Healthcare and Hypocrites; but, not the one's you think.

Lets talk about the Affordable Healthcare Act, frequently referred to as Obamacare. I often hear people go on a rant about the bill; but, I haven't yet met anyone who has even read it or knows what it does. I read things said by conservatives that are completely irrational, some went so far as to say that it would require everyone to have an RFID chip in them and that is pure nonsense. This post is not really about the bill, it is about the manipulation that goes on around us and how it is achieved.

The first lie is that it is Obama's healthcare bill, it is not. This bill was being worked on long before he even entered the scene. While he signed it into law, it was passed by congress and it took Republicans and Democrats to pass it. The history behind it is pretty simple, we have known for decades that the baby boomers would begin retiring and need more healthcare at a time when the United States would be less and less of an economic powerhouse and fewer and fewer employers would be providing healthcare insurance. In fact, one of Bush Jr's first action items when he got into office was to put together a team to plan for dealing with an aging boomer population.

Without action Medicaid and Medicare would simply fail. Doctor's would refuse to participate and largest part of our population would go without services at the time they need it the most. The Republicans knew this and the Democrats knew this. The options are also pretty simple. Firstly, we could leave things as they were and watch our parents and grandparents get no healthcare. Secondly, we could nationalize healthcare as is done in some other countries. Thirdly, we could institute mandatory healthcare coverage for everyone and let the different providers compete to see who does the best. They chose the third way.

A little over a year ago, I wrote, "Once it is in place, tax payers will insist that all civil servants be on it and be taken off of private policies." Technically, I misspoke as it is a private policy; but, with government backing and subsidies. What I was explaining was that the same people in congress who claimed to be against it would require government employees to then be on it. That is hypocrisy, actually, it is worse, it was just deceitful.

Now here is a link to an article I read today. I should point out that when I retire next year, I retire with private insurance for life and am paying a hefty chunk to do so. NewsMax - IRS Workers Want Out of Obamacare. Here is how this goes, Dave Camp a Republican on the House Ways and Means committee is seeking to put all IRS employees into the "Obamacare" program even though they already have health insurance. A Forbes article made the following statement according to the article linked above, ""Nonetheless, it would be a very good thing for some federal employees to eat their own cooking, especially those who work for Congress, the IRS, and the Department of Health and Human Services," the Forbes report concludes. "They're the ones who are writing the Obamacare regulations; they're the ones who, in many cases, wrote the law itself." That is simply another lie. The IRS did not write the bill and it wasn't until last year that the Supreme Court even ruled that it was a tax bill, to the surprise of many.

As far as Presidents go, I didn't like the Bush family, I didn't like Clinton and I don't like Obama. I liked Reagan, I liked Carter (he was a good man and a bad president) and I liked Kennedy. I am mixed on Nixon, he was a good President; but, a dodgy character. I also do not and have not ever worked for the Federal government. I digress.

If Mr. Camp was truly against this law, he would introduce a bill that prohibited government employees from participating in it. According to Forbes it will result in higher costs. Why would Mr. Camp, again if he is against it, want government employees to pay more for less when in the end, they are his employees? He is simply playing a pretty obvious PR move. What then is the real effect of putting all government employees in these programs? Well, it destroys the companies that will not participate in these programs.

If the Republicans had really wanted to stop "Obamacare", they could have, they stopped the Clintons from instituting an almost identical plan when Bill was in office. Now, lets look at what the bill did.

Wikipedia - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. What follows below in bold italics is from the article.

