Is the Obama Administration serious about universal healthcare reform? Yes. At this point, any old Democrat health plan will do.
Will healthcare reform include coverage for illegal immigrants? Contrary to the infamous two-word wisecrack blurted out by a now well-known rightwing racist Senator from South Carolina, the answer is, “No way, Jose.”
If Congress worms its way to pass legislation on healthcare reform within the next few weeks, why would it not become effective until 2013? The obvious answer is that it will be less of a political issue in the 2010-midterm elections. But there appears to be a scheme a-brewing to provide coverage to not only a fair number of currently uninsured 45 million Americans but also to a few extra million immigrants.
On October 2 The New York Times printed an article on actions being implemented by the U.S. States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) that will reshape the social (unrest?) and cultural (shock?) makeup of America, resulting in an unprecedented change in political arenas, perhaps resulting in an eventual emergence of viable third party candidates. It may also become the defining moment that brings to fruition President Obama’s willful intent of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” In the meantime, demographics may give Democrats the upper hand, especially among Hispanics.
The Times’ article reported that CIS is taking the first steps to accommodate an anticipated stampede of illegal immigrants seeking visas in response to President Obama’s stated intention to propose to Congress legislation toward comprehensive immigration reform. As quoted by CIS director Alejandro Mayorkas, “We are under way to prepare for that.”
It’s a given fact there are well over 10 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., of which approximately 6 million are said to typically seek legal status each year. Since the CIS anticipates millions of immigrants will apply for legal status within a matter of weeks if immigration legislation passes Congress next year, the agency is on an immediate hiring spree to play catch-up with a current backlog of pending paperwork. More jobs, bigger government.
Some lawmakers have already expressed concern that, as CIS becomes overwhelmed with large volumes of applications, haste will result in poorly processed paperwork and lax review of background checks will create a national security crisis.
Regardless of what may come from immigration reform, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano this past week revealed a strategy that will overhaul the way immigration violators are held in detention centers. With over 60% of detainees classified as non-criminals, Napolitano said an initiative is under way “to make immigration detention more cohesive, accountable and relevant to the entire spectrum of detainees we are dealing with.”
Which means, in the coming weeks Napolitano will submit to Congress plans to renovate vacant hotels and nursing homes, and convert residential houses to provide less restrictive oversight of low-risk violators of immigration laws, primarily women and children. By doing so, savings are expected to lower the cost from $100 per day to about $14 per day for each detainee.
It’s believed the new policy will greatly reduce the annual cost of $2.4 billion currently spent on approximately 380,000 immigrants, of which many were arrested during the past two years when ICE agents followed a practice of raiding neighborhoods, factories and other workplaces known to employ immigrants, thus terrorizing people and traumatizing children.
Rather than targeting employees, current practice puts businesses on legal notice to verify the legal status of immigrants.
The perfect example is the 1,800 employees of American Apparel in Los Angeles who were terminated in early September by the company as a result of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents identifying discrepancies and mismatches in employment records when compared to immigration records of the Social Security Administration. That is to say, they were proven to be illegal immigrants.
The action came as a result of a 17-month investigation by ICE that began with the Bush Administration. LA Times journalist Tim Rutten called the action a “callous” turn of events under President Obama. It doesn’t seem to phase otherwise law-abiding, intelligent people that hiring and, at times, harboring illegal immigrants with subsidized housing are lawless un-American activities.
With the government displaying a change in sentiment toward the humanitarian aspects of non-violent immigrants, legal or not, new laws of this land will bring about change that we’ll all have to live with.
Provisions are now in the works to address detainee concerns about the lack of proper treatment for medical and mental health conditions. The fact that seriously ill detainees have died while in custody cannot be ignored. Therefore, they will have healthcare before uninsured Americans.
So, will President Obama’s healthcare reform include coverage for illegal immigrants? “No way, Jose.” By the time it’s implemented in 2013, many of those illegal immigrants will have become naturalized citizens.
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
A Quote on Health Care Please
The mean and vicious dialogue from those with insurance coverage is so intense that you have to question the compassion of their religious convictions, if there is any. Their perceived selfishness in promoting health care benefits for the uninsured lead me to also question if those with defined benefits have a concern even for friends and relatives without coverage.
What of a parent not yet eligible for Medicare or a grandchild, an adult son or daughter faced with insurmountable expenses? Do those with coverage have the disposition, “Good luck, but you’re on your own.”? Seeking ER care as a last resort may be a final, fatal course of action. Seeking medical attention from a general practitioner requires ‘Full Payment Due At Time of Service”.
Not everyone is fortunate to work for, or retire from, a large corporation that provides company-subsidized health benefits. Unions have successfully fought long and hard for such coverage but people working for small businesses don’t qualify for group rate ‘discounts’.
