Sunday, October 4, 2009

HEALTH CARE REFORM CHAPTER 1

A BI-PARTISAN COMPREHENSIVE

PRACTICAL “DOWN-TO-UP”- BASED

HEALTH CARE REFORM PROPOSAL

FOR ALL AMERICANS

By

Robert Smith, Ph.D.



DEDICATION


I am grateful to many people who have looked over and commented on this proposal. I am grateful for the patience and understanding of my family, from whom I’ve disappeared into my study for far too many hours as I prepared this text.

I dedicate this health care reform proposal to J. Judson Booker, III, M.D. A Family Practice physician, the last in a line of five generations of family practice physicians (his son chose to become an OB-GYN). Many options were available to him, but, he chose to serve the people in rural Appalachia. He was a delightful person, everyone’s best friend, and a very fine and knowledgeable physician. The world has been blessed by his too brief presence and his recent passing saddens all who knew the man.



PREFACE

I tend to identify myself as a libertarian, fiscally conscientious democrat. That libertarian in me was appalled as I wrote some of the proposals herein. Some of these proposals can be more intrusive than I’d like for government to become. However, I find that these suggestions are cogent and necessary for comprehensive reform that results in sound fiscal policy and much improved health.

Throughout this proposal, I offer background, identify problems, propose solutions, and discuss outcomes.

In this text, I often cite that a program will “save” so many dollars. I am actually abbreviating here. When I propose investing $100 in a prevention program, I report the savings of $150, but, I also include other elements, such as the additional $35 in tax and FICA revenues, thus reporting $185 in “savings”. I could take this one step further, and calculate the cost of unemployment and food stamps for the employees of this prevention program that would have been spent had they not begun working at the prevention program, thus costing another $10 (but I don’t go this far).


CHAPTER 1

BACKGROUND


§ 1.1.0 NATIONAL DEBT & NATIONAL DEFICIT

§ 1.1.1 National Debt (ND) is total amount of money owed

Deficit (D) is the amount overspent yearly. This is added to last year’s national deficit to give us the new national deficit, plus interest.


YEAR ND ND / PP (PER PERSON) ND % OF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (GDP)

2000 $5.0 T (Trillion) $17,000 50%

2009 $11.8 T $39,000 80%

§ 1.1.2.1 - US national deficit grew between 2000 and 2009 by $6.8 trillion - rom $5.0 T to $11.8 T during President Bush - #43’s - term, a record-setting $850 billion (B) a year!

§ 1.1.2.2 - The more than doubling of the national deficit while inflation increased only 16% looks like dramatic overspending. Why? Republicans have a reputation for being fiscal conservatives but in the last 20 years of republican administrations, debt has mushroomed while in three years run by a democrat, there were surpluses (which were actually just what’s supposed to be Social Security (SSA) and Medicare additions to their own Trust Fund, but, at least that was progress).

§ 1.1.2.3 - Why? A lot was going on from 2000 to 2009. First, in the 2000 election year, the dot.com bubble burst decreased the speed of economic growth as well as potential tax revenues. Then, 9 -11 resulted in a significant decrease in the confidence of the American consumer, fear, further reduction in the speed of economic growth, and reduction in potential tax revenues. With stock values slashed in half, increases higher than inflation occurred easily. A war was taken to Afghanistan in which many nations pledged support for the first year or two but then pulled out after America went to Iraq on evidence the world community thought insufficient. In a move that stunned economists, America responded with deep tax cuts, especially to the wealthy, designed to stimulate the economy. These cuts were ineffective, as were predicted by economists.

I argue that deep tax cuts for the wealthy work during periods of economic expansion, serving to reward the industrious. Enhancing consumer spending and confidence is key during an economic recession or depression. The cuts were too deep to sustain government commitments, the growth in national security programs, and the growth in entitlement spending.

§ 1.1.2.4 - President Obama projects that the national deficit may approach $17 trillion by 2020. $11.8 trillion ND was inherited: That means that he admits today that an additional $5.2 trillion in debt over the next 10 years, amounting to $520 billion a year, will be overspent. The annual debt growth under President Bush (#43) was 17% per year whereas the annual debt growth under President Obama is projected at 4.4%. The added 4% population and inflation of 10% between the two administrations must also be factored in. Thus, where the last debt PP was $2,833 per year, the debt PP per year, factoring inflation, is $1,500. It is still too much debt for comfort and it must be responsibly addressed, but, it is a dramatic improvement from the previous years. President Obama inherited economic challenges the severity of which had not been faced by any American president, other than, perhaps, FDR. At this time, he appears to be executing the Bush loans and Bush stimulus, the Obama stimulus, and reducing the costs of war in Iraq while re-focusing on Afghanistan, where we seem to have forgotten to search for Osama Bin Laden. The president must be given an opportunity to do what is needed.

§ 1.1.2.5 - The democrats have introduced a pay-as-you-go plan. It forces Washington to balance new spending with offsets. A well thought out pay-go plan is needed and ought to be endorsed by all debt hawks. Government should not spend more than its revenues (except perhaps in times of crisis).

§ 1.1.3 Why the explosion in debt from 2000 to 2009?


Ý Tax cuts were too big for shrinking economy! Trickle down theory says that tax cuts stimulate an economy. It is suggested that tax cuts stimulate a growing economy but not a shrinking one. The tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans from 2001-2008 added $2 trillion to the national deficit of the total $6.8 trillion.

Ý Free Trade Agreements (FTA‘s) reduce the tax base, force businesses to locate overseas, and hemorrhages US jobs, trading these for cheaper products for US consumers.

Ý Increased unemployment and under-employment

Ý Americans, businesses, and Wall Street Needed or Received More Assistance

Ý Crime and prison populations Increased Due to Expansive Laws and “Desperation”

Ý Shifts in income source (e.g., from wages to Professional Corporations, dividends, Short Term Capital Gains (STCG), and Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG), and off shore tax havens) outpaced IRS’ ability for enforcement! This added an estimated $2.4 trillion to the national deficit of the total $6.8 trillion and proper enforcement and taxing of these revenues is just and necessary.

Ý There is not a single time in history in which the US fought two wars simultaneously. Wars are costly!

§ 1.1.4 Senator William Proxmire’s GOLDEN FLEECE AWARDS would have been awarded to thousands of wasteful projects – republican and democratic - since discontinued in 1978. (I re-introduce them here and advocate their resumption, in his honor, and advocated that they serve as a staple for efficiently operated government, as the US seems to require some reminder of the need for watching out for wasteful spending.)

§ 1.1.5 In 2009, debt is estimated to be $1.6 trillion. In 2008, it was $1.0 trillion. Why so big in 2009? Because of previous commitments in 2008 to control the economic downward spiral, the combination of paying people’s unemployment while also not being able to tax them due to jobs lost prior to 2009 (and, some continuing to be lost today), and, the stimulus legislated by Congress and signed by President Bush and President Obama.


§ 1.2.0 CIVIL WAR DEBT

“There wouldn't be such a thing as counterfeit gold if there were no real gold somewhere.” - Sufi Proverb

§ 1.2.1 The only time, thus far, that US national deficit equaled GDP was in the Civil War (although it came very close following WWII and, most probably, after the Revolutionary War, too). President Lincoln and Secretary of the Treasury Salomon Chase borrowed extensively and printed dollars that were not backed by gold. US soldiers were paid with this money that was, technically, worthless, but, the economy survived.

§ 1.2.2 The US imposed income taxes during the Civil War for the first time.

§ 1.2.3 I can’t help but point out the irony that it was the nation’s first republican president who enacted income taxes and who engaged in risky deficit spending.

§ 1.3.0 GAO PROJECTED SAVINGS

A stranger has big eyes but sees nothing.” - African Proverb

§ 1.3.1 PROBLEM:

§ 1.3.1.1 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) guidelines restrict the calculation of certain investments that result in too much inaccuracy. They’re right. Using a prevention program to teach kids to not smoke saves money, right? But, the estimated savings are not allowed to be included in the calculations of the GAO. Since the GAO can’t accurately calculate savings, prevention efforts are not allowed to be included in savings estimates. Yet, GAO uses inflation projections, which are estimates, guesses, or SWAGs.


§ 1.3.2 ANALYSIS:

§ 1.3.2.1 - It is, indeed, very difficult to project savings from specific prevention programs. There is a measure of inaccuracy in any estimate, whether it is of inflation, confirmed kills of enemy combatants, or number of avoided cases of cancer. Steps ought to be taken so that the best measure of prediction is utilized. Strengths and weaknesses ought to be discussed. The source for this measure and an explanation of the technique ought to be elaborated upon. As new information becomes available, prevalence, incidence, costs, etc., report revisions ought to be provided to Congress. Prevention programs must not be avoided just because they are difficult for actuaries and accountants to calculate the benefit.

§ 1.3.2.2 - Precedent has already been established with regard to the inclusion of “soft” numbers in reports to Congress.

For example, inflationary figures are almost always included in multi-year projections. Tying the hands of Congress is leading to the passage of programs that are not fully efficacious for the people of the United States.

§ 1.3.2.3 - It’s noteworthy that the GAO permitted such estimates as the Medicare Part D Program of $420 billion over ten years, increased to $520 billion one month after Congress voted to approve the legislation, which increased just 18 months later to $1.2 trillion over the next ten years. The White House had threatened to fire a Medicare actuary if he were to disclose the true cost of the program to Congress before the vote.


§ 1.3.3 ALTERNATIVES:

§ 1.3.3.1 - Maintain GAO reports so that proposed savings are not identified.

§ 1.3.3.2 - Require the GAO to immediately change reporting to include projected savings.

§ 1.3.3.3 - Require the GAO to immediately include projected savings but also require that the GAO identify these “soft” financial estimates, establish a protocol for elaborating upon them, establish a protocol for identifying options and selecting the final option.


§ 1.3.4 RECOMMENDED PROPOSAL:

§ 1.3.4.1 - Congress must instruct the GAO to always include estimates of savings based upon the best available data and those sources ought to be explained and identified clearly within their reports. Precedent for this is established in that the GAO utilizes inflationary projections, which can be less reliable than prevention projected savings, but they are, nevertheless, utilized.

§ 1.3.5 OUTCOMES:

§ 1.3.5.1 - If the GAO estimated projected costs AND savings, new programs could be considered by Congress that stimulate the economy, generate business, produce jobs, reduce government dollars spent on disease -intervention, and save lives. Most of the prevention programs that would be presented to Congress would have a net effect of reducing health care expenditures.


§ 1.4.0 BALANCE SPENDING & PRIORITIES

§ 1.4.1 Why the Congressional inaction? Why didn’t we hear of escalating debt until 2009? Why didn’t Congress oppose detrimental legislation earlier?

