How Much Does It Cost?

ObamaCare was supposed to allow everyone in America to get health insurance, and it was supposed to lower the cost of health insurance for everyone. So far that is not the case.

Yesterday RedState posted an article about the cost of insuring a family under ObamaCare. It’s not a pretty picture.

The article tells the story of one man’s search for healthcare on the website for ObamaCare:

First, I decided to look at the low-tier, catastrophic coverage, under ObamaCare.  This should typically be the cheapest plan per month.  Yet one option would have cost my family over $50,000 a year in premiums.

My first thought was maybe this was just a mistake, another technical “glitch” in the website.  So I kept looking.

Here are a few more of the plans I found, costing as much a $4,910 a MONTH in premiums.  That’s nearly $58,920 a year for a family of five.

When I looked at the chart, I thought it showed yearly premiums, in which case the numbers would be reasonable. However, the chart below shows MONTHLY insurance premiums for basic policies under ObamaCare.

Heathcare.gov

I’m hoping we can end ObamaCare before it bankrupts America and the American people. The best way to do that is to elect people who oppose it in the next election cycle. If we continue to elect people who support ObamaCare, we will be stuck with it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Sad News From The Entertainment World

ABC News is reporting today that Linda Ronstadt has Parkinson’s Disease and as a result has lost her ability to sing. Linda Ronstadt had a truly beautiful singing voice. She could do rock and roll, country, traditional songs and operetta. She provided part of the soundtrack of my early twenties, and later I thoroughly enjoyed her performance in Pirates of Penzance. I wish her the best and hope a cure for the disease is found soon. Her beautiful voice will be missed.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Reality Gets In The Way Of Promises

Remember the promise that ObamaCare would eventually make health care cheaper for everyone because universal coverage would make us all healthier? Well, it seems as if we tend to be as healthy as we want to be regardless of whether or not we have universal coverage.

On Friday the Daily Beast reported that a study on Oregon’s Medicaid expansion showed that the people who were now eligible for medical treatment had no improvement in their health (as measured by basic health indicators such as like blood pressure or cholesterol).

The article reports:

health insurance doesn’t actually improve access to necessary treatment that much.  If someone else covers the cost, it can help with the financial burden of health care.  But uninsured people will mostly find a way for the most important treatments, the ones we know improve health, from stitches to control bleeding, to antibiotics, to blood pressure medication.  It’s the expensive stuff on the frontier–the stuff that’s as likely to be useless, or harmful, as it is to help–that the uninsured mostly forego. 

When you consider the fact that hospitals are not permitted to turn away patients because of their inability to pay, this makes sense.

The article concludes:

…But I think it’s instructive that the political campaign for Obamacare leaned so heavily on claims about death and untreated suffering.  Whether or not we should provide that sort of insurance, I don’t think that Obamacare would have passed if its backers had said “The best study available shows that we’ll probably get a nice reduction in depression and catastrophic expenses, but no statistically significant improvement in diabetes, mortality, or cardiovascular health.”

That should give us pause.  We passed a big, complicated piece of legislation on the assumption that Medicaid expansions like Oregon would make us healthier–so much helathier that we’d obviously be able to measure it.  It just made gut sense, after all.  And that shouldn’t just make us pause and think about Obamacare. What other policies are we pulling out of our intestinal loops?

Frankly, I think the best thing the government could do for the health of Americans would be to get out of healthcare. Repeal ObamaCare, and set up a system that subsidizes low income people who need insurance and let the free market run healthcare. There would have to be some basic guidelines set up for pre-existing conditions, but the healthcare industry knows much more about healthcare than the government does. Let’s let them take care of America.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thumbs

Some recent observations about thumbs. I was recently forced to realize the usefulness of thumbs due to some surgery on my thumb. The surgery was on my left hand; and as I am right-handed, I didn’t think it would be any big deal. The surgery went well and my thumb is healing nicely. In that sense, it was no big deal. Now for the educational part of the experience.

People are born with two opposing thumbs. They don’t seem too important–after all, there are eight other fingers. However, there are some things that thumbs are very useful for–opening jars, buttoning buttons, tying shoelaces, etc. You get the picture. Thumbs (opposing thumbs) are useful.

When America was founded, three branches of government were established–the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislature. The idea was that if one branch overreached its power, the other two would bring balance to whatever was happening. This was a really good plan, and it generally works. It means that Congress controls the debt ceiling so that there is some control over the amount of money the President can spend. It means that the President can veto a law that he feels is not good for the country and that law will not go into effect unless the Congress overrides his veto by a two-thirds margin. It means that the courts can rule when the other branches of government overstep their bounds. Just as opposing thumbs help us do useful tasks, opposing branches of government strive to keep us a representative republic.

Sometime today, take time to be grateful for things that oppose–thumbs, Congressmen and Congresswomen, Judges, and sometimes, Presidents.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Have Very Mixed Emotions On This

I don’t smoke. I have never smoked, but I grew up in a blue haze caused by two parents who were heavy smokers. I also lost those two parents to lung problems long before I was ready to give them up. That is why I have very mixed emotions on the story I am about the report.

