Ken's Comments

First step, Repeal Obamacare.  As discussed in the previous article, it has accomplished two things - get more people covered and eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions but it failed in just about every other goal. Why did Obamacare fail?  It is too complicated.  The law tries to micromanage every part of the industry.  Need more competition, we'll artificially create it.  Benefits?  The law says what will be covered.  Pricing - the Federal Government adds multiple layers of bureaucracy to the State layers that already existed.  Selling insurance - we'll "supplement" the current sales methods with an Exchange.  And on and on... The Three Stooges had a bit where they were plumbers and Curly goes into the bathroom to fix a leaky pipe.  At the end of it, he's surrounded by a maze of pipes from floor to ceiling and the leak is still there.  Obamacare reminded me of that.  Everything that someone thought was wrong they adde...

Part 1 of a multi-article post.  This is looking back.  The next will look at alternatives for the future. What went right 1. About 20 Million more people have coverage thanks to Obamacare 2. No more preexisting exclusions What is debatable or uncertain 3. More young people have coverage on their parents policy President Obama touted this during his re-election The counter-argument is that proponents of the law were counting on young people buying individual coverage to offset the cost of older or sicker people entering the market.  How do you reconcile that goal with giving young people coverage for free under their parents' policy?  Is it any surprise that people are complaining now that rates are going up because not enough healthy people bought coverage?  And who are the healthiest people you know?  Those aged 18 to 26 who can now stay on their parents' coverage. 4. Obamacare will make people healthier - on this point the NY Times s...

Friend of mine sent me an article written by John Stossel about the health care or health insurance system in the US.   http://humanevents.com/2016/05/11/free-market-medicine/?utm_source=hedaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl In response to Mr. Stossel's article, I shall suggest that he's both right and wrong.  He's right on the subject of single payer not being such a good idea: - How is that working for people who rely on the Veteran's Administration? - If traditional Medicare was so good, why do so many people buy Medicare Advantage HMO coverage? - Most State Medicaid agencies contract with private HMOs because the States did such a crappy job managing the system themselves, doctors were leaving the networks in droves, people were turning to the ER for primary care services - UK has state run health and everyone who has money buys private insurance - Australia has state run health and everyone who has money buys private i...

I don't have a philosophical argument against single payer health care, I have a practical one. I don't see it working in other countries and I have not seen Government health programs work in the US. England - They have National Health Service (NHS) that covers everything.  However, there is also a strong private care sector in England where people with sufficient money or health insurance can get care.   Canada - They have a version of national health coverage and for a while even banned the sale of health insurance.  Nevertheless, to avoid having to wait for services or to obtain better care, Canadians would travel to the U.S. for health care.  Also, someone challenged the law banning health insurance and their Courts overturned that so they now have a growing health insurance market place. Australia - They have a version of government health coverage where the local governments cover preventive service and the national government provides coverage of inpati...

I'd substituted the words "Liberal" and "Progressive" for "Democratic" but I like this quote, it is so true: “I vote [Liberal/Progressive], because I’m pro-choice … except on schools, guns, trade, health care, energy, smoking, union membership, light bulbs, plastic bags, Walmart, what kinds of food you can eat. …” Think about it.  Liberals oppose school choice.  They want to take away guns.  They want single payer health coverage - no choice for you.  Energy - limit the choices available for power supply.  Smoking - don't let people do it.  Unions - you must belong, no right to work laws.  And the same is true for all the other items on the list. The quote is from an article dated Feb. 3, by Walt Williams on the Human Events site (humanevents.com).

The following was published in the Town and Country on April 1 - and not this is not an April fools joke. :-) Why the Health Care Reform Legislation really is bad. The health reform law is a road to disaster paved with good intentions. Start with the nice ideas to protect consumers which, coupled with higher taxes, raise the cost of health insurance. To offset higher costs, the law provides subsidies that are nice if you enjoy a lower paying job. Along with costs, taxes and the deficit will go up too. What goes down is health insurance competition. When President Obama started this process he promised a thoroughbred horse instead we got a three legged camel. For example, didn’t President Obama say he wanted the cost of health insurance to go down? Instead costs will go up because the Democrats wanted to be so good to us. Added to the taxes and regulatory red tape they heaped on insurance companies, there are a bunch of new health benefits that you have to pay for regardless of ...

When health care reform started, a key goal was to lower the cost of coverage. Here is the Democrats idea of how to lower health care coverage costs. First the "facts" (the text below is taken from the NY Times): "Before taking account of federal subsidies to help people buy insurance on their own, the [Congressional Budget Office or C.B.O.] said the [Senate health care reform] bill would tend to drive up premiums. But as a result of the subsidies, it said, most people in the individual insurance market would see their costs decline, compared with the costs expected under current law. The subsidies, a main feature of the bill, would cost the government nearly $450 billion in the next 10 years and would cover nearly two-thirds of premiums for people who receive them. "For most people who get health insurance through employers — five-sixths of the total market — the budget office concluded that there would be little change in their premiums relative to the amounts pr...