Although having taken early retirement from the Bell System with a pension that puts me near poverty level, the most important benefit is medical coverage. With modest deductibles and payment of 90% toward doctor and hospital visits, there are still recommended treatments that are ignored because of unknown expenses. I feel fine. Still, I see a family physician occasionally to keep cholesterol and blood pressure levels in check. (When medications brought the levels within normal range, I suggested the medications might not be needed any longer. My ignorance was kindly acknowledged.)
Before a mechanic performs work on a car, the customer is given an estimate and any additional expenses must be authorized by the owner. When dental work needs to be done the costs are reviewed with the patient and provided with a printed predetermination of patient responsibility. A consultation may result in alternative options such as having a tooth removed because the root canal is cost prohibitive.
Generally, quotes on medical procedures aren’t provided unless requested, especially in an emergency room.
A friend was recently involved in an automobile accident. Although not seriously hurt, after four days when neck and back pains developed the family physician sent him to the Brooksville Regional Hospital ER. The charges incurred were in excess of $15K. The automobile medical coverage was $10K. The Coordination of Benefits form submitted to Medicare may pick up the remainder.
It would have been unwise to ignore symptoms that could have proven to be a lifetime problem, but all of the x-rays and scans proved negative. Had the full charges been disclosed he may have opted out of scans of the pelvis and abdomen or declined the Comprehensive Metabolic Panel because he experienced no discomfort whatsoever in these areas.
Those tests alone accounted for over $5,000 in charges. Two x-ray views of the hip came at an additional cost of over $500. The $353.87 fee for the cervical collar is questionable – it was only used momentarily because it caused extreme pain. Perhaps another patient will be charged the same fee for the use of the very same device? I stayed with my friend through the whole ordeal and listened to vague explanations of what tests were being administered but no mention of the whys. It cost $862 just to enter the ER Department.
You have to question if having insurance determines the extent and number of tests that are performed, not for the benefit of the patient but for the monetary gains of the facility.
Of course, the patient is supposed to have faith that a healthcare facility and its doctors and technicians will perform the tests necessary to treat the indicated ailments. In this case, some of the tests were definitely frivolous.
My friend’s experience has greatly affected my view toward seeking emergency room services. Unless totally incapacitated, they won’t like me very much with my mindful concern of both body and pocketbook. The medical profession has the responsibility to promote procedures for the betterment of the patient’s health but it’s also the patient’s right of self-determination to weigh the benefits of any treatment. Without symptoms, what’s the point?
I seldom question the capabilities of doctors and other trained professionals in the medical field, but in the future they may have a hard sell to peddle procedural wherewithal. I doubt a Tony Robbins motivational seminar will help their cause.
Cost containment for the patient’s pocketbook is another important consideration in the healthcare debate. Or is this something else to get nasty about? Oh, yeah, it’s the sharing of healthcare benefits with the uninsured that makes the headlines. That attitude is enough to make some people angry.
What of a parent not yet eligible for Medicare or a grandchild, an adult son or daughter faced with insurmountable expenses? Do those with coverage have the disposition, “Good luck, but you’re on your own.”? Seeking ER care as a last resort may be a final, fatal course of action. Seeking medical attention from a general practitioner requires ‘Full Payment Due At Time of Service”.
Not everyone is fortunate to work for, or retire from, a large corporation that provides company-subsidized health benefits. Unions have successfully fought long and hard for such coverage but people working for small businesses don’t qualify for group rate ‘discounts’.
Although having taken early retirement from the Bell System with a pension that puts me near poverty level, the most important benefit is medical coverage. With modest deductibles and payment of 90% toward doctor and hospital visits, there are still recommended treatments that are ignored because of unknown expenses. I feel fine. Still, I see a family physician occasionally to keep cholesterol and blood pressure levels in check. (When medications brought the levels within normal range, I suggested the medications might not be needed any longer. My ignorance was kindly acknowledged.)
Before a mechanic performs work on a car, the customer is given an estimate and any additional expenses must be authorized by the owner. When dental work needs to be done the costs are reviewed with the patient and provided with a printed predetermination of patient responsibility. A consultation may result in alternative options such as having a tooth removed because the root canal is cost prohibitive.
Generally, quotes on medical procedures aren’t provided unless requested, especially in an emergency room.
A friend was recently involved in an automobile accident. Although not seriously hurt, after four days when neck and back pains developed the family physician sent him to the Brooksville Regional Hospital ER. The charges incurred were in excess of $15K. The automobile medical coverage was $10K. The Coordination of Benefits form submitted to Medicare may pick up the remainder.