§ 1.4.1.1 – After 9/11/2001, Congress passed many measures requested by the administration, deferential to the administration fighting a war on terror and then a war in Iraq. It did so without appropriate thought. Then, pork crept into spending so, if I support your pork, will you support my pork?

§ 1.4.2 Now, suddenly, Americans, who, like myself, treasure balanced budgets, cite arguments not offered in the past 6 years for the need to rein in out of control spending. Part of the reason for that is because we’re just hearing about the excesses now. Part of the reason is that some people do not like the present administration. Some people are racially prejudiced. Some people want the present administration to fail, even, perhaps, if it means the destruction of the United States of America.

§ 1.4.3 All proposals for health care reform ought to result in net reductions of debt and national deficit. I think that the deficit hawks will agree with me on that.

§ 1.4.4 Throughout this document, I refer to the current economic climate as a downturn, retraction, or recession.
Definitions of an economic depression vary. Pundits do not want to use the “D” word (economic depression), but, if this severe, protracted recession continues, we may well need to refer to it as a depression.


§ 1.5.0 US TAXES

§ 1.5.1 The nations with higher per person (PP) incomes have higher tax rates. But, despite those higher tax rates, the people still earn more than in the US and they also enjoy free medicine, free higher education, and the QOLs are higher. Higher taxes seem to be related to greater economic prosperity in those nations. That’s not what is taught as being possible in introductory economics.

§ 1.5.2 The US has one of the lowest tax rates among the economically advanced (OECD) nations. Why?

§ 1.5.3 Many of our founding fathers (e.g., Benjamin Franklin) had the capitalistic spirit described by Adam Smith. Capitalism is written nowhere in any founding document. Yet, capitalism is at the core of Americans’ very being. It’s potential to bring prosperity to the industrious (look at the pauper to riches stories, e.g., Bill Gates) appeals to our beliefs of hope and democracy and that anybody has the potential to succeed. On the other hand, capitalism can also be a tool for abusing democratic principles (e.g., slavery, child labor 100 hours a week, lobbying, Madoff, Phil Graham’s de-regulation of the financial sector that cost $2 trillion (T) or so).

§ 1.5.4 In the 1800s, the US government was small so there wasn’t a great need for taxes.

§ 1.5.5 The US government looked inward while it was a small nation. It now looks outward, globally. It is recognized as the world’s sole superpower today.

§ 1.5.6 Land was acquired by low-ball purchases or theft from Native Americans and then sold, bringing needed money to the government.

§ 1.5.7 The US values capital over labor, more than any other nation. Taxes on capital are phenomenally less than they are on labor. If Congress represents the people, and the people’s primary income is from their labor, shouldn’t the people be asking Congress to tax labor at a rate less than capital? Perhaps, as Adam Smith says, labor and capital are equally needed in capitalism. As such, in keeping with the original principles of capitalism, federal taxation codes ought to result in taxation of capital to an equal rate as that of labor.



§ 1.6.0 LAST ERA OF GREAT US GROWTH

§ 1.6.1 The US’ manifest destiny was fueled by tremendous quantities of land, slave and later abusive labor, plentiful natural resources, and American ingenuity.

§ 1.6.2 Ironically, the last great period of real US economic expansion was fueled by infrastructure investments of the 1950s. The GDP and government revenues grew.


SELECT 1950s INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

c$ WW II & Korean War c$ Vietnam Overtures

c$ Eisenhower Highway c$ Public Schools

c$ Veterans Health c$ Universities

c$ Marshall Plan c$ GI Bill

§ 1.6.3 These “socialistic” programs were initiated by the republican WWII hero / President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

§ 1.6.4 The modest “surtax” of 10% on the most wealthy (from 36.0% to 39.6%) imposed during the democratic administration of President Clinton was more of an inconvenience when it is compared to the 92% maximum marginal tax rate imposed in the 1950s by republican President Eisenhower.



§ 1.7.0 KNOW THY CREDITORS

§ 1.7.1 Almost one-third of the US debt is owed internationally - foreign nations (especially Japan, China, GB, and oil producing nations) and their wealthiest citizens.

§ 1.7.2 About 7 percent ($772 billion) is owed to communist China. At first blush, this appears to compromise US national security. It has the potential to be a greater threat to military supremacy than any barrage of missiles. The “sleeping giant” still sleeps, but gains strength.

§ 1.7.3 However, this loan / debt solidifies a mutual economic dependence in which US citizens purchase inexpensive Chinese products propelling the Chinese economy. Some might, with great trepidation, say, “what if they called in their loans?”

§ 1.7.4 A nation economically dependent upon another seldom poses a military threat to that other. Industrially, China needs the US to survive and prosper economically. The US needs China to produce inexpensive goods, loan the US government money, and not call in old loans.

§ 1.7.5 Over $5 T of debt was incurred during the 30 years in which Congress automatically “borrowed” from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and Medicare “Trust Funds”. These trusts are the largest holder of US debt.

§ 1.7.6 If Congress did not borrow (especially from SSA / Medicare Trusts) this week, the government, Social Security, and Medicare would be broke next week.

§ 1.7.7 US government debt does several things:

§ 1.7.7.1 It places the costs of our greed for personal comfort squarely upon the backs of our children.

§ 1.7.7.2 Federal bonds compete for credit with banks, corporations, and citizens. The more money that goes to federal D, the less money is available for business investments and consumer loans, such as mortgages.

§ 1.7.7.3 This matter wasn’t of concern during the last administration, so, it shouldn’t suddenly strike fear, today.
Neither should it be cause for reckless abandon.

§ 1.7.7.4 Great debt jeopardizes global economic security.


§ 1.8.0 US HEALTH SPENDING

“I firmly believe that if the whole materia medica could be sunk to the bottom of the sea, it would be all the better for mankind, and all the worse for the fishes.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes

§ 1.8.1 US Health Care = $2,500 billion / year

= $8,333 PP / year

= $33,333 For Family of 4 / year

= twice the spending PP as other 29 OECD nations


§ 1.8.2 US Health Care As % of US GDP: = 13.1% in 1999

= 13.2% in 2000

= 16.7% in 2009

= 20.0% in 2020

I estimate that with economic retraction, the figure of 2009 will be 18.0% and the 2020 figure will be 22.0%.

§ 1.8.3 Why the rapid growth in health care spending?

1. The US economy seeks sectors that can expand. With the shrinking economy, the health care sector is a good investment. The more money that pours into this sector, the more pressure there is to earn even more. The retirement savings of baby boomers have fueled the bubbles from several sectors, eventually resulting in crashes. If we don’t contain the health care bubble, it, too, will crash, resulting in more wealth to be made and more retirement savings to be lost.

2. Real dollars spent on health care are increasing due to this pressure.

3. The % of GDP spent on health care is increasing fast.

4. America’s average age increases, with baby boomers headed to retirement, leading to more use per person (PP).

5. Americans use more health services PP than we used to, even at younger ages.

6. Use of expensive procedures is on the increase.

7. General inflation is a minor factor. Medical inflation is much higher and adds to total increase.


§ 1.9.0 HEALTH CARE COSTS AS PP GDP

§ 1.9.1 95 percent of health care spending in OECD nations can be predicted by PP GDP (that’s the total value of all goods and services divided by the number of people in the country).

§ 1.9.2 The more money you have, you’re willing to spend more on your health. We all value health and life.

§ 1.9.3 As illustrated, all 29 other OECD nations are very close to a trend line. As the GDP PP increases, health care spending PP increases.

§ 1.9.4 Notice the trend line on the bottom right of the graph above. It takes a swift turn upward. That illustrates that the US spends a lot more on health care than what would be statistically projected – 37% more!

§ 1.9.5 Why does the US spend twice PP GDP as other OECD countries? Maybe Americans have collective national guilt over eating twinkies. Maybe Americans value capitalism and must invest retirement savings in attractive stocks.

§ 1.9.6 Let’s consider the 3 following formulae:

$2.5 T * 37% = $925 billion Saved

$2.5 T * 50% = $1,250 billion Saved

$2.5 T * 40.7% = $1,018 billion Saved

§ 1.9.6.1 - In the first calculation, it shows the US spends $2.5 T a year on healthcare, but, based on the spending patterns of 29 other democratic, capitalistic, economically developed countries, we ought to be spending 37% less. That would save $925 billion a year and reduce costs to a mere $1,575 billion a year. That is what could be achieved if America were like other economically developed nations and spent a bit more based on wealth.

§ 1.9.6.2 - In the second calculation, it shows that Americans spend $2.5 T, but, they also spend twice PP of other OECD nations. If cut in half, that would be $1.25 T spent and $1.25 T saved. That is what could be achieved if America spent the same amount PP as other economically advanced nations.

§ 1.9.6.3 - In the third calculation, again, the US spends $2.5 T. Between greater ingenuity and economy of scale, it would be quite reasonable to expect a reduction in costs from 37% to 40.7%, thus saving $1,018 billion a year.

§ 1.9.7 Let’s think about the most conservative figure: $925 billion ($3,083 a person). This is the same as:

185 Nimitz Aircraft Carriers each year –

SSA Operations for 17 months –

DOD Operations for 18 months –

US Education for 13 months –

Pay Off Debt, With Interest, in 18 years –


§ 1.10.0 THE WAR TO RE-CAPTURE ECONOMIC PROSPERITY!

§ 1.10.1 The CIA Book of Facts reports the following ranking of nations by their GDP PP. As these data correspond robustly with figures from the IMF and World Bank, so, accuracy is reliable.


Rank Country US $

1 Liechtenstein $145,734 (Off Shore Banking)

2 Qatar $141,733 (Oil)

3 Luxembourg $118,538 (Off Shore Banking)

4 Norway $103,586

5 Ireland $68,574

6 Denmark $67,387

7 Switzerland $64,974

8 Iceland $62,490

9 Kuwait $61,499 (Oil)

10 UAE $58,424 (Oil)

11 Sweden $56,703

12 Netherlands $54,640

13 Finland $53,616

14 Austria $52,696

15 Australia $50,887

16 Belgium $47,617

17 United States $47,103

18 Canada $47,090


§ 1.10.2 This ought to startle baby boomers who remember that America always seemed to be #1.

§ 1.10.3 America is losing that leading edge and are not terribly concerned about that loss.

§ 1.10.4 Even these nations with PP GDP greater than that of the US spend less on health care PP GDP! Less, even though they are smaller, have less economy of scale, better health, and greater longevity!

§ 1.10.5 Reduce spending on health care through increasing efficiencies.