CNS News reported this week that eighteen California cites and counties have banned smoking in multi-unit housing–condominiums, apartments, etc. So the city, state, or county is now telling you what you are permitted to do in your own home, which you may actually own. What about smokers’ rights as property owners?

The article reports:

Calling it “the next frontier in California’s ongoing efforts to protect its citizens from secondhand smoke,” the American Lung Association’s Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing compiled a 2011 report on smoke-free housing policies and provided an update that shows 18 cities and counties in the state have banned smoking in multi-unit housing, including apartments and condominiums.

I hate the smell of cigarette smoke, but I really wonder if this isn’t going too far.

The article further reports:

Some other details in the report include a provision in the city of Belmont’s smoking ban: “For current tenants who smoke, there is a 14 month grace period during which time they are still allowed to smoke in their unit.”

If you have every watched anyone struggle to quit smoking, you know how difficult this will be for many of the current tenants.

Smoking is out of fashion right now. It has been moving in that direction for about twenty years. There was a time when smokers didn’t have to huddle in office or restaurant doorways in order to have a smoke. Again, I hate the smell of cigarette smoke, but this is totally creeping government. If we sit by and watch this happen because we don’t smoke or don’t like the smell of smoke, what will the next target be?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Good News From The Medical Profession

The U.K. Express is reporting today that a drug has been discovered to slow the amount of brain damage suffered by people who have multiple sclerosis (MS).

The article reports:

Data presented at the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis congress, showed the drug cut the risk of an attack by up to 60 per cent and brain shrinkage by 35 to 39 per cent.

Gavin Giovannoni, Professor of Neurology at Barts and the London NHS Trust, said the “important” research should bring patients improved quality of life.

Please follow the link above to the article to see the specifics. This is fantastic news for people suffering from MS.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Haven’t Found This Story In Any Major Media Yet…Still Looking

The Lufkin News reported yesterday that Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast has been charged in an alleged billing scam. Charges were brought by Karen Reynolds, a former employee of a Lufkin clinic.

The article states:

The updated complaint, filed in October 2011, alleges that while Reynolds was employed as a health center assistant, she was instructed by the organization to maximize billing revenue when the government was fitting the bill through Medicaid and the Women’s Health Program.

She claims this was the procedure in all 12 Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast locations across Texas and Louisiana.

The suit alleges that, in addition to falsifying patient records, billing the government for unwarranted services and services not covered by Medicaid, Planned Parenthood tacked on services patient did not receive.

The case is set for trial in April 2013.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

It’s All Smoke And Mirrors

Katie Pavlich at Townhall.com posted an article this morning about the Obama Administration’s non-compromise on the latest healthcare directive from Health and Human Services. Yes, I said non-compromise.

The Obama Administration’s definition of a compromise is to still require religious institutions to provide insurance covereage for procedures that violate their religious principles.

The article reports:

…a “compromise” that allows religious employers to opt out of paying for providing birth control to women, but will still be required to provide contraception. What this means is, insurance companies will pick up the tab for contraception, but religious employers are still required to provide contraception through insurance plans to their employees, despite the move being against religious beliefs.

This is all smoke and mirrors. Under the compromise, religious institutions are still required to ignore their basic beliefs and provide coverage, they just don’t have to pay for it. That is not a compromise. Also, why is the federal government requiring a religious organization to ignore their religious beliefs in order to comply with any law?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Medical Expenses Of The Elderly

Friday’s Wall Street Journal (I am not linking to the article because it is subscribers only) contained an article entitled, “Commonly Used Medicines Send Seniors to Hospitals.”  The article reports on a study done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found that an estimated 99,628 hospitalizations every year of people 65 years and older are linked to adverse drug events such as allergies and unintentional overdoses. It further reports that nearly half of those hospitalized were age 80 or older. The drugs responsible were not high-risk medications–they were commonly used diabetes pills and blood thinners.

Maybe we need to rethink the way we handle medical care for seniors. Is there a way to make the commonly used drugs safer, for example bottles that somehow remind the person to take their medicine and let them know if they have already taken their dose for the day? I have no idea if that is possible or already in existence, but certainly drug safety might be one way to seriously cut medical expenses for everyone.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Wonderful Contrast To The 99 Percent

Yesterday Hot Air posted a story that should remind us what our real priorities should be. This is a picture from that article:

Boaz Reigstad, Down Syndrome, pro-life

The picture is of Boaz Reigstad, a five-year old who will shortly turn six. This picture has appeared on Facebook.

The article reminds us:

Reigstad also happens to have Down Syndrome. That, too, is visible in his picture — but it takes a back seat to the joy and warmth of his expression. Sadly, the apparently cheerful child is the exception to a startling rule: About 90 percent of pregnant mothers who learn their babies have Down Syndrome choose to abort. As The Blaze puts it, “That means [just] 10 percent of children are brought to term after the mother learns of the condition.”

Raising a child with a disability is an incredibly difficult job. Over the years I have known people who are raising children with serious problems. I have watched the struggles and the special love between these children and their parents. It is a sad commentary on our society that only 10 percent of children with Down Syndrome are allowed to live.

Enhanced by Zemanta