It would have been unwise to ignore symptoms that could have proven to be a lifetime problem, but all of the x-rays and scans proved negative. Had the full charges been disclosed he may have opted out of scans of the pelvis and abdomen or declined the Comprehensive Metabolic Panel because he experienced no discomfort whatsoever in these areas.
Those tests alone accounted for over $5,000 in charges. Two x-ray views of the hip came at an additional cost of over $500. The $353.87 fee for the cervical collar is questionable – it was only used momentarily because it caused extreme pain. Perhaps another patient will be charged the same fee for the use of the very same device? I stayed with my friend through the whole ordeal and listened to vague explanations of what tests were being administered but no mention of the whys. It cost $862 just to enter the ER Department.
You have to question if having insurance determines the extent and number of tests that are performed, not for the benefit of the patient but for the monetary gains of the facility.
Of course, the patient is supposed to have faith that a healthcare facility and its doctors and technicians will perform the tests necessary to treat the indicated ailments. In this case, some of the tests were definitely frivolous.
My friend’s experience has greatly affected my view toward seeking emergency room services. Unless totally incapacitated, they won’t like me very much with my mindful concern of both body and pocketbook. The medical profession has the responsibility to promote procedures for the betterment of the patient’s health but it’s also the patient’s right of self-determination to weigh the benefits of any treatment. Without symptoms, what’s the point?
I seldom question the capabilities of doctors and other trained professionals in the medical field, but in the future they may have a hard sell to peddle procedural wherewithal. I doubt a Tony Robbins motivational seminar will help their cause.
Cost containment for the patient’s pocketbook is another important consideration in the healthcare debate. Or is this something else to get nasty about? Oh, yeah, it’s the sharing of healthcare benefits with the uninsured that makes the headlines. That attitude is enough to make some people angry.
Health Care Deformity
Back off, you bugaboos! Take a break. Take in a great big breath. Not only is this a proven method of relaxation but it also provides a good dose of oxygen for a healthier brain, thus a positive prognosis for the all too contentious debate on healthcare reform.
All of the knee-jerk reactions on the debate of providing medical coverage to the uninsured have gotten everybody’s panties in a bunch. The hate factor among all the interested groups won’t resolve the issue to anyone’s satisfaction, except possibly President Obama and a number of die-hard Democrats. Currently, there is no dialogue that will provide a cure-all for what ails uninsured Americans.
For years, the high cost of providing health insurance through employer-based coverage has made American business at a frightful disadvantage for competitive product pricing in the broadening realm of globalization.
Corporate medical contributions to employee benefits come to an annual expense of about $15,000 – for government employees the un-taxed benefits are even more obtuse at $19,000. These costs continue to be a prominent reason for the outsourcing of jobs to foreign lands. We’ve painted the survival of American enterprise into a corner, but there are steps that can be taken to correct this poor state of affairs.
Before providing “universal” coverage, the cost factors of health care must be addressed.
Three years ago Massachusetts enacted the most comprehensive subsidized insurance fee-for-service public offering and cut the rate of uninsured residents from 8% to 2.6%, the lowest in the country. Although an addition 428,000 people were given affordable coverage, it has resulted in an insurmountable budget crisis. The state is on the hook for an additional $595,000 than it was in 2006, a 42% increase.
Enacting universal coverage in Maine in 2005 resulted in a 74% increase in premiums, pricing many of the uninsured out of the market and dropping coverage. The uninsured rate is 10%, the same level as before legislation was passed.
Neither Maine nor Massachusetts bothered to address a means to implement cost-cutting measures of medical pricing. For decades, private insurance companies have maintained what could easily be considered price fixing since in-state health options are generally restricted to two or three major providers.
This lack of competition defies the intent of the free market system. The self-interest of insurance companies, service providers and drug companies is too impressionable on elected officials. The inherent power of lobbyist groups set up by former legislators are too influential on the course of action of Congress. They know the ropes. They have the contacts. The have access to funds for campaign contributions. And they have too tight a grip on the health of Americans.
Rather than accuse Obama of promoting a death forum for the elderly, the feeble and the less-than-productive members of society, put the blame on insurance companies for limiting and denying medical procedures that would otherwise enhance the lives of the unfortunate.
Pharmaceutical companies are major culprits in themselves. When the Medicare Drug Plan was enacted in January 2006, they raked in an additional $8B in profits in the first six months alone. The industry has promised an $80B sacrifice over a ten-year period as a buy-in to healthcare reform, a minor contribution toward the health of the country considering their huge profit margins.
The U.S. has the most profitable pharmaceutical business in the world with revenues of $315B in 2007. As a comparison, the illegal drug industry has profits of approximately $300B in revenue per year, globally speaking.