§ 1.10.6 A much better altnative is to increase economic prosperity. As the old industries are shipped overseas for less costly construction, the US must invest in human capital and new businesses that provide domestically, reducing the trade deficit, as well as providing internationally cutting edge technologies. Not only does economic prosperity improve the government’s financial condition, it lengthens the lifespan of Medicare and Social Security, and, happy employed workers use fewer health resources than unhappy, frightened, or unemployed workers.

§ 1.10.7 Health care, alternative energy, and environmental services will be in greater demand internationally. As the world looks to the US to assume leadership in research and development on issues related to the last two foci, the US must be prepared, in advance, for financial leveraging being used against the US.

§ 1.11.0 THE US PAYS MANY COSTS OF THE UNINSURED, ALREADY

“Two birds disputed about a kernel,when a third swooped down and carried it off.” - African Proverb

§ 1.11.1 The uninsured are 20% more likely to obtain ER services than the insured. Why?

§ 1.11.1.1 - Riskier Lifestyles and More Dangerous Work and lack of access to primary care

§ 1.11.1.2 - Factors other than simple abuse of the economic system

§ 1.11.2 The uninsured often are eligible for generous charitable programs by drug companies.

§ 1.11.2.1 - Some drug companies work with charities to pay for people’s health insurance so that the insurance company continues to pay for medications.

§ 1.11.3 The uninsured often obtain free or reduced fee services from providers.

§ 1.11.4 Hospitals write off bad debts as a tax deduction if they prove due diligence in attempts to collect debt. So, they charge 3 times what they charge insurance companies. The end result is often that the hospital is better off than if it had performed a service for a patient with health insurance. Who pays for this? Taxpayers.

§ 1.11.5 Many of the uninsured are young adults with well below average health care costs.

§ 1.11.6 These estimates of the costs of providing health care coverage for the uninsured are higher than those of the White House. I estimate that the total, gross cost will be $153 billion a year.


§ 1.12.0 COSTS OF UNTREATED MEDICAL CONDITIONS (UMC)

UMC à higher crime, SA, & related fatalities UMC à higher permanent disability

UMC à higher absenteeism UMC à shorter life span

UMC à higher school drop outs, lower wages, lower tax revenues, and more employee disciplinary problems

§ 1.12.1 A spike in health care utilization by the previously uninsured when first covered ought to be expected. This is natural and brings them back to better health, to a point which we all enjoy. We should not be alarmed at slightly higher initial costs.

§ 1.12.2 One study revealed that 18,000 Americans die each year while awaiting decisions or appeals by their private insurance company’s authorizing agent who denied them coverage. Private insurance companies only provide coverage for 94.5 million people (plus government employees). Thus, 1% of the people with private insurance will die due to private health insurance company’s death panels.

§ 1.12.3 It is estimated that approximately 20% of America’s 47 million uninsured would be able to obtain treatment for conditions that currently precludes them from employment. If 10 million unemployed were able to return to work, averaging the wages of high school graduates, it would equal $330 billion additional GDP. They would contribute an additional $10 billion to Medicare each year, $41 billion a year to SSA, and another $33 billion to other taxes. That alone totals $84 billion a year. Further, I estimate that one-fourth of these people could be prevented from requiring disability services, saving $25 billion a year for SSD and $25 billion a year for Medicare.

§ 1.13.0 CAPITALISM’S HISTORIC ABSENCE FROM U.S. HEALTH CARE

“The candle is not there to illuminate itself.” - Nawab Jan-Fishan Khan

§ 1.13.1 Insurance companies and the CMS, combined, form an oligopoly. The top dozen insurance companies set consumer prices and CMS fixes provider fees that private insurers use to calculate their own fees.

§ 1.13.2 It’s “take it or leave it” policies are no longer the attitude of how can I compete? When employers contract for insurance, the consumer / end user is left out of the loop. If policies of the insurance company discriminate against them, that’s their problem.

§ 1.13.3 They seem to violate antitrust laws with impunity. Perhaps they’re too big to fail or maybe they lobby successfully? Actually with the 1944 USSC case and 1945 Congressional legislation, as states are granted the right to regulate health insurance within their states, the insurance companies are not subject to the Sherman Antitrust Laws. Insurance companies want the right to compete across state lines, resulting in greater competition, slimmer competitors, and re-subjugating them to Sherman Anti-trust Laws, unless Congress’ health care reform legislation of 2009 further amended it.

§ 1.13.4 Capitalism was an economic ideal espoused by the Englishman, Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, first published in 1776.

§ 1.13.4 The chronological coincidence of its publication in 1776 along with the signing of the Declaration of Independence led some wealthier signers to embrace the ideals advocated by Adam Smith.

§ 1.13.5 True capitalism has not been sustained anywhere, including that last bastion of capitalistic ideals, the USA. Why not?

§ 1.13.6 Systematic abuses (remember slavery, child labor, pension pilfering, promoting unsafe working conditions, RICO violations, misleading the SEC and stockholders of corporate facts such as at Enron, Arthur Anderson, or Madoff) occurred.

§ 1.13.7 As a result of violations, modifications have been made. Thus, an economic hybrid remains, something different from “pure capitalism” that adds measures of protection to people and businesses.

§ 1.13.8 While capitalistic theory sees that the free market’s invisible hand will correct health care overspending, it will do so inefficiently, after trillions of dollars have been spent and millions of lives are lost.

§ 1.13.9 When driving down the road and needing gasoline, you vote with your wallet and buy the cheaper gas. As Americans, we’re accustomed to one of the tenants of capitalism – the free market. We can buy the cheapest or best products. We have consumer choice. There is little choice if provided a health care plan by one’s employer. With an individual plan and a one-third rejection rate, one is fortunate if an insurance company accepts one’s family.

§ 1.13.9 America must return to our capitalistic roots – every buyer is given so much support from employers or the government and they can purchase the most appealing insurance product with that, whether it be private, not-for-profit, or public.


§ 1.14.1 WHAT DRIVES HEALTH CARE COSTS GREATER THAN INFLATION?

“Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.” - African Proverb

§ 1.14.1 Health insurance premiums have increased 5 times faster than wages! That is a greater increase than any sector has experienced before.

§ 1.14.2 Wages remain flat but costs to business continually increase and must be passed on to consumers. This puts a squeeze on the typical American and contributes to bankruptcy filings.


“We’ve met the enemy and he is us.” - “Pogo”

§ 1.14.3 Health service and insurance companies are mostly owned by our own retirement funds.

§ 1.14.4 Your portfolio manager seeks the best Return on Investment (ROI).

§ 1.14.5 Publicly traded companies are pressured to increase profits quarterly or money managers invest elsewhere.

§ 1.14.6 Myoptic, short-sighted views of investments lead to CEOs scrambling to better the numbers reported over last quarter. We’ve parked our money in the dot.coms and that bubble burst. Then, there were the financials. Then, mortgage companies and real estate companies. Now, we look with avarice at health care companies. There will be another bubble, this time in health care, and another burst, unless health care expenses are controlled immediately.

§ 1.14.7 Wall Street economists look at the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR). That’s the percantage paid for health services of

every dollar that health insurance companies generate. In the last 17 years, non-MLR costs (insurance ADMIN and profits) jumped from 5 percent to 20 percent; health care costs increased 400 percent; ADMIN and profits increased 300 percent; income increased 1200 percent; and, profits increased 1000 percent. GOLDEN FLEECE AWARD!!!

§ 1.14.8 Typical salaries increased during that time a paltry 40 percent while insurance company bonuses and profits

and premiums were increasing hundreds to thousands of percents!

§ 1.14.9 These escalating fees and reported profits can not be sustained. Again, we must correct this situation now, because our fragile economy may not be able to withstand another bubble burst, especially in a sector that now controls 17 percent of GDP.

§ 1.14.10 - Many things can contribute to the rise in costs of health care. A few things include:

$ Overpricing $

$ Medical Errors $

$ Medication Errors $

$ Malpractice Costs $

$ Providers Inaccess to Cost $

$ Defensive Medicine Practice $

$ Heroic but Ineffectual Measures $

$ Administrative Wasteful Spending $

$ Legislation to Help Sometimes Has Blowback $

$ Money Managers Drive CEOs to Out Produce $

$ We don’t practice Safety and Wellness Knowledge $

$ Providers’ Wise Investing Leads to Ethical Dilemmas $

§ 1.15.0 THE US ALREADY HAS PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE

“Put aside your pride, Set down your arrogance, And remember your grave.” - Ali ibn Abu Talib (radi Allahu anhu)

§ 1.15.1 Think about these numbers:

Medicaid 53.0 MILLION Federal & Postal Employees 2.5 M

Medicare Retirees 36.0 M Medicare - Disabled 6.0 M

VA 3.0 M VA 1.0 M others

Military 9.0 M State and Local 15.0 M

Federal, State & Local Dependents 30 M IHS and Prisons 3.0 M

Public = 158.5 M (52%) Private = 94.5 M (31%) Uninsured = 47.0 M (17%)

§ 1.15.2 The US already has public health care. Now, only 31% of Americans have private health insurance offered through a private employer and 52% of people are covered through government operated plans or government provided plans. What’s the difference?

§ 1.15.3 The increase in uninsured is not totally a fault of the uninsured themselves. Over one-third of the uninsured have applied for private health insurance and have been denied, usually due to a pre-existing condition.
§ 1.15.4
77% of Americans support a public health care option or a single payer program.

§ 1.15.5 63% of American physicians support a public health care option and an additional 10% support a single payer program.

§ 1.15.6 90% of adult Americans who are uninsured say they will vote for supporters of a public health care option. Of course, with 15 months between now and the 2010 election, we’ll see if they are inclined to vote for this single issue. The Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans in swing constituencies ought to be mindful of this finding.


§ 1.16.0 US & PUBLIC PROGRAMS IN OTHER DEMOCRACIES

§ 1.16.1 People in other OECD nations and in the US with public insurance are more satisfied with their health providers than are Americans with private insurance.

§ 1.16.2 Allow me to report a few facts:

§ 1.16.2.1 Canada and Great Britain (GB) are selected as examples of inefficiencies, excessive wait times, and denials. Their wait times are, in fact, less than in the US. Even US patients in public systems have shorter wait times than those in the private sector and, within the private sector, HMOs impose the longest wait times.

§ 1.16.2.2 Where Canada and GB spend half the US PP on health services, they spend about the same amount on

direct care (doctors, nurses, medicine, and machines) but spend 15% less time on ADMIN!

§ 1.16.2.3 The quality of paperwork won’t save many people’s lives. It is compassion, dedication, knowledge, and

skill!

§ 1.16.2.4 Recently, in response to statements that Steven Hawking would have died had he received National Health

Service (NHS) care in GB, Hawking clarified that he, indeed, lives in GB, has received NHS care his whole life, and he is delighted with the quality of care he receives from NHS.

