"There is always death and taxes; however, death doesn't get worse every year."
~Author Unknown
Nothing has been more controversial in the healthcare debate than the question of whether or not so-called “death panels” actually exist within the structure of the healthcare bill. Those that have expressed concern about this have been dismissed as crazy and denigrated by the proponents of healthcare reform. As I stated in previous posts, what makes me concerned about the healthcare bill is not what it says, but what it does not say.
I have received many e-mails citing provisions in the bill for “End of life counseling” (H.R. 3200, page 425-427) through which the authors claim that this is the smoking gun of the death panel. If I had merely skimmed through the table of contents I might have jumped to the same conclusion. Fortunately, I’m one of those silly people with too much time on my hands so I actually read the provisions.
“End of life counseling” is simply not a dark attempt on the part of government to convince people that should choose death over treatment. It is not the means whereby government will hasten the demise of the elderly nor will it direct doctor’s to deny care for aging patients. The counseling is designed to provide people over 65 with a complete understanding of their rights and meant to allow them to make rational decisions about writing a living will that states what their desires are and how to appoint a family member as a proxy to insure those desires are carried out. The pages in question also contain specific instructions that spell out the doctor’s responsibility to adhere to those provisions.
While the “end of life counseling” directives are benign by themselves, there are real hidden dangers within the healthcare bill. First of all, the actual benefit packages are not clearly defined. The benefits will be decided and administered through a “Health Benefits Advisory Committee” (H.R. 3200, page 30 line 11, through page 32, line 25).
The committee, as proposed, will be comprised of the Surgeon General as Chair (an appointee of the President), nine non-government employees that are to be appointed by the president, nine non-government employees that are to be appointed by the Comptroller General (who by the way, is also a Presidential appointee) and no more than eight government employees that are to be appointed by the President. Does anyone see a trend here?
But wait! There’s more! Descriptions of the required qualifications of those appointed to the committee are also spelled out. The actual language of the bill states:
“The membership of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall at least reflect providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in healthcare financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies. and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on children’s health and shall represent a balance among various sectors of the health care system so that no single sector unduly influences the recommendations of such Committee.”
I suppose we can take solace that there is a requirement that there must be at least one doctor out of the twenty-seven people that will decide our fates but I suspect that the Surgeon General already fulfills that requirement. There are no provisions within the bill that would require the appointees to present their qualifications to the American people or that they will fall under the rules of “Advise and Consent” that would require Senate confirmation but then again, this administration was never really that big on the Senate confirmation process.
If we are left to imagine what our benefits will look like if this bill is passed as written, then is fair to examine the ideology of the individuals that the President has already appointed. Let’s start with the ones that will most likely influence the formation of benefits under the new healthcare plan.
Ezekiel Emanuel, currently acting as Special Advisor for Health Policy to Peter Orszag, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is a graduate of Harvard University, University of Oxford and Amherst College. He has a history of statements reflecting a belief that when resources are limited, that healthcare must be administrated to focus care on the individuals that represent the greatest contribution to society. In his own words: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."
John Holdren, the President’s special advisor for science and technology (the Science Czar) is a graduate of MIT and Stanford University. He previously taught at UCLA Berkley and was chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Holdren is an environmental activist that believes the foundation of environmental science must begin with a drive to reduce population numbers. In 1977, he co-authored a book, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment” which proposed radical solutions to population growth including coercive government sterilization programs for families with more than two children, the mandatory sterilization of “undesirables” and even the introduction of sterilizing agents into public water supplies.
I am sure you realize that if we are racing headlong towards healthcare reform to avert financial ruin that we are entering the arena with limited resources. It will be up to the twenty-six new Presidential appointees required by this legislation to determine how those resources will be managed. Based on the President’s current appointments, are you comfortable allowing this new committee to determine how much care you will actually receive?
The annual benefit limits spelled out on pages 29 and 30 of the healthcare bill are already ludicrous and anyone that has been to the hospital in the past few years can easily see the danger. That passage says:
(2) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—
(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph (B).
(B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.
Cost sharing annual limitation is what would be considered your deductible under private healthcare insurance. Even though this deducible is extraordinarily high, the worse news is that it represents thirty percent (30%) of the estimated benefit level. If you run the numbers based on a 30/70 split, that estimate represents a total investment of roughly $17,000 per individual and $34,000 for a family per year.
If AARP thought they would sell more supplemental care policies under this plan then they haven’t read the passage on co-payments either. That one says:
(C) USE OF COPAYMENTS.—
In establishing cost-sharing levels for basic, enhanced, and premium plans under this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible, use only copayments and not coinsurance.
Currently, private healthcare insurers routinely make decisions to deny certain care options for a myriad of reasons. As long as private care is available, the patient then has the option to pursue those treatment options outside of the insurance plan and pay directly for those services. In England, private care has been replaced by a government controlled system and those options are simply not available for any amount of money. That is why so many people from countries that already have socialized medicine flock here for medical treatment.
We have already concluded that the healthcare bill is, in fact, a Trojan horse that over time will decimate private insurance and bring us to a single payer, government controlled healthcare system. When that happens, the letter of denial you receive from the U.S. healthcare plan will be the final word and you had better make sure you have enough saved to seek treatment in a country where it is still for sale. That is unless the “death panel” takes over control of the visa process too.
