the field of health care, a code phrase for figuring out how best to ration or eliminate expensive treatments and medicines.

The junior senator tells the chilling tale of a young woman who died at 23 because the rationers in Great Britain wouldn't authorize her to take an expensive test. Read about Claire Everett and her fate at the hands of Britain's cost cutters.

Health Care Reform: How Gurneys Become Beds

To be frank, I share neither the euphoria nor the enthusiasm that seem to surround the rush to "reform" health care. Of course, the optimistic aura surrounding Obama's push for reform is largely media induced, leaving us little hope that we'll see or read anything to detract from what's going on.

My position is that there is no reform of health care going on; there's just a push to get government more involved with an eye toward eventually creating "Medicare for all," for lack of an easier description. Once that happens, then the real, intended reform can take place--bureaucrats will dictate to doctors and hospitals what they can and can't do based on cost effectiveness. In other words, if it's expensive, don't expect to get it once Obamacare takes full effect--unless you want to take a medical vacation to India and pay for it yourself.

Consider this example from Great Britain, which I actually found in a real, live American newspaper (but appearing below and inferior to a more "positive," pro-reform article):

In Britain, for example, politicians were getting pressure from constituents because hospital emergency rooms were so crowded that patients were left on gurneys in hallways awaiting care, sometimes for days. Politicians told the hospitals this had to stop and that they had to admit patients faster.

The response of some hospital administrators: Take the wheels off the gurneys because they then fit the definition of a 'hospital bed.' The patients were no better off, but the statistics looked better to the politicians.

The article was written by someone named Grace-Marie Turner, whom the Atlanta Journal-Constitution quickly described as president and founder of the Galen Institute, which is funded in part by the pharmaceutical and medical industries (my emphasis).

At least the AJC let the article see the light of print before quickly disavowing and discrediting it.

So you see what I mean about how hard it is to find and read the truth.

A Liberal Economist Who Makes Sense

I actually had never heard of economist James Galbraith until I stumbled upon his testimony before Congress in an article in, of all places, Mother Jones. So you gotta figure the guy is pretty liberal, but in his testimony, he comes across as having some solid answers that the Obama team overlooks or rejects.

Actually, most of our problems--except for foreclosures--could be solved quickly and simply if we just resurrected the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Since that was a Bush initiative (see Bush, George Herbert Walker), however, the Democrats are loath to give it any credit, let alone emulate it. They'd rather let the economy go to hell and stay there--and then blame it forever on the other President Bush (see Bush, Dubya).

Meanwhile, the stock market continues to tank in the face of governmental indecision and inaction, taking with it the retirement dreams of millions of Americans. (Will they still vote for Obama if their savings remain wiped out for years--or forever?)

Anyway, back to Mr. Galbraith. He actually broaches an RTC-type solution in his testimony.

Galbraith sees no alternative to putting "several very big banks" that are "deeply troubled" into receivership, breaking them up, firing existing management, and selling them in parts or relaunching them as "multiple mid-sized institutions."

So RTC-ish.

Galbraith also tackles the foreclosure problem on two fronts. The first front is to establish a modern version of the New Deal's Home Owners Loan Corporation. Since the New Deal, to me, was nothing but a complete failure and only exacerbated the depression, I'm not sure about that idea, but his other idea has merit. He proposes having the government buy up all foreclosed homes and renting them back to their foreclosed owners, even with the option of future repurchase. This would at least keep the housing stock from further deteriorating. (Of course, this is not something you could do retroactively either.)

In sum, it's refreshing to find an economist, especially a liberal one, with solutions that hold promise. Now, I wish I could say the same for Obama's twin pillars of indecision, Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers. Then again, it's probably the unrealistic expectations that Obama and his liberal operators place on the whole economic dialogue that leads to the indecision in the first place.

After all, the head man and his team are still looking for that magic wand to wave over the economy--and health care--that will make all the problems disappear while a pile of loot arises magically from the top five percent of taxpayers in America. More likely, "Rome burns while...."

Massachusetts Plan Fails; Ready for Obamacare?

Massachusetts' health initiative, called Commonwealth Care, has so far failed on all fronts, and now Obama and company have legislation in the works (see Baucus, Max, and Kennedy, Ted) that virtually mirrors the abysmal failure of Mitt Romney's plan (which Romney now repudiates, but probably for presidential aspiration purposes only).

Writing for Boston.com, Suzanne L. King, a physician who practices medicine in Massachusetts, grades Commonwealth Care against the five standards established by the Institute of Medicine; to wit, coverage should be universal, not tied to a job, affordable for individuals and families, affordable for society, and accessible by all.

On number one, Massachusetts' plan is not universal, still missing a few hundred thousand residents. On number two, it retains its reliance on employer-funded insurance while incorporating an individual mandate (see Baucus, Max, and Kennedy, Ted, and soon Obama, Barack). On three, Dr. King writes, "For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments." Also, co-pays are so high that many can't afford to see a doctor. On four, state costs have soared from $630 million a year to $1.3 billion are are still rising (a lot of the money goes to subsidizing people who can't afford to buy health insurance). And on five, accessibility, the answer segues from four--not only are co-pays expensive, but deductibles are too high in many cases.