§ 1.16.2.5 People in public systems incur no user fees.

§ 1.16.2.6
Medicines cost twice more in the US as Canada, 3 feet to our north. The FDA prevents Americans

from buying medicines from other countries. Medicare is forbidden from negotiating best prices. Why? Because price negotiation is a feature of capitalism. Pharmaceutical companies are oligopolies and their profits are threatened by capitalism.

§ 1.16.2.7 Bureaucrat #1: private insurance company employee is rewarded for denying patients health care

today. People with terminal illnesses die without needed care.

§ 1.16.2.8 Bureaucrat #2: government employee who might say no tomorrow to all people of an undesirable

background – the elderly or ethnic groups.

§ 1.16.2.9 None of us like the thought of any bureaucrat stepping in between our doctor and ourselves. We have

no control over private insurance companies, but, we could write legislation so that bureaucrats would never be able to interfere.

§ 1.16.2.10 There is the occasional time when a bureaucrat might recommend alternative care. While at this time

the stepping in seems random and intrusive, imagine if a bureaucrat called a doctor and said, “90% of people given that treatment die, whereas only 5% of people given this alternative treatment die.” Sometimes those bureaucrats who have access to consolidated and current information and who are compassionate might be beneficial.

§ 1.16.2.11 If Medicaid is taken from the states and absorbed within a federal system that is $19 billion less

expensive to operate, I have no concern today about a bureaucrat saying no today to doctors. Medicaid is not the country’s success story and any attempts at health care reform must address Medicaid’s deficiencies.

§ 1.16.2.12 There is always the possibility of encountering another Nero, a future administration not sympathetic to

the needs of the people. That possibility is equally found in private companies, except they don’t have elections or accountability to the people. While the public can vote by not spending their dollars at an overpriced store, employees usually can not get employers to switch insurance carriers that are setting fees within an oligopolistic structure.

§ 1.16.2.13 Let us design a system, together, so that brainless bureaucrats following the dictates of heartless

politicans or executives won’t ever have the authority to interfere with decisions between our doctors and ourselves. We can design such a system in the government, but, we can not design such a system in the private sector.

§ 1.16.2.14 The system must never be abused and it must pass review of the USSC.


§ 1.17.0 EXCESSIVE HEALTH SPENDING DRIVES ECONOMY INTO DEPRESSION

“The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken.” – Islamic Proverb

§ 1.17.1 A small US business with 40 employees and 60 dependents has health care costs of $833,000 a year, or $21,000 per employee (if we use the overall total). When an employee costs $21,000 before even paying her salary, employers struggle to make a profit, are reluctant to hire people, and look at over-seas

locations where health care costs are nill.

§ 1.17.2 Free Trade Agreements (FTA) work wonders for developing prosperity and allegiance to democratic ideals in many nations. FTAs provide Americans with inexpensive goods and services. FTAs have not given one American worker more competitive wages (except those in the transportation industry in which they must load and haul freight for Americans’ consumption via ports or borders).

§ 1.17.3 With globalization, Americans will continue to experience declines in prosperity based on the old economy. America must revamp in order to maintain its competitive edge. What is the next thing to study and invest in? Again, health care, energy, and environmental sciences will be sectors of great importance internationally.

§ 1.17.4 There are 2.3 million people employed from the insurance industry but only 800,000 doctors. Imagine if we reduced the insurance paper-pushing squad by 250,000 and replaced them with nurses or engineers who make great inventions and lead America to prosperity, safety, health, energy independence, and a clean environment.

§ 1.17.5 A conservative congressman recently stated that 1.6 million jobs will be lost if President Obama’s health care plan is implemented. First, no living American has yet seen the details of President Obama’s elusive plan, so, I don’t know how such estimates could be calculated. Second, if the US looses administrative paper-pusher jobs and those people receive re-education in a productive field, I’d support the temporary loss of 1.6 million jobs if it would help the US climb from the depths of the economic “recession”. And, third, keeping the status quo with increasing premiums and decreasing coverage will cost 2 million American businesses and 20 million American jobs over the next 10 years unless health care costs are contained. As 1.6 million is less than 20 million, I suggest that a vote for change might be better for the US economy.


§ 1.18.0 THE REAL ISSUE

§ 1.18.1 I wish that the health care reform debate were about ideals. Philosophy isn’t blocking health care reform. It’s all about money.

§ 1.18.2 The political right would say we shouldn’t de-stabilize health care and insurance companies, grow government, sink our nation further into debt, or reduce the profits of corporations that give politicians millions of dollars.

§ 1.18.3 The political left would have us believe that health care reform is about reaching out to our brethren and helping

all Americans in need, while being fiscally responsible.

§ 1.18.4 What blocks health care reform is the money of the health care sector, by the health care sector, and for the health care sector. This includes pharmaceuticals, insurance, health services, even health investment funds.

The crux of the matter is this:

“Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece.”

§ 1.18.5 Those who profit from the status quo (insurance companies, health service providers, contrarian politicians) are spending dazzling sums of money in order to prevent health care reform.

§ 1.18.6 American businesses can no longer afford to compete. Auto makers pay $1,500 more on health insurance per car than Japanese competitors. Detroit suffers and so does America. So goes GM, so goes the American economy. This resonates the truth!

§ 1.18.7 In one small business, insurance for employees could not be provided because the premiums would have been higher than the owner’s salary, profit, and investments, combined. A group policy could not be purchased for just 9 employees. The compromise? The employer bought dental insurance and gave all employees an insurance stipend of $200 a month – which was taxed for both employer and employees.

§ 1.18.8 In the last 20 years, the majority of jobs created have been by small businesses. Small businesses are most sorely hurt by increasing premiums, being unable to cut costs to keep providing health insurance to their employees. At least large employers can often acquire group rates that save, up front $480 a year a person.

§ 1.18.9 This is a battle of economic forces. The Chamber of Commerce, small business owners, large companies, the American Medical Association, American Nursing Association, the American Association for Retired Persons, and 77 percent of voters all join voices. Strange bed fellows lead to a major cacophony in contrast to the organized, harmonic efforts of health insurance GIANTS who profit from the status

§ 1.18.10 - On the other hand, there are health service providers, insurance companies, drug companies, and investors who are scared. They see that the rising bubble of health care will be popped if the health care reform plan is implemented. Frankly, this could cause the collapse of their financial stability. They also see some opportunities for making increased profits in the next one to three years until the health care bubble pops naturally.



§ 1.18.11 PREDICTION
If the status quo remains, in the next 10 years the US will hemorrhage businesses and jobs overseas, and the federal government will become insolvent. Health care reform of some sort must be enacted if the US is to be viable in the 21st century. It must be done now in a manner that is fiscally responsible. Americans benefitted from not paying taxes for the last 8 years while the US allowed the national deficit to increase from $5.0 to $11.8 trillion. Now, Americans must tighten their belts, address the economics of health care that could yet devastate our economy, and pay down this tremendous national deficit.

§ 1.19.0 SEMPER FIDELIS

“Nothing is more noble, nothing more venerable than fidelity. Faithfulness and truth are the most sacred excellences and endowments of the human mind.” - Marcus Tullius Cicero

§ 1.19.1 Semper Fidelis is Latin for “always faithful”. Semper Fi is the motto of the US Marine Corps. We don’t leave our soldiers behind. We fight to protect one another. We will die, if need be, protecting one another. With those kinds of values, the Marine Corps has become a world premier organization. Are Americans willing to go to any lengths, even death, in order to help others?

§ 1.20.0 QUALITY MEDICINE

§ 1.20.1 The average wait to see a doctor, have an elective surgical procedure, even have an emergency surgical procedure is greater in the US than other OECD nations with “socialized medicine”. Is this quality?

§ 1.20.2 The average American waited 38 days for treatment of cancerous conditions! That’s more than in other OECD nations with “socialized medicine”. Is this quality?

§ 1.20.3 The average American sees their physician 25% less often than others from OECD nations with “socialized medicine”, yet s/he pays twice as much! Is this quality?

§ 1.20.4 Americans die 5 years younger than the others from OECD nations with “socialized medicine”. Is this quality?

§ 1.20.5 Americans report less satisfaction with their health care than citizens from the other 29 OECD nations with “socialized medicine”. 8 in 10 Americans are not satisfied with their health insurance. Maybe that’s why HMO patients decreased from 29% to 23% in 2001 alone. Is this quality?


§ 1.21.0 COMPARING THE US WITH OTHER OECD NATIONS

§ 1.21.1 Of the wealthiest 28 OECD nations, the US is alone in not providing public health care. Why not try it?

§ 1.21.2 Have 27 SEPARATE countries blindly jumped on board a fleet of sinking ships, at SEPARATE times, that provide inferior health care to their people? Logic would suggest it is unlikely. Why not try it?

§ 1.21.3 Or, not having constraints imposed by private, oligopolistic companies, do those governments have the freedom to try new things, like capitalism or government-run programs? Why not try it?

§ 1.21.4 I’m all for trying new things when the old things haven’t been working. So, the fact that all 28 democratic capitalistic countries that tried public health care have not returned to private health care says something. Why not try it?

§ 1.21.5 Wouldn’t, eventually, the people in at least one of those nations protest, like the uninsured and underinsured are doing today in America, if their health care systems were unacceptable? Their health has to be more meaningful to them than “soccer”. Why not try it?

§ 1.21.6 CONSIDER: America spends twice as much PP on health care. It has a lower QOL. We die 5 years earlier. Why do we keep repeating the mistakes of the past? Why not try it? GOLDEN FLEECE AWARD!!!

§ 1.21.7 47 million are uninsured (1 in 6), projected to be 66 million by 2019. Another 100 million are underinsured. Most of these are working to middle class people who cannot afford insurance or who are ineligible due to pre-existing conditions.

§ 1.21.8 A Colorado study found 50% were either uninsured or underinsured in that state. That’s consistent with the above paragraph.

§ 1.22.0 COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM

§ 1.22.1 All religions (Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Native, other) and liberal, moral imperative thinkers like John Locke call us to care for others. Why are fear mongers listened to who shout over the peaceful quiet voices of Jesus or Ghandi?