Nothing has been more controversial in the healthcare debate than the question of whether or not so-called “death panels” actually exist within the structure of the healthcare bill. Those that have expressed concern about this have been dismissed as crazy and denigrated by the proponents of healthcare reform. As I stated in previous posts, what makes me concerned about the healthcare bill is not what it says, but what it does not say.
I have received many e-mails citing provisions in the bill for “End of life counseling” (H.R. 3200, page 425-427) through which the authors claim that this is the smoking gun of the death panel. If I had merely skimmed through the table of contents I might have jumped to the same conclusion. Fortunately, I’m one of those silly people with too much time on my hands so I actually read the provisions.
“End of life counseling” is simply not a dark attempt on the part of government to convince people that should choose death over treatment. It is not the means whereby government will hasten the demise of the elderly nor will it direct doctor’s to deny care for aging patients. The counseling is designed to provide people over 65 with a complete understanding of their rights and meant to allow them to make rational decisions about writing a living will that states what their desires are and how to appoint a family member as a proxy to insure those desires are carried out. The pages in question also contain specific instructions that spell out the doctor’s responsibility to adhere to those provisions.
While the “end of life counseling” directives are benign by themselves, there are real hidden dangers within the healthcare bill. First of all, the actual benefit packages are not clearly defined. The benefits will be decided and administered through a “Health Benefits Advisory Committee” (H.R. 3200, page 30 line 11, through page 32, line 25).
The committee, as proposed, will be comprised of the Surgeon General as Chair (an appointee of the President), nine non-government employees that are to be appointed by the president, nine non-government employees that are to be appointed by the Comptroller General (who by the way, is also a Presidential appointee) and no more than eight government employees that are to be appointed by the President. Does anyone see a trend here?
But wait! There’s more! Descriptions of the required qualifications of those appointed to the committee are also spelled out. The actual language of the bill states:
“The membership of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall at least reflect providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in healthcare financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies. and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on children’s health and shall represent a balance among various sectors of the health care system so that no single sector unduly influences the recommendations of such Committee.”
I suppose we can take solace that there is a requirement that there must be at least one doctor out of the twenty-seven people that will decide our fates but I suspect that the Surgeon General already fulfills that requirement. There are no provisions within the bill that would require the appointees to present their qualifications to the American people or that they will fall under the rules of “Advise and Consent” that would require Senate confirmation but then again, this administration was never really that big on the Senate confirmation process.
If we are left to imagine what our benefits will look like if this bill is passed as written, then is fair to examine the ideology of the individuals that the President has already appointed. Let’s start with the ones that will most likely influence the formation of benefits under the new healthcare plan.
Ezekiel Emanuel, currently acting as Special Advisor for Health Policy to Peter Orszag, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is a graduate of Harvard University, University of Oxford and Amherst College. He has a history of statements reflecting a belief that when resources are limited, that healthcare must be administrated to focus care on the individuals that represent the greatest contribution to society. In his own words: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."
John Holdren, the President’s special advisor for science and technology (the Science Czar) is a graduate of MIT and Stanford University. He previously taught at UCLA Berkley and was chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Holdren is an environmental activist that believes the foundation of environmental science must begin with a drive to reduce population numbers. In 1977, he co-authored a book, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment” which proposed radical solutions to population growth including coercive government sterilization programs for families with more than two children, the mandatory sterilization of “undesirables” and even the introduction of sterilizing agents into public water supplies.
I am sure you realize that if we are racing headlong towards healthcare reform to avert financial ruin that we are entering the arena with limited resources. It will be up to the twenty-six new Presidential appointees required by this legislation to determine how those resources will be managed. Based on the President’s current appointments, are you comfortable allowing this new committee to determine how much care you will actually receive?
The annual benefit limits spelled out on pages 29 and 30 of the healthcare bill are already ludicrous and anyone that has been to the hospital in the past few years can easily see the danger. That passage says:
(2) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—
(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph (B).
(B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.
Cost sharing annual limitation is what would be considered your deductible under private healthcare insurance. Even though this deducible is extraordinarily high, the worse news is that it represents thirty percent (30%) of the estimated benefit level. If you run the numbers based on a 30/70 split, that estimate represents a total investment of roughly $17,000 per individual and $34,000 for a family per year.
If AARP thought they would sell more supplemental care policies under this plan then they haven’t read the passage on co-payments either. That one says:
(C) USE OF COPAYMENTS.—
In establishing cost-sharing levels for basic, enhanced, and premium plans under this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible, use only copayments and not coinsurance.
Currently, private healthcare insurers routinely make decisions to deny certain care options for a myriad of reasons. As long as private care is available, the patient then has the option to pursue those treatment options outside of the insurance plan and pay directly for those services. In England, private care has been replaced by a government controlled system and those options are simply not available for any amount of money. That is why so many people from countries that already have socialized medicine flock here for medical treatment.
We have already concluded that the healthcare bill is, in fact, a Trojan horse that over time will decimate private insurance and bring us to a single payer, government controlled healthcare system. When that happens, the letter of denial you receive from the U.S. healthcare plan will be the final word and you had better make sure you have enough saved to seek treatment in a country where it is still for sale. That is unless the “death panel” takes over control of the visa process too.
No comments:
Post a Comment