"Buy In" and Public Option are "OUT" ?

So the exact language of a Public Option is out. So is the buy in for Medicare for 55 - 64. Another failed amendment was the one that would allow us to buy prescription meds from other countries. But what is buried in the language of this zillion page bill? For sure we know that these three elements remain:

1. You cannot be rejected for health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. And,

2. Your insurance company cannot drop you out of the blue. And,

3. You will be charged a fine if you do not carry health insurance.

Obama and the Dems still claim the bill will be deficit neutral, will result in lower premiums for all, and will lower costs.

This does not compute. The numbers I mean. For example, why have health insurance companies rejected people for pre existing conditions? Cost. If the insurance companies were required to cover those who already have costly conditions, they would have to . . . . . raise the premiums to cover the anticipated costs. So who will help with those costs? Taxpayers. Will the already ill be able to afford those premiums anyway? Likely not. If you think $500 or $600 monthly premiums are high, just imagine what my health insurance premium would be if I tried to go out and buy a policy today (Stage 4 Renal Cell Carcinoma). Since they would not be able to reject me, they would have to charge thousands of dollars a month to cover a small part of my medical bills.

And what about healthy 20 and 30 something people? Probably would rather pay the fine than pay premiums. So they are still not covered. Right?

Still not adequately addressed are Tort Reform, buying health insurance across state lines, and cost control.

This bill is too costly, will drive more Doctors out of practice, and will result in less available care. Don't pass the bill.

Great video interview with Steve Forbes:

Health Care Reform and MediCare

Senior Citizens should keep an eye on the debate and the bill. The bill presently cuts many areas of Medicare. One of the cuts includes payments to doctors. Some amendments are in the works to postpone the cuts to doctors providing care to Medicare patients. But if payments to doctors are cut, the unintended consequence would be an exodus of doctors providing care to seniors. Fewer doctors, longer waits for appointments and more out of pocket expenses for those who can least afford it.

The Medicare Rights Center, a non-profit consumer service organization, has reported that eight states are having a tough time finding doctors who will accept Medicare patients. This started in 2002 when payments to doctors were cut by 5.4 percent. Those states include Texas, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Arizona, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and New Mexico. The survey done by the Center said that the reason doctors gave the patients for not accepting them was the lower payments.

What If The Government Ran Health Care?

Plenty of pundits are predicting what our nation's health care system would be like if the government was in charge of it.

In this brief note, just consider our government's track record of running other public services. And consider their cost.

Amtrack? United States Postal Service? Military procurement?

No matter what costs are forecast, they have always cost more when the government does it. Way more. Health care would be no different. Instead of a flu shot at the local drug store costing you $10 to $20 - by the time the multi layered system delivered it to you it would cost you $100 in taxes.

Why did that famous $800 hammer cost $800? Production limits, tough specifications, hundreds of people developing, producing, administering, and delivering the hammer, accounting for the hammers, analyzing the hammers, hiring a staff to study the hammer performance, commissioning a panel to see if we really need the hammer, conducting a congressional investigation into the waste fraud and corruption in the hammer development cycle, and more.

Maybe we should just buy each doctor a hammer and have them hit everyone in the head in the fall.