“Give, and it shall be given to you. For whatever measure you deal out to others,

it will be dealt to you in return.” - Islamic Proverb

“Health care is an essential safeguard of human life and dignity, and there is an obligation for society to ensure that every person be able to realize this right.” - Cardinal Joseph Bernardin

Do not be wise in words - be wise in deeds. - Jewish Proverb

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” - Bible, Matthew, Ch. VII, v. 12

“The desire of power in excess caused the angels to fall; the desire of knowledge in excess caused man to fall; but in charity there is no excess, neither can angel or man come in danger by it.” - Francis Bacon

“And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” - I Corinthians, 13:13

§ 1.22.2 Americans see the need to protect our brethren and support a public option. As of the end of August 2009, it was supported by 77 percent of Americans. That means that if the House and Senate vote to represent the people and not special interests, health care reform ought to pass Congress by a 3/4 majority.

§ 1.22.3 Fear mongering has led many to irrational fears. These scared minds can not be comforted by logic.

The old man called out, Good morning, what are you doing?” The young man paused, looked up and replied,
Throwing starfish into the ocean. The sun is up and the tide is going out. And if I don’t throw them then they’ll die.” But, young man, don’t you realize that there are miles and miles of beach and starfish all along it. You can’t possibly make a difference!” The young man listened politely, then bent down, picked up another starfish and threw it into the sea, past the breaking waves and said,It made a difference for that one.” - Author Unknown

“This is my commandment, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” - John 15:13

§ 1.23.0 DISPARITIES IN USE

§1.23.1 1% of people consume 33% of healthcare dollars

5% of people consume 44% of healthcare dollars

44% of people consume 20% of healthcare dollars

50% of people consume 3% of healthcare dollars

§ 1.23.2 Some patients with MI (mental illness) consume 14 times more healthcare dollars. That’s one reason why treating MI significantly reduces physical health care costs.

§ 1.23.3 Women (who live 6 years longer than men during illness prone years and who deliver children) consume three times more than men in total Medicare and SSA resources. Women consume twice the total health care dollars than men. Even with maternity costs of $40 billion, this is $660 billion more than men. Ought a modest, token risk-related co-payment be imposed without establishing a precedent that encourages further discrimination? If men used health care resources as much as women, I wonder, might they might live longer?

§ 1.23.4 Obese persons use 50 percent more services than non-over-weight persons. There are people who become ill

due to obesity. There are people who become obese due to illness (or side-effect of their medication), a roadside IED destroyed leg function, or a chronic thyroid condition. Ought a modest risk premium be assessed on the obese? Should it be assessed on all people who are obese or just those who make unhealthy choices?

§ 1.23.5 The average African-American male does not live to collect SSA or Medicare, whereas the average Asian-American female collects SSA for 20 years. Would it be fair to reduce health premiums for African-American males? Would it be fair to increase premiums for Asian American women? At least, wouldn’t it be wise to find out what’s behind the difference, so we can emulate Asian women as well as research and offer cures for those things that take the lives of African-American males early?

§ 1.23.6 RACE AND THE UNINSURED 33% of Hispanics 21% of African-Americans 11% of Caucasians

§ 1.23.7 - Asian-Americans and Native Americans use health care resources less than others. Asian Americans seem

healthier and live longer whereas Native-Americans seem less healthy and die younger. Let’s study, learn, intervene, and adopt best practices.

§ 1.23.8 - Health care costs for cigarette smoking equal $12 per pack of cigarettes, plus the “natural” costs of growing,

manufacturing, marketing, distribution, and sales. Would an increase in federal taxes on tobacco be reasonable in order that revenues received more closely equals health care expenses paid to treat those conditions? An additional $5 a pack would generate $90 billion a year, paying for President Obama’s plan’s projected costs yet it would still only pay 45 percent of health care costs associated with smoking / nicotine.

§ 1.23.9 Patients with multiple health conditions consume often seven times the services as patients with a single

condition. Part of the reason for this is – as people age, they develop additional ailments. As one organ system fails other systems also begin to fail. Patients who report multiple ailments are rewarded for this by seeing more caring doctors and nurses. Patients who report multiple ailments are often independently treated by multiple specialists without benefit of a “comprehensive medical care manager” to coordinate services and medicines.

§ 1.23.9.1 -
First, people who age and acquire new ailments generally will not have those ailments disappear. Americans

can and must find new, less costly, more efficacious methods of prevention and intervention.

§ 1.23.9.2 - Second, the inter-relatedness of organic systems is seen every day. With an “N” of 300 million people, the

CDC and NIH ought to be able to collate data, identify patterns, and predict probabilities of, say, additional ailments surfacing within x days. In cases in which risk is greatly elevated, interventions might be warranted early on, having the potential to save money.

§ 1.23.9.3 - Third, the reward offered by caring providers can be addressed by training family and caregivers, integrating

behavioral health services with primary care, and assuring the providers are caring and professional but not reinforcing of personality disorders.

§ 1.23.9.4 - Fourth, as the current system now operates, specialists often practice in a vacuum. One specialist doesn’t

have access to another specialist’s lab results, so, they’re ordered again. They don’t often know what medications another specialist prescribed, so drugs interact resulting in months of anguish, tests, and finally, sometimes, communication. A single EMR access card would enable specialists to read a listing of all providers, medicines and true dosages, lab results, etc. While a Primary Care Provider (PDP) would provide coordinated care, specialists could be more cost effective, less redundant, and more efficacious.

§ 1.23.10 - In 2002, seniors (age 65 +) cost 331% more PP than the average working person ages 19-64

($11,089 v $3,352).


§ 1.24.0
MORE SPENDING DOESN’T ALWAYS MEAN INCREASED QUALITY


§ 1.24.1 WHO ranked the US:

· highest cost per person

· first in responsiveness

· 37th in performance

· 72nd in overall health

· 73rd in infant mortality

§ 1.24.2 It seems that we, Americans, live less healthy lifestyles. We are willing to spend lots of our children’s money on our own healthcare. That money is spent by private insurance companies or public care, whether debt is incurred by individuals or the government. We have providers who twirl quickly (and with amazing grace), but seldom save us from our own demise.


§ 1.25.0
A DOLLAR SAVED ISN’T ALWAYS REALLY SAVED

§ 1.25.1 Throughout this proposal, recommendations are made in which Americans may live longer and healthier lifestyles. Living longer means receipt of SSA payments for more years and simply postponing inevitable health care costs and death. Certainly, helping people in their 40s to live into their 80s would increase their contributions to society and payments of taxes.

§ 1.25.2 From the macro-economic perspective, we outlive some utility to society and family. Frankly, America hasn’t always had the best track record, here, and has slid down the slippery slope at times. During the Hoover Administration, we sterilized persons with mental retardation (MR) which had some influence on the eugenics movement proposed by Hitler in the next decade. Even now, CMS discriminates against those it can, seniors, those with mental illness must pay 50% instead of 20% of mental health services, knowing that people facing the added 30% will be less likely to obtain service and will be most at risk of suicide. That saves SSA billions of dollars.

§ 1.25.3 Many people look at their $1,000 deductible as a threshold, after which they consume more health care services, especially at year’s end. While that initial deductible might be expected to reduce costs, it accelerates spending after that threshold has been reached, especially on “elective” procedures. The study of this potential pattern may be merited.

§ 1.26.0 PARADOXICAL SPENDING

“They who give have all things; they who withhold have nothing.” – Hindu Proverb


§ 1.26.1 I propose several paradoxical spending measures:

Ý Spending on Children and Youth Drug and Alcohol Prevention à Less D&A Abuse

Ý Spending on Children and Youth Nicotine Prevention à Less Smoking

Ý Spending on Children and Youth Obesity Prevention à Less Obesity

Ý Spending on Children and Youth Safety, First Aid, CPR à Saved Lives

Ý Spending on Children and Youth Health Care à Healthier Children

Ý Spending on Health and Science Education à Less Deficiency of Providers

Ý Spending on Athletics and Fitness Centers à Less Obesity & Health Care Costs

Ý Spending on Recruiting Providers to Underserved à Lower Mortality Rates

Ý Spending on Clinical Research à Less Disease, Better Management & Lower Costs


§ 1.27.0 DEFLATE A BALLOON AND THE AIR ALWAYS GOES SOMEWHERE

§ 1.27.1 The health care bubble is next to burst.

What happened to employees, companies, and investors following the dot.com bubble burst? Unemployment. The companies folded. The investors lost hundreds of billions of dollars in paper assets.


What happened following the mortgage and real estate bubble? The brokers struggle. The banks received

trillions in loans and grants from the federal government. Many of the consumers are having their properties foreclosed upon and they are filing bankruptcy. And, local governments and school districts that rely on property taxes for income are in fiscal crises.


§ 1.27.2
We can carefully deflate it now or we can let it unexpectedly go “pop”. The meteoric rise in profits of market

capitalization cannot indefinitely be sustained. We keep pumping air in the US health care balloon, as we did each of the previous bubbles. It seems like a safe place in which to harbor our retirement investments.

§ 1.27.3 My Recommendations for Controlling the Health Care Bubble:

1. Where overspending is 37 percent or $925 billion per year, given American ingenuity and economy of scale, a reduction of $500 billion per year is quite attainable and is only 54 percent of total overspending, 20 percent of US health care spending, and 4 percent of GDP.

2. Programs / concessions ought to be granted to health care private industries to assure cushions, where determined necessary, in the first three years.

3. Increase investments in new programs such as prevention and research to soften the fall and increase potential for national economic prosperity, reduced health care costs, and exports.

4. Re-train labor from number crunching (e.g., insurance denying agents, attorneys, accountants, health care billing) to production (e.g., engineers, health providers, nurses, researchers, educators) where possible.

5. Export the finest and cutting edge US health care knowledge, practices, and technologies and charge an excise tax or tariff on these health care exports.

§ 1.28.0 THE PHOENIX: COMBINING PRIVATE, NOT-FOR-PROFIT, & PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE

§ 1.28.1 SUMMARY: This health care reform plan saves more than $500 billion each year; promotes efficacious prevention programs; enhances health service quality; expands markets, profitability, and competition of private insurance, health service, and pharmaceutical giants; provides health service coverage to all Americans; enhances our QOL; lays the framework for lengthening of longevity; and, leads the nation back to economic prosperity.

§ 1.28.1.1 - PROBLEM: Increasingly, fewer employees receive health insurance coverage from their employer.

§ 1.28.1.2 - ANALYSIS: The price of health insurance premiums (and profits) has increased about 5 times faster than the rate of wage increases. Employers have a set budget for health insurance for their employees, but, each year insurance companies, facing ever-growing demands by stockholders to increase profit margins, raise premiums well above the costs of medical care. Businesses struggle to continue to provide health insurance in the manner Americans had become used to for the previous half-century. Employers are increasingly passing on the extra premium costs onto employees. Passing the bill on to the employee works for only so long. Eventually, it adversely affects work performance. As a greater percentage of jobs are being created by small businesses, they experience problems perhaps even worse than cost. They can’t even obtain health insurance. In this state, very small businesses do not qualify for a group rate until they have at least 10 employees. So, employers who can not even access group rates take some creative steps. They offer Health Savings Account contributions. They offer taxed insurance stipends. They provide coverage where they can obtain group rates (e.g., dental). Employees who cannot be provided with health care are less likely to obtain preventive care or early, less expensive treatment. They also are often more distressed over health and financial circumstances and less focused and productive at work.