Dr. King's solution, and here many might disagree, is just to get rid of private insurance and extend Medicare to everyone. My thought is that Medicare is the 800-pound gorilla already shifting costs from subsidized patients to paying patients, from Medicare to private insurers. Since Medicare doesn't pay all that it costs for the services and procedures it covers, those under private insurance make up the different in higher doctor and hospital fees.

Anyway, be prepared for some form of the failed Massachusetts plan to become the law of the land--and for your health care (unless you're poor and subsidized) to become both costlier and less affordable.

Maybe the key to surviving in our new day and age is just to become poor and a ward of the state. I sure hope not.

When It Makes Sense, It Won't Fly in D.C.

A Web site called Business Insider offers up a thoughtful analysis called "Our Health Care Wish List."

Now, mind you, probably none of the changes suggested in the article will ever be implemented, let alone even seriously discussed in Congress or the White House, but there are some good ideas in the piece.

Let me focus on a couple:

One is to let pharmacists write prescriptions, as is done in Europe (in Mexico, you just walk up to the pharmacy and buy what you want, I hear). What a time- and cost-saving idea. When I had a sore throat last year and knew I needed antibiotics, I had to trudge to the doctor's anyway and let her ring up a $200 office visit. What a waste of time and money. In Europe, I could've gone to the pharmacy and just asked for amoxicillin.

The other proposal is to create mini-doctors, which the article defines as "someone with minimal training," to examine sore throats and infections and treat them at $20 a pop. (Why not just train the pharmacists to do these basic functions?) I've always felt that most doctors' visits could just as easily be handled by nurse practitioners, but as I reconsider the situation, creating a new category like a corpsman in the Navy would be perfect.

I guess I should mention one other proposal--get rid of insurance entirely for the routine stuff and just use insurance for the big-ticket items that require specialized procedures and/or hospital stays--catastrophic insurance, in other words.

Personally, I would have no problem paying for the routine stuff if I could get a catastrophic policy for the price of a small car a month, say a couple of c-bills or so. Of course, bringing down the cost of medicine would help immensely too, but already WalMart and Target have huge lists of drugs they'll sell you for $4 a month or $10 for 90 days. If you can stick to the list, it's cheaper than using your insurance and its co-pay.

But, as I said, none of this will matter once the politicians debate health care reform. Then it will be all about creating government bureaucracies and so-called initiatives. And no one will take on the American Medical Association, so look for high-cost, physician-based insurance to reign from cradle to grave (except for the politicians who will feed off the taxpayers' largesse for free).

When government reforms something, we all end up paying.

Regulating Fatsoes in Japan: A Weighty Matter

Sorry for my un-pclike reference to obese people, but I came across an interesting article detailing how this past year Japan passed a law mandating that all citizens aged 40 to 74 have the waists measured as part of their annual physical (I guess if you live longer, you get a pass).

Employers and local governments are obliged by law to ensure these exams happen, and when people come in above the limits of 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women, they must voluntarily reduce the bulge, and if that fails in three months, attend voluntary counseling.

A couple of quick comparisons here with us Americans, who are of course much heftier than probably 99 percent of the Japanese: Very few American men 40 to 74 would fit in 33.5-inch pants (they'd be lucky to squeeze into 36 inches), and though I can't speak for American women and their waistlines, I'm curious as to why the Japanese standard for females is larger than for males.

The International Diabetes Federation's guidelines establish 40 inches for American men and 34.6 inches for women in the waist department. Men in the U.S. come in, on average, an inch below the worry line at 39 inches, while women come out ahead at 36.5 inches.

Anyway, the Japanese goal is reduce people's weight by 10 percent over the next four years and 25 percent over the next ten years. Financial penalties await both companies and local governments whose charges fail to reach government benchmarks.

I'm not kidding--fines will be assessed.

(The waist rule came about over a proposal by the prime minister to charge people 75 or older more for their insurance, so this is something of a compromise.)

The goal of all this, of course, is to reduce obesity-based disease and cut health care costs. The Japanese, it appears, are all worked up over something called metabolic syndrome, which causes vascular diseases and diabetes. (I just call it the fatso syndrome, a club to which I aspire between bouts of depressing diets.)

The Japanese public has popularized the whole concept by calling those who are overweight metabo, short for metabolic. They've even developed catchy little tunes, to which they sometimes dance:

“Goodbye, metabolic. Let’s get our checkups together. Go! Go! Go!
Goodbye, metabolic. Don’t wait till you get sick. No! No! No!”

A survey of British doctors also finds that half of them think that fatsoes should be charged for their health care, so the public doesn't have to subsidize the extra costs of fat-related diseases.

It's a good thing that Tom Daschle hoisted himself by his own petard by failing to pay taxes. Had he become Health and Human Services secretary and health care czar, he had his eyes fixed on a National Health Board, which could indeed--in all its folly--target the American public with a similar edict.

You know? "America, Get Thin or Get Out!" (Kind of like, "America, Love It or Leave It" in a liberal's interpretation.)