What could be considered an unethical tactic of pharmaceutical companies is the “pay-for-delay” scheme that keeps generic drugs off the market by providing attractive monetary incentives to maintain an extended monopoly over less expensive drug manufacturers. The FTC estimates Americans are cheated out of about $3.5B per year. Then there’s the practice of putting “name brand” generic versions on the market for drugs whose patents have expired, affectively making it unprofitable for true generic companies to offer competitive pricing for an additional six months
Pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies are keeping Red Bull Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats at bay, caged in dollar signs of influence.
It’s understandable that Americans are leery of healthcare reform. Obama claims his efforts will be deficit neutral. Even if an attainable goal, through higher premiums, increased deductibles and restricted coverage, a redistribution of health wealth will help some but will come at a great cost to the currently insured. Town Hall Brawls are not the answer.
Containing costs in all aspects of providing ‘universal medical coverage’ must be addressed before continued debate gets out of hand and people’s health conditions deteriorate. Is this an orchestrated script by insurers and providers to further increase profits? Depending on whether or not you have health insurance, you can bet your life or death on it.
All of the knee-jerk reactions on the debate of providing medical coverage to the uninsured have gotten everybody’s panties in a bunch. The hate factor among all the interested groups won’t resolve the issue to anyone’s satisfaction, except possibly President Obama and a number of die-hard Democrats. Currently, there is no dialogue that will provide a cure-all for what ails uninsured Americans.
For years, the high cost of providing health insurance through employer-based coverage has made American business at a frightful disadvantage for competitive product pricing in the broadening realm of globalization.
Corporate medical contributions to employee benefits come to an annual expense of about $15,000 – for government employees the un-taxed benefits are even more obtuse at $19,000. These costs continue to be a prominent reason for the outsourcing of jobs to foreign lands. We’ve painted the survival of American enterprise into a corner, but there are steps that can be taken to correct this poor state of affairs.
Before providing “universal” coverage, the cost factors of health care must be addressed.
Three years ago Massachusetts enacted the most comprehensive subsidized insurance fee-for-service public offering and cut the rate of uninsured residents from 8% to 2.6%, the lowest in the country. Although an addition 428,000 people were given affordable coverage, it has resulted in an insurmountable budget crisis. The state is on the hook for an additional $595,000 than it was in 2006, a 42% increase.
Enacting universal coverage in Maine in 2005 resulted in a 74% increase in premiums, pricing many of the uninsured out of the market and dropping coverage. The uninsured rate is 10%, the same level as before legislation was passed.
Neither Maine nor Massachusetts bothered to address a means to implement cost-cutting measures of medical pricing. For decades, private insurance companies have maintained what could easily be considered price fixing since in-state health options are generally restricted to two or three major providers.
This lack of competition defies the intent of the free market system. The self-interest of insurance companies, service providers and drug companies is too impressionable on elected officials. The inherent power of lobbyist groups set up by former legislators are too influential on the course of action of Congress. They know the ropes. They have the contacts. The have access to funds for campaign contributions. And they have too tight a grip on the health of Americans.
Rather than accuse Obama of promoting a death forum for the elderly, the feeble and the less-than-productive members of society, put the blame on insurance companies for limiting and denying medical procedures that would otherwise enhance the lives of the unfortunate.
Pharmaceutical companies are major culprits in themselves. When the Medicare Drug Plan was enacted in January 2006, they raked in an additional $8B in profits in the first six months alone. The industry has promised an $80B sacrifice over a ten-year period as a buy-in to healthcare reform, a minor contribution toward the health of the country considering their huge profit margins.
The U.S. has the most profitable pharmaceutical business in the world with revenues of $315B in 2007. As a comparison, the illegal drug industry has profits of approximately $300B in revenue per year, globally speaking.
What could be considered an unethical tactic of pharmaceutical companies is the “pay-for-delay” scheme that keeps generic drugs off the market by providing attractive monetary incentives to maintain an extended monopoly over less expensive drug manufacturers. The FTC estimates Americans are cheated out of about $3.5B per year. Then there’s the practice of putting “name brand” generic versions on the market for drugs whose patents have expired, affectively making it unprofitable for true generic companies to offer competitive pricing for an additional six months
Pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies are keeping Red Bull Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats at bay, caged in dollar signs of influence.
It’s understandable that Americans are leery of healthcare reform. Obama claims his efforts will be deficit neutral. Even if an attainable goal, through higher premiums, increased deductibles and restricted coverage, a redistribution of health wealth will help some but will come at a great cost to the currently insured. Town Hall Brawls are not the answer.
Containing costs in all aspects of providing ‘universal medical coverage’ must be addressed before continued debate gets out of hand and people’s health conditions deteriorate. Is this an orchestrated script by insurers and providers to further increase profits? Depending on whether or not you have health insurance, you can bet your life or death on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)