§ 1.28.1.3 - ALTERNATIVES:

§ 1.28.1.3.1 – STIPENDS TO EMPLOYERS: How does this work? Are stipends provided to all employers for all employees with health insurance? So, taxpayers would pay the same set stipend for the wealthy? High income? High users – very sickly? Do we “reward” wealthy companies that provide health insurance with stipends OR do we “reward” inefficiently operated businesses that cannot afford to provide any health insurance? There are too many unjust outcomes to consider employer stipends as a viable alternative. This also continues to promote the fourth party (employer) paying the third party (insurance company) on behalf of the first party (employee) for services rendered by the second party (doctor). Confused? We need to look for a more sound alternative.

§ 1.28.1.3.2 – WELLNESS STIPENDS FOR EMPLOYERS: Wellness programs are effective at reducing the costs of disease treatment. I know that focusing on wellness requires a cataclysmic shift in our thinking. Perhaps the government could provide stipends for employers that provided wellness programs for employees. Wellness programs also are attractive to many employees. Further, with commitment to wellness, the employer, employees, and perhaps customers, will benefit from enhanced wellness and the significant health care savings that it can bring. This offers real possibilities.

§ 1.28.1.3.3 – LIMITED, POOLED ASSESSMENTS: For all employers, even single person employers, employers contribute to a health insurance pool. While I suggest a specific formula, leaders will likely modify it. I suggest $1,800 per employee plus 5% of salaries, bonuses, profits, and investments dispersed equally among all employees in the form of a voucher which is used by employees for the purchase of health insu


§ 1.28.1.4 – RECOMMENDED PROPOSAL
:

§ 1.28.1.4.1 - Profitable, government, not-for-profit, and charitable employers would pool health benefits for employees, whether one (taking the whole pool) or more.

§ 1.28.1.4.2 - These monies would be pooled within each employer, or, some leaders might envision pooling by sector or community. Access to these funds ought to be equally available. Payments would be made to employees based on their hours (someone who works 30 hours would receive a pool 3/4ths of someone who works 40 hours. Each employee would be provided a voucher with which to buy insurance and invest remaining funds within a Lifetime Savings Account (LSA) that has flexibility for use in health, college, or retirement. Investments into a LSA are tax deductible. Interest and withdrawals are tax deductible if used for health, college, or retirement by owner for self, family, children, or grandchildren. The following are sound figures today, but will need modification to reflect changing economic circumstances and might be negotiated by leaders.

§ 1.28.1.4.3 - I propose the following formulae for calculating employer shares in health insurance. I suggest that the

government calculate the average contribution and then allow every organization to contribute and receive tax deductions for amounts up to 175% of the national average.

§ 1.28.1.4.4 - All existing Retirement Savings Accounts (Roth, 401-k, IRA), Health Savings Accounts, and College

Retirement Plans (529) would be collapsed into a flexible Lifetime Savings Account for each beneficiary. All amounts transferred to beneficiary’s accounts into LSA would not be taxed. I propose that every beneficiary be permitted to save $5,000 per year into a LSA, in addition to other targeted programs such as employer contributions or gym participation, although that figure might be adjusted.

For Profit Corporations: * $1,800 PP (Fixed - adjusted for inflation each year)

* 5.00% (Variable – sum of salaries, bonuses, AND gross profits)

* 2.50% (Variable – sum of investments)

* $5,000 (Employee Contributions to LSAs per Dependent (in addition to the difference between contributions and costs of policies)). These can be

used for health care, college costs, or retirement, contributions, and earnings are tax deductible up to, say, $1 million.

For Profit Start-Up Businesses: * $900 PP (Fixed - adjusted for inflation each year)

* 2.50% (Variable – sum of salaries, bonuses, AND gross profits)

* 0.75% (Variable – investments as so much money is often invested in

start-up businesses)

* Bonuses would not be permitted to be paid by start-up businesses in the

first 3 years if they elect to utilize this reduced formula.

* $5,000 (Employee Contributions to LSAs per Dependent (in addition to the difference between contributions and costs of policies)). These can be

used for health care, college costs, or retirement, contributions, and earnings are tax deductible up to, say, $1 million.

Not-For-Profit Organizations: * $2,000 PP (Fixed - adjusted for inflation each year)

* 6.00% (Variable – sum of salaries, bonuses, and investments)

* Not subject to levee on investments or profits

* $5,000 (Employee Contributions to LSAs per Dependent (in addition to the difference between contributions and costs of policies)). These can be

used for health care, college costs, or retirement, contributions, and earnings are tax deductible up to, say, $1 million.

Government Entities: * $2,000 PP (Fixed - adjusted for inflation each year)

* 6.00% (Variable – sum of salaries and bonuses)

* Not subject to levee on investments or profits

* $5,000 (Employee Contributions to LSAs per Dependent (in addition to the difference between contributions and costs of policies)). These can be

used for health care, college costs, or retirement, contributions, and earnings are tax deductible up to, say, $1 million.

§ 1.28.1.4.5 Special Considerations to Contributions

§ 1.28.1.4.5.1 - A fixed and variable formula is proposed as a compromise, so that every employer pays, in part, a fixed

sum, as well as variable sums that reflect the changing circumstances of each employer. These sums

§ 1.28.1.4.5.2 - I suggest contributions on bonuses in the formula to reduce abuse potential.

§ 1.28.1.4.5.3 - Executive bonuses are increasing astronomically faster than inflation. While I believe generous bonuses ought to be lavished upon outstanding executives, in general, bonuses are now excessive and less often based upon ethical or legal company success. They allow executives to receive compensation in ways so that they do not have to pay as much in taxes. (One might assert that bonuses are based on performance and work and, as such, ought to be taxed at the same rate as earned income, even when “gifted” by the corporation.)

§ 1.28.1.4.5.4 - I include a percentage of investments in the formula to reduce abuse potential.

§ 1.28.1.4.5.5 - Start-up companies that do not turn a profit in the first 3 years ought to pool, perhaps, a portion of the assessment of usual companies, say, $900 plus 2.5% of salaries (no bonuses ought to be permitted if the company is not making a profit in the first 3 years – if bonuses are paid, then eligibility for start-up reductions will be forfeited). As re-investment is critical to start-up businesses, perhaps only 0.75% of investments ought to be pooled.

§ 1.28.1.4.5.6 – Not-for-profit organizations might be permitted to pool the same figures as start-up companies, providing that they satisfy criteria. Of course, gross profits would not be included in the formula.

§ 1.28.1.4.5.7 – Government and school districts might be permitted to pool the same figures as start-up companies, providing that they satisfy criteria. Of course, gross profits would not be included in the formula.

§ 1.28.1.4.5.8 - I’d imagine that this idea could be called the Ebenezer Scrooge approach to family health plans. I do not see why employers ought to contribute additionally for spouses or children. They might choose to do so and, I would argue, employers in competitive fields would do so. Single employees would receive the same “benefit” but would be able to place the additional monies into an LSA. Optional coverage would not set a precedent. Additional contributions would be rebated or fully tax deductible.

§ 1.28.1.4.5.9 - Employees and government would pay added costs of family health insurance premiums not gratuitously covered by employers. Why do I suggest this? It is more a responsibility of the individual and government to provide care for family members than it is for employers. Why should my employer pay higher insurance premiums if I choose to have 21 children?

§ 1.28.1.4.5.10 - The sums provided by one partner’s employer and the other partner’s employer would be combined.

The spouses could purchase a joint plan. Excesses would be placed in a LSA. Finally, working couples would receive total benefits for both individuals and justify the second partner working.

§ 1.28.1.4.5.11 – Organizations would contribute nothing additional for family members, as employers do not have a moral imperative to provide health insurance for families and the provision of insurance for families then introduces the inequity of equally covering a single employee versus an employee with 10 children.

§ 1.28.1.4.5.12 – Currently, individuals select health insurance from one employer or another. It is proposed that all employers ought to provide the same amount for each employee. In the case of a two person family, they would receive two employer contributions and they would be able to afford to purchase either a more competitive plan or they would be able to save a greater portion into a LSA.

§ 1.28.1.4.5.13 – All insurance companies will directly contract with individuals. The risk pool for all individuals will be distributed across all 300 million Americans.

§ 1.28.1.4.5.14 – Organizations that participate in approved disease prevention and wellness programs would be eligible for a tax rebate of $250 per employee and, as appropriate, $100 per dependent.

§ 1.28.1.4.5.15– So, after employer contributions to an individual’s health insurance plan, a calculation is made to factor in such things as regional health care costs, number of dependents, pre-existing conditions. From this calculation, a government subsidy is determined for each individual, for which a voucher would be issued. Based, then, upon the individual employer voucher, the government voucher, and the type of policy desired, the individual would then contribute money, say, from their LSA or they would put the surplus from the employer and government vouchers into a LSA.

§ 1.28.2.1 - PROBLEM: The current US system is not consonant with the ideals of capitalism – (1) The consumer usually does not purchase the insurance. (2) The insurance conglomerates negotiate with a 4th party (employer) for price. (3) The insurance companies only compete within states thus not allowing them to compete nationally nor subjecting them to the Sherman Anti-trust Act. (4) Currently, insurance companies fix prices (income) and prices (costs) assuring their own profits. (5) Because of rapidly inflating prices, small businesses cannot provide health insurance coverage. They must locate overseas. Families increasingly must file for bankruptcy or have homes foreclosed upon. Some family members must remain in undesired jobs because pre-existing conditions preclude them from accepting alternative employment, thus stifling the economic growth of the nation. (6) Profitability of the health care sector is, well, “irrationally exuberant” and will collapse soon from its own greed.

§ 1.28.2.2 - ANALYSIS: Competition is needed. Regulation (at least up to the 19th century) is needed to protect the public. A refocus upon wellness and prevention is needed in order to reduce the disease-intervention system America presently suffers from.

§ 1.28.2.4 - RECOMMENDED PROPOSAL:

“Your own soul is nourished when you are kind; it is destroyed when you are cruel.” - Islamic Proverb

§ 1.28.2.4.1 – I propose that health insurance plans be provided by the government, for-profit insurance companies, and not-for-profit groups.

* Perhaps a not-for-profit plan would be provided by conservative Christians. They might be most comfortable with the ethics and values that are provided by a religious group’s health care plan rather than one that pays for abortion or infertility or bribes-by-prostitute. The difference between their costs and revenues might be designated for third world outreach and missions.

