Well first of all congratulation America on your shiny new car! As of Monday health insurance commissions will end up in the toilet for us brokers and agents. Many brokers will be forced to find new work perhaps even illegally, this guess is based on the exploits of some of our peers and the selfish, mean things they do the uninsurable and insurable alike. As for me, I will be spending much of next year with my head held high and my back slightly crooked from begging on the street much of the day. (Just kidding folks, I won’t have my head high).
Here are some of the highlights from todays health insurance news that I found to be interesting followed by me making snide comments about the authors and belittling their haircuts.
Rep. Andrews Says Dems Might Support A Health Reform “Fix.”
The Hill (12/30, Pecquet) reports in its “Healthwatch” blog that Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) “said Tuesday Democrats could be open to compromising with Republicans on a ‘fix’ of healthcare reform — but only if congressional budget scorekeepers back off their opinion that the bill cuts the deficit.” Notably, the “comments on Fox News come as Democrats have been accusing Republicans of being hypocritical for pushing repeal even though it would violate their campaign pledge to tackle the deficit.” Andrews said, “If [Republicans] would make the repeal of the law contingent upon the Congressional Budget Office certifying that it wouldn’t increase the deficit to repeal it…maybe that is something we could compromise on,” although “later in the interview, Andrews seemed to back away from any suggestion that Democrats could support outright repeal even if CBO issued an unfavorable score.”
This is some crazy news, but much of it is impossibly hard to decipher. I am not catching or understanding anything but the first sentence and I do this for a living. C’mon people write clearly!!! In any event if the Dems are ready to fix this mess of a bill, then perhaps instead of fighting through repeal we should be negotiating for fixes bilaterally. Of course this will never happen, but I have many other fantasies as well that I use as a vehicle for making my life less dreary, if you would like a list of my “bright and sunny fixes,” please write to PO Box (just kidding).
Op-Ed Accuses Administration Of Rationing Healthcare.
Attorney David B. Rivkin, Jr. and law professor Elizabeth Price Foley write in a Wall Street Journal (12/30, subscription required) op-ed that the Obama Administration has resurrected “death panels,” although it argued previously that a provision that was cut from the healthcare bill was not akin to these death panels. Rivkin and Foley say that the government is intruding more and more into people’s lives, and that recently, the FDA even voted to remove a breast cancer drug, Avastin (bevacizumab), from the market, thereby denying patients access to it. They argue that taken together, these actions constitute rationing, and pose a threat to Americans that must be challenged.
A quick note on death panels, who cares? That last sentence is so ridiculous that I refuse to acknowledge it. Death panels are not as the name would infer, death panels. I mean really, death panels, is that the name we are using for allowing people to pass quietly on their own terms?
Thats like calling a sheet of paper that give you a paper cut, AIDS Spreaders. I have a few more of these analogies/punchlines if you would like a list of them please send $5 and a picture of your parents kissing to PO Box (just kidding).
Columnist: Palin Right About “Death Panels” In Healthcare Law. Columnist Cal Thomas writes in the Washington (DC) Examiner (12/30), “Sarah Palin deserves an apology,” because “when she said that the new health-care law would lead to ‘death panels’ deciding who gets life-saving treatment and who does not, she was roundly denounced and ridiculed.” But “now we learn, courtesy of one of the ridiculers — the New York Times — that she was right. Under a new policy not included in the law for fear the administration’s real end-of-life game would be exposed, a rule issued by the recess-appointed Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, calls for the government to pay doctors to advise patients on options for ending their lives.”
Well alrighty Sarah, you called one the NY Times a hypocrite successfully! Yes the NY Times has at least more than 2 writers and one of them is called an editorial writer. The editorial writer and the hard news writer might actually have different angles of stories. If you would like to read more about journalism, I would suggest the great book, “Journalism for Ignorant Dummies”, for a free copy of this great book, send $5 and a picture of exploding dynamite next to your car to PO Box, (alright that’s the last one).
Interpretation Of Commerce Clause Will Decide Health Reform Cases.
The Washington Times (12/30, Conery) reports, “Congress has used the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to fight prostitution and domestic violence, to break monopolies and to combat segregation — but its biggest test could come over the Obama administration’s claim that it can compel individuals to buy health insurance.” Recently, “a federal judge…struck down part of the new health care law on the grounds that Congress had stretched the Commerce Clause too far,” but “other federal courts…have upheld the law, and its fate is certain to be decided eventually by the Supreme Court.” The Times notes, “The battle is just the latest in a long line of showdowns over the clause,” and “while some see it as a critical tool to give power to the most important pieces of legislation, others believe Congress has applied it too broadly.”
Very interesting report on the repeal possibility of the Supreme Ct vs. ObamaCare and how the Commerce Clause might affect the decision. As it is not the Supreme Court’s business to write legislation they are just deciding if the law is “Constitutional,” which in this case it might not be from a strict interpretive viewpoint. However, the law that makes it unconstitutional was written to apply to other non-related issues. Its tantamount to using a legal clause that battles obesity and bans donuts to outlaw contraception. In any case, neither side of this debate should get their hopes up as this case is likely to be decided along party lines with one or two going the wrong way, but to predict this is near impossible even with the info that we have on the judges that sit on the court.
Krauthammer Urges GOP Lawmakers Not To Tamper With Healthcare Law.
The Hill (12/30, Millman) reports in its “Healthwatch” blog, “Charles Krauthammer, a leading conservative voice, said House Republicans should keep their hands off the healthcare reform law to avoid blame for what he thinks will be the law’s inevitable failure.” The Hill adds, “Realizing that a Democratic Senate and president will make their wish to repeal the entire reform law impossible, House Republicans have said they will defund the law over the next two years,” but “Krauthammer, a Washington Post columnist and Fox News contributor who opposes the reform law, said the defunding strategy will result in a ‘clumsily enacted’ law, providing Democrats the opportunity to blame Republicans if it fails.”
This is silly. Really silly. Forget about the issue, the logic is wrong. Its like allowing a rape to happen because you want to avoid liability should the victim die from your efforts. If you see a perceived wrong and do nothing to fix it then you are just as bad as the wrong you allow. Maybe Charles like rape, but I don’t.
Editorial: Federal Mandates Force States To Cut Medicaid Program.
The Charleston Daily Mail (12/30) editorializes, “The Medicaid program covers 48 million poor people, half of them children.” Because the “federal government sets the required elements for the program and pays a varying portion of the cost of each state’s program,” the states “must fund the rest,” and many states are facing budget deficits. Several of them, including Massachusetts, North Carolina, Arizona, and Virginia, have made cuts to the Medicaid program, severely impacting coverage for recipients. Meanwhile, “under Obamacare, tens of millions more Americans will get Medicaid coverage.”
Another drawback of health reform (though it is not a reason to not reform it), is that people on social programs now are likely to start getting less care now then before as more people enter these already bankrupt programs. Medicare will get worse each year from now to the last baby boomer retires.