I saw a question on Yahoo Answers about Insurance companies benefitting from being exempt from anti-trust laws. Until I saw that question and some of the subsequent discussion, I was not aware that this was an issue in the health care debate. Actually, the anti-trust exemption has little or no impact on health care, so I did some research and provided an answer. I am reprinting that below. I also debunked comments suggesting Republicans are against capitalism - presumably because Republicans are in favor of the anti-trust exemption. Here is a shortened version of my answer: A summary of my answer is 1) insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust for valid reasons; 2) the exemption is not relevant to health insurance because coverage is not always been written by insurance companies; 3) historical facts say Republicans were the "good guys" and the Democrats were the "bad guys." 1. History of the Exemption In 1869, the US Supreme Court ruled that insurance was...

First it was the federal take over of private industries, now it will be the federal takeover of our schools. President Bush started it - working with Congress to have Federal intervention into banks, financial institutions, AIG, and auto manufacturers. President Obama has taken those programs to a new level and wants to usurp state authority over health insurance. Now President Obama is targeting our schools. Has no one read the United States Constitution? Isn't there some point at which President Obama feels the Federal Government does not have authority over us? President Bush and Congress adopted laws and regulations, and provided funding, to begin a massive federal intervention into a variety of private industries - banks and financial institutions, automakers, and AIG - to name a few. Some banks were told they could not refuse to accept TARP funds. Other organizations were told they'd get no help, like Lehman, and they went bankrupt, leaving Goldman Sachs, who had ...

If it was not so tragic, I'd have to laugh at the people who are talking about a "jobless recovery" like it is a good thing. I've only seen one mainstream commentator - a former Clinton Administration official - come close to calling out the Obama Administration on the current economy. Instead you've got papers like the New York Times running articles saying that because there were not as many new people unemployed in the last reporting it is a sign of an improving economy. Why can't we call it like it is - all of the money the Government has spent over the last two years, under both President Bush and President Obama is only making the rich richer and it is not helping the little guys. Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Goldman Sachs pay out big bonuses to employees. Warren Buffet makes a mint off of investments he made into companies that got government support. People who can afford to invest a lot of money in the stock market are doing very well again. Chrysler...

These are more random thoughts on health care reform Eliminate COBRA - This coverage is expensive - often too expensive for people laid off. Also, the only options for the individual are the coverage options that the group selected for its employees. These options may not be appropriate for that individual. If an active individual market is created then the individual does not need COBRA. Also, COBRA drives up costs for groups because the majority of people who pay for COBRA coverage are those who need benefits. The medical claims incurred by the COBRA beneficiary impact negatively on the group's rates. I'll add more here as I think of them

So I've listed what the problems are - cost, quality, extending coverage - and addressed each. There are still some random items I'd like to talk about and I'll do that here. Can the health care system handle 47 million new customers? The following story says no: http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20090807/hl_hsn/expandinghealthcoveragemaynotimproveaccess The story says that our health care infrastructure - the number of doctors and hospitals - would be swamped if 47 million new customers entered the market. The experience in Massachusetts, where the state made health care universal confirms this to be true. You cannot just walk into an office and see a doctor in Massachusetts, you have to schedule a visit far in advance. Traditional means by which Government controls costs will make this worse - Okay, Massachusetts has a shortage of physicians and rising costs. So what does Massachusetts do? They talk about lowering how much they will pay doctors. So if you are a doctor...

In previous posts, I have defined what I think the problems are - cost, quality, coverage. I have discussed what I think can and is being done about it. Now, I'll talk about the so-called Government health plan and, equally important, the health insurance exchange and why I think these are a bad idea. The Government Plan is a precursor to a government take over of the health care industry - at least the financing of it -- One night, there was a clip of President Obama denying this. The President said "No one is talking about a government takeover of health care." The very next film clip was of U.S. Representative Barney Frank saying that he supports the Government Plan idea because he wants to use it to push for a single payer system. So President Obama is misinformed, someone IS talking about a government takeover of health care (at least health care financing) and that someone is a very powerful member of his own party. And I think there are many others besides R...

In Part 1, I said there are three problems - cost, quality, and extending coverage to 47 million people. I then went on to talk about the coverage problem. Now to discuss the cost and quality issues. Quality - studies show that medical care in this country can be of poor quality. Hundreds of thousands die each year from mistakes. Others suffer prolonged illnesses due to poor quality care. This creates human misery and also contributes substantially to higher costs. A number of things that need to be done, have been done or are started Reporting medical errors - the federal government set up a process for hospitals to self-report medical errors. Many states have done the same thing. Promote e-prescribing - Medicare has done this and many providers are using it. E-prescribing means sending a prescription from a doctor to the pharmacy electronically. When this is done, medical management systems can review a person's prescription history and help identify when a prescription ...

This is the first in a series of articles on health care reform. I am trying to address this in a logical fashion not the attack mode that both sides seem to be taking in DC. What are the problems that need to be solved: Cost - The overall costs of healthcare are too high. There is a difference between the cost of healthcare and the cost of health insurance. There are also relationships between the two: the cost of healthcare drives the cost of insurance higher, the way insurance works drives healthcare costs higher. Quality - Studies show that hundreds of thousands of people die each year and many more suffer prolonged illness due due to poor care. Poor care that results in added treatment also drives up the cost of healthcare. Provide coverage to those who are uninsured - This is not the same as increasing benefits. We have 47 million people (according to reports) who have no benefits. We should find a way to enable them to get coverage. 2. Providing coverage to those who are ...