* Perhaps a not-for-profit plan would be provided within the GLBT community in which “identity crisis” and “coming out” counseling and generous coverage of HIV, substance abuse counseling (3 times the general rate likely due to identity and coming out issues), and gay adoption would be covered more generously.

* Perhaps a not-for-profit plan would be provided for the millions of Americans of a far eastern tradition who might prefer to see a health care plan in which ayurvedic medicine is covered.


* Perhaps a consortium of public universities, say the Virginia Public Higher Education Authority, might offer insurance for its 1 million graduates and employees. They might choose to have the $800 million a year “profit” be entered into a scholarship program for children of graduates of Virginia colleges.

§ 1.28.2.4.2 - Every American would select a plan in each of the following 8 categories, for self and each dependent:

Traditional Hospitalization Outpatient Care

Medications Dental

Vision Catastrophic

Long Term Care Behavioral Health

§ 1.28.2.4.3 – The above insurance plan would expand the potential market of private plans from 94.5 million to 300

million (more than 300 percent overnight). Plus, every American would purchase 8 categories of insurance, thus, private insurance companies would have the potential for increasing the scope of their products and their profits. Unequivocally, private insurance would benefit from expanding the market to include the 47 million newly insured Americans. Private plans could serve and profit from the 158.5 million “publicly” insured Americans, including those former Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, those with extended coverage, and public servants and dependents.

§ 1.28.2.4.4 - Private plans would provide at least one plan within each category that competes with the minimum public option. Public plans would provide at least one plan within each category that competes with the more comprehensive private policies.

§ 1.28.2.4.5 - Lifetime Savings Accounts (LSAs) would be used by everyone. Credits from Health Fitness Center (HFC)

utilization by the government of, say, $5 a day would be credited to each person’s LSA whether private, not-for-profit, or public insurance. This figure might automatically be tied to inflation.

People who elect programs that cost more than their employer allowance and federal contributions would pay

the difference from their LSA or out of pocket. People selecting programs less costly than insurance could place the balance in a LSA. LSA’s balance could pay for medical costs incurred by anyone, not subject to gift tax for medically necessary procedures. LSAs and their gains would be untaxed. At death, the balance could be transferred, not subject to inheritance, state and federal income tax, to beneficiaries, up to a maximum, say $1 million, if entered into LSAs.

§ 1.28.2.4.6 – Public, for-profit, and not-for-profit insurance plans can be mix-matched, allowing different coverage per person and category.

§ 1.28.2.4.7 - Matched by computer, most insurance marketing costs would be eliminated. Individuals might key in

genetic, familial, and environmental risks; history; and coverage desires. A selection of policies would be offered. If a different policy is desired, different parameters would be entered.

§1.28.2.4.8 - The computer would serve as the efficient free market. This type of computer-matching would require

full transparency and oversight, somewhat like that of the Securities and Exchange Commission, only effective.

§ 1.28.2.4.9 - A panel of patients, provider groups, and representatives from corporations, not-for-profit organizations,

and government assemble to review compliments; complaints; use patterns; suggestions for quality improvement, increased efficiency, reduced costs, and CII reports. Results are prominently published. Congress reviews recommendations and recommendations are enacted unless otherwise legislated specifically by congress.


§ 1.28.2.4.10 -
Procedures would be identified by providers using CMS definitions authorized by a citizen’s panel. As a

modest determent for over-utilization, co-payments would be based on the patient’s freedom of decision for services. For example, a person with cancer, it might be argued, has less freedom to decide about treatments and costs than a person with a dermatological condition. Tax rebates and deductions might be offered for the items with little choice and a modest excise tax might be imposed on elective services. Bureaucrats ought to never be permitted to determine these definitions.


“Medically Necessary” = Tax Rebate of x%

“Medically Recommended” = Tax Deduction of x%

“Elective” = Excise Tax of x%

§ 1.28.2.4.11 - Where carrots and sticks combined are usually most effective, insurance carriers, private, not-for-profit, and government, would be permitted to charge a risk premium for unhealthy lifestyles of up to 10 percent per annum, but would also reward a modest, say, $30 a month into LSAs for non-smokers and $30 a month into LSAs of those between 90% - 110% of their ideal weight.

“Those who lose dreaming are lost.” - Aboriginal Proverb

§ 1.28.3.1 - PROBLEM: While some public health insurance programs are models of efficiency, others appear to be less

effectively managed. If public systems will be placed in competition with not-for-profit and for-profit systems, they will need to compete for providers, patients, quality, and price. The private sector has not reached down and offered a plan for the working uninsured for the past 60 + years. The government must reach out and assist individuals whose income is too low to afford health insurance premiums or co-payments. There are 47 million people who are uninsured and 100 million people who are underinsured. Half of the US population needs some help from the government. An integrated, comprehensive program that examines wasteful spending, low quality, poor efficiency, marginal efficacy, and satisfaction by patients and providers ought to be developed that examines and reports in a standardized format these elements across private for-profit, not-for-profit, and government health programs.

§ 1.28.3.2 – ANALYSIS: Public health insurance programs have mixed results with regard to quality and cost, whether they be military, veteran’s programs, the Indian Health Service, Medicaid, Medicare, or programs for government employees and dependents. A singular government plan ought to be developed. A government voucher system must be developed to assist individuals in the purchase of their insurance that is based upon need and regional costs.

§ 1.28.3.3 – ALTERNATIVES:


§ 1.28.3.4 - RECOMMENDATIONS:

§ 1.28.3. – With regard to paperwork and ADMIN, most providers now prefer to work with Medicare, then private insurances, and, lastly, Medicaid. AMIN costs are significant for Medicaid, moderate for private insurance, and minimal for Medicare. Given the following distribution of ADMIN costs, Medicaid ought to be absorbed within a federal program. This action will save $19 billion each year.

Medicare Operations = 3% Medicaid Operations = 8%

Private Insurance Operations = 21% Senate Fin. Comm. to Give = 35%

GOLDEN FLEECE AWARD!!!

§ 1.28.3.4.2 –
Medicaid funding is insufficient. Medicaid payments to providers are 60 percent of costs. Medicare payments to providers are 85 percent of costs. Insufficiently paid public programs meant that providers shifted the cost to private insurance, but, now that private insurance dictates provider payments, that’s not possible. Providers must absorb costs of insufficiently funded public programs. That is usually feasible when providers have 15% of patients on public insurance, but, when 85 percent of patients are on public insurance, as in many underserved regions, the provider is forced to no longer accept public health patients. When providers must relocate from a region because they can’t afford to provide services, public health and private health patients both incur hardship and it defeats the ultimate objective of programs such as the National Health Service Corps. Thus, payments for the typical Medicare service ought to be increased by at least ten percent. Medicaid payments ought to be uniform (sometimes payments differ by 50 percent for adjacent states) and increased by at least 25 percent so that payments are not allowed to be less than 85 percent of private insurance companies fees for services nor less than 10 percent of costs for the procedure in that region. Medicaid specifies that no provider shall ever offer services different to its patients than to private paying patients. Low Medicaid payments result in rationing of health services to the few providers who care for Medicaid patients and these patients must often travel two hours to see a specialist who accepts public health insurance.

§ 1.28.3.4.3 – Standardized public healthcare would eliminate inequitable services to patients (some people on Medicaid receive such terrible Mental Health treatment in one state will move to the next state in order to obtain needed services or medications that are not approved in their home state).

§ 1.28.3.4.4 - The US government must adequately fund services for Medicaid and Medicare if it also wants to expand coverage to the uninsured. Otherwise, providers who currently accept a patient mix of 50 percent on public insurance will suddenly experience a 17 percent increase in total patients, only to go bankrupt.

§ 1.28.3.4.5 - Comprehensive QA must be available to provide immediate consultations. The current system offers automated responses to questions. This impersonal system is not effective for STAT circumstances. If Medicaid wishes to have similar sets of pre-authorizations as private insurers, then it must provide comparable support systems so that providers can provide services without taking risks that are later deemed unpayable by Medicaid.

“We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.” - Sir Winston Churchill


§ 1.28.4.12 Long Term Structural Study

While I believe that the above system may, indeed, be an excellent structure in which each of the delineated goals is addressed, I also believe that an ongoing international study be conducted to determine what elements, procedures, etc. are efficacious and not efficacious across nations. This study ought to, of course, examine the US as a whole and regional differences. Recommendations based, ultimately, upon quality and cost would be made available.

ust because a long term study is recommended, it does not negate the need to implement a comprehensive health care reform plan. Time is of the essence.


§ 1.28.6
Private Insurance Requirements:

§ 1.28.6.1 – Eliminate pre-existing conditions clauses. An assessment of a modest 10 percent premium might be permitted in select cases, determined by the government, in matters of choice, such as smoking and obesity.

§ 1.28.6.2 -
Insurance companies may not drop individuals who contract chronic or terminal illnesses. Premium payments might continue during a chronic illness, but, insurance companies must pay for all covered health care expenses if the chronically ill, care giver, or executor pay premiums, even retroactively.

§ 1.28.6.3 - Insurance companies, not-for-profits, and public programs would not be allowed to increase premiums, co-payments, co-insurances, deductibles, and annual out-of-pocket maximums beyond a rate that is tied to the general rate of inflation (say 10 percent above inflation, so that if the inflation rate were 5.0 percent, health care costs could not increase more than 5.5 percent) on a PP basis. As baby boomers age, such restriction would result in a net effect of reduced services for high end users or at least more severe disproportional payments from younger to older persons.

§ 1.28.6.4 - Insurance provided by private employers is set by fee established by Congress. Government assistance is based, in part, on need and regional expenses. But, the amount of government assistance is limited to encourage responsible parenting.

§ 1.28.6.5 - This plan would provide all insurance companies the opportunity to provide health coverage across state lines, compete in a completely fair and transparent manner, and increase their potential markets.

§ 1.28.6.6 - Individuals would be limited to total payments caps. For those with an income equal to 150 percent of the FPL, no more than x percent of their gross income can go to premiums, co-payments, co-insurances, and deductibles. For those with a FPL of 300 percent, no more than x + 2 percent of gross income ought to go to health care. For those with a FPL of 450 percent or more, no more than x + 4 percent of gross income ought to go to health care. Thereafter, all “medically necessary” expenses will be covered by the government and “medically recommended and elective” procedures will be reviewed.