1. Guaranteed issue will require policies to be issued regardless of any medical condition, and partial community rating will require insurers to offer the same premium to all applicants of the same age and geographical location without regard to gender or most pre-existing conditions (excluding tobacco use).[14][15][16]

2. A shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate,[17] requires all individuals not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs, to secure an approved private-insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship.[18] This was included on the rationale that - without such a mandate, a form of community rating, and coverage standards - the guaranteed issue provision would likely exacerbate adverse selection: if people could not be denied insurance by companies they might put-off insuring themselves until they got sick, causing insurers to resort to larger premium increases on sick individuals and more extensive coverage limits to afford the remaining insured population, which could result in an insurance death spiral.[19][20] This led to the inclusion of subsidies (see below) so people with low-incomes can comply when the mandate goes into effect.[21]

3. Health insurance exchanges will commence operation in each state, offering a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can compare policies and premiums, and buy insurance (with a government subsidy if eligible).[22]

4. Low-income individuals and families above 100% and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies[23] on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (those from 133% to 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be 3% to 4% of income).[24]

5. The text of the law expands Medicaid eligibility to include all individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the poverty level, and simplifies the CHIP enrollment process. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court effectively allowed states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, and some states have stated their intention to do so. States that choose to reject the Medicaid expansion can set their own Medicaid eligibility thresholds, which in many states are significantly below 133% of the poverty line; in addition, many states do not make Medicaid available to childless adults at any income level. Because subsidies on insurance plans purchased through exchanges are not available to those below 100% of the poverty line, this may create a coverage gap in those states.[25][26][27]

6. Minimum standards for health insurance policies are to be established[28] (an 'essential health benefits'[29]), and annual and lifetime coverage caps will be banned.[30][31][32]

7. Firms employing 50 or more people but not offering health insurance will also pay a shared responsibility requirement if the government has had to subsidize an employee's health care.[33][34]

8. Very small businesses will be able to get subsidies if they purchase insurance through an exchange.[35]

9. Co-payments, co-insurance, and deductibles are to be eliminated for select health care insurance benefits considered to be part of the "essential benefits package"[29] for Level A or Level B preventive care.[36][37]
10. Changes are enacted that allow a restructuring of Medicare reimbursement from "fee-for-service" to "bundled payment."[38][39] A single payment is paid to a hospital and a physician group, for example, for a defined episode of care (such as a hip replacement), rather than individual payments to individual service-providers.


What really depresses me is that we don't see a real discussion about the real issues, we just get political maneuvering and spin. Here are the real issues, as I see them.

1. Should everyone have health insurance? Since 1989 the Republican party pushed for mandating everyone to be required to pay for it. Romney himself touted the healthcare law that was passed under him and signed into law in Massachusetts.
2. If everyone shouldn't have to have health insurance, who should go without and should they still get some level of medical services, for instance in an emergency?
3. What should be the minimal level of coverage?

Those are the biggest issues. Here is where it starts to get dodgy. What are our choices for how we bring costs down?

I think what we are going to see is a push to have more and more people using technology to constantly monitor their health. Not long ago I wrote about a wristband that does just that. I also know that apps are being developed to monitor and analyze your health and even notify your doctor if you are in distress. Should high risk people be required to have such devices if they refuse to change their lifestyle?

Imagine that you have a company with a thousand employees and you have to provide healthcare insurance for them all. You are absolutely against Obamacare and find the idea of having to provide healthcare insurance an intrusion on your free will. Because it is the law, you comply. You discover that people who have these health monitoring devices provide you with a cheaper premium, will you require your employees to use them? If so, how would what you do be any different then what the government did?

There was a time in America when we actually cared about one another and our communities. People committed to their company and their companies committed to them. If you did a good job, you had a job for life. If you went through hard times, your company was there for you. That all went away when the owners of companies stopped being owners and became simply investors. This post is not about healthcare, it is about us as a nation. We work together or we come apart.

I am not a big proponent of globalism, I believe in national self-determination, I believe in freedom of variation. I believe the true globalist agenda can only succeed if we fail to believe that we as a nation are all in this together and that means that we support each other. There are those who praise nationalism; but, deride the concept of collectivism. That is an oxymoron. National sovereignty can only exist when you have a national identity and work together for the benefit of your nation, at least to some degree