§ 1.28.6.7 - For each full year where an employee works for an employer, that employer will provide one month of health insurance coverage, with at least one month, following discharge from employment, to be calculated using the employee’s past salary as well as current company bonuses, profits, and investments. This benefit will max out at twelve months for twelve years of service. This benefit is only available IF the employee is unemployed and eligible for unemployment compensation and is not terminated from unemployment compensation due to one’s own malfeasance or neglect.

“No sound ought to be heard in the church but the healing voice of Christian charity.” - Edmund Burke


§ 1.29.0 UNDERSTANDING

§ 1.29.1 These are difficult times. Even when meeting those with whom we fundamentally disagree, they give us an opportunity to better learn from their concerns and fears and gives us an opportunity to practice understanding.

§ 1.29.1.1 – We all expect our retirement fund manager to make decisions that will give retirement accounts big wins. So, he invests in profitable companies. There’s tremendous pressure for insurance, drug, and health care companies to increasingly outperform. CEOs that outperform themselves each fiscal quarter are compensated generously. Those that don’t are fired and forgotten.

§ 1.29.1.2 –On average, doctors invest $800,000 for tuition and start up costs, 11 years of education with little to no income, where, in other nations, education is free. Shouldn’t doctors earn a fair Return On their Investment, too?

§ 1.29.1.3 – Mary Ann loves her Medicare. She doesn’t have those pesky private insurance bureaucrats who used to deny care. Medicare (and her supplemental policy) pay for everything and she rarely even gets a (confusing) statement or bill in the mail. She’s afraid that public programs will cover “lazy” people to drunk to contribute to society, young adults too selfish to get insurance and share her burdens [AKA, transfer their dollars to her as she’d done for the elderly for 40 years until her own retirement]. She’s concerned that including the uninsured in the pool or providing a public option may lower the quality of her own health insurance.

§ 1.29.1.4 - I appreciate the fear people have about the slippery slope that public health care could lead to socialism and threaten the profits of giant health care conglomerates.

§ 1.29.1. 5 - I feel the fear of the single mom with two children who was recently diagnosed with cancer and dropped by her private insurance. By the time she fights all of the review, authorization, and appeal boards, she might well already have died not having been able to receive the treatment she’d paid for all this time, leaving her children alone for the state.

§ 1.29.1. 6 -I heard a number – 14,000 people every day are now losing their health care. In the time that I’ve been writing this proposal (200 days), 2.8 million people have lost their insurance. I don’t make it a habit of quoting Stalin, but, didn’t he say something to the effect of, “one person’s death is a tragedy. One million people’s deaths is a statistic.” When, as Americans, do we shut down, the real-life tragedies merge into a combined statistic that is more easy for us to ignore. Psychologists call it cognitive dissonance. We ignore those things that challenge our own belief systems or our own behaviors. So, in order to justify our ignoring the needs of millions of souls around us, we ignore the tragic stories. The numbers, for us, as Stalin said, become mere statistics.

§ 1.30.0 HOPE: THE NEW INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION: HEALTH CARE

“Don't look down on anyone unless you are helping them up.”

§ 1.30.1 The current health care crisis gives us an opportunity to dig our way out of this mounting debt; provides a new sense of purpose as caring Americans; increases employment; introduces a new period of economic prosperity; and, assures better health, ways toward a longer lifespan, higher quality of services, and much improved Quality of Life (QOL) for all Americans.

§ 1.30.2 The US has shifted since 1600 from hunter-gathers, agrarian, industrial, electronic, to, presently, health services economies. Embrace currently that we are in a health care economy. In my opinion, %GPD PP of health care should not matter, as long as: (1) services are high quality and efficient, (2) the US packages and exports its new health care product overseas. Investments in research, education, prevention, intervention and technologies must increase and must be exported, for profit, overseas.

§ 1.30.3 US health care must be exported and we must encourage investments in foreign health care. Joint international enterprises must be encouraged between private and public investments.

§ 1.30.4 WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THIS – We can effectively reduce US health care spending by $500 billion a year and improve quality of health care and cover ALL Americans! The shift in spending on 4% of our economy might have some adverse short term effects on our economy, but, in the long term, saves money.

§ 1.30.6 We can shift some of our resources, using joint international public and private partnerships, to help other nations’ health care while employing more Americans and generating increasing profits.

§ 1.30.7 Health care generates the highest paying jobs in the US economy. We must be careful not to save money by replacing $250,000 physicians with $18,000 clerks.


§ 1.31.0 MEDICAID AND MEDICARE AREN’T WORKING

“History is a signpost for the future...”

§1.31.1 Medicaid and Medicare are grossly underfunded public programs. They pay providers much less than the cost of actually providing services, about 85 percent and 60 percent of costs, respectively. Providers used to be able to pass on public costs to private payers and insurance companies, but, now that oligopolistic insurance companies set prices and fees, providers can’t do this anymore, thus, providers must “eat the losses”.

§ 1.31.2 All providers who have worked with Medicaid know that it is not efficacious. Medicare is substantially better and more satisfying to patients and providers. It’s also the least expensive to manage, at 3 percent versus Medicaid’s 8 percent and private insurances’ current 21 percent.

§ 1.31.3 Providers with a choice don’t accept Medicaid and Medicare. Providers in underserved regions have little choice, as the majority of patients are on public insurance. Given the over-representation of Medicare and Medicaid users in underserved regions, their sub-cost pay scales must be factored into the logic of providers locating or not in an underserved region.

§ 1.31.4 If we’re to give public insurance a go, we must increase payments to the level of, at least, costs.

§ 1.31.5 None of us want fraud and abuse of our tax money, whether it’s the tens of billions of “misplaced” dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the hundreds of billions given to and lost by banks and Wall Street firms, or fraudulent spending in public health insurance.

§ 1.31.6 Not only have Medicaid and Medicare experienced medical inflation much higher than regular inflation, but, the number of people eligible for these public programs is also increasing at a rate faster than the population growth rate. Attempts to control spending have been designed by bureaucrats and lobbyists and they are ineffective. New systems of controlling spending must be researched by a Citizen’s Panel, recommendations made and implemented. This citizen’s panel ought to include some citizens, a forensic accountant, economist, and several representative providers

§ 1.32.0 PRIVATE INSURANCE ISN’T WORKING

“The lower self is greedy, teach it to be content.” - Islamic Proverb

§ 1.32.1 The intersection of greed and health care is littered with many corpses. I love capitalism, but, it deserves and requires greater regulation when the stakes are great. If the US extended the average lifespan to equal that of the average OECD nation, we would have 270,000 fewer deaths each year! That’s 10 times the lives saved through gun regulation!

§ 1.32.2 Providers are denied their requests for care much more often by private than public programs. Private health insurance companies’ ADMIN costs are 7 TIMES that of other OECD nations’ administrative costs. Why such a substantial difference?

§ 1.32.3 Private companies justify bigger profits through expanding costs. So, they pad the payroll to make it look like they cut costs from gate-keeping of inexpensive procedures, justifying bigger expenses and bigger profits. At the same time, they “blindly” cover the most expensive procedures ($40,000 bypass surgeries or $50,000 breathing medicines), because a $50,000 cost will equal a $6,000 profit. Of course, private health insurance companies do not discourage lifestyles that result in costly services later on. Why would they? They’re not paid to provide prevention, they just pay for expensive health procedures. Thus, private insurance grows ever larger as Americans die younger and younger.

§ 1.32.4 GOLDEN FLEECE AWARD: The CEO of United Healthcare received a bonus of stock valued at $1.6 billion on top of his $8 million annual salary. Now, in my mind, $8 million is very reasonable compensation for someone with those kinds of responsibilities. But, when a CEO receives bonuses greater than the entire REPORTED profit of that corporation, my mind starts wondering if their accountants are as clever as the accountants from Enron? UH is one of the biggest spenders on lobbying against changing the status quo. What does UH have to gain from maintaining the status quo? Billions of dollars in profits until the bubble breaks.

§ 1.34.0 POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY

“I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.” - John Locke

“Plans are only good intentions unless they immediately degenerate into hard work.” - Peter Drucker


“Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right.” - Islamic Proverb

God made the illusion look real
and the real an illusion.
He concealed the sea
and made the foam visible,
the wind invisible,
and the dust manifest.
you see the dust whirling,
but how can the dust rise by itself?
you see the foam, but not the ocean.
invoke Him with deeds, not words;
for deeds are real
and will save you in the infinite-life.


- Rumi

§ 1.33.1 Lobbying groups spend money. Money influences and, in the unfortunate cases, buys politicians. More money rests on this health care reform than any decision ever made by Congress. I discuss lobbying and campaign contributions later.

§ 1.33.2 What if I were to donate $1,000 to every candidate who opposes a congressperson who votes against comprehensive health care reform? I urge every voting, non-lobbying American to do the same, to the extent that you can. Everyone must tell their congressmen of their well formed, researched thoughts on health care reform.

“Well done is better than well said.” - Benjamin Franklin

§ 1.34.0 CRISES NOW & ON THE HORIZON

§ 1.34.1 Insurance companies’ financial reserves have declined (look at real estate and the stock market). The loss of these cushions threatens the short-term survival of some giant insurance providers.

§ 1.34.2 A stalled economy is associated with greater demand for health care services (an unemployed wife might begin to get stress-related migraine headaches and could get depressed).

§ 1.34.3 The increasing age of Americans means that more of us will be vulnerable to diseases associated with age. For example, a 33 percent increase in Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) is anticipated in coming years.

§ 1.34.4 As Americans grow obese, we are more likely to develop diabetes and heart disease, even cancer, propelling future costs.

§ 1.34.5 Americans’ lifestyles are a more dangerous threat than terrorism. More Americans die in one year from unhealthy lifestyles than all people in the world during the 20th century during non-war times. As such, Americans must exercise, eat more healthily and consume fewer calories, take the time to enhance mental health, reduce toxin exposure, and follow research.

§ 1.34.6 I briefly introduce discussion on global warming. If it is a valid concept, then we ought to examine the effects of previous climate changes to the planet and our survival. We must act proactively in identifying diseases (e.g., used to be equatorial but will increase prevalence in more polar climates – what greater susceptibility might we have to these diseases or to diseases due to changes in the ozone layer, e.g., skin cancers).

§ 1.34.7 We’re all concerned with terrorism. Violence is used more frequently and with more destruction. We must
prepare for the eventual use of these tactics on civilian populations. We must invest in research, prevention, rehearsal, equipment, first responder training, and FEMA services. School children practiced hopping under their desks in case a nuclear bomb exploded nearby. Helping the public to practice and prepare for such disasters seems logical – along with realistic threat assessments

§ 1.34.8
We must act, now, responsibly.

The individual serves the industrial system not by supplying it with savings and the resulting capital; he serves it by consuming its products.” - John Kenneth Galbraith.

No comments:

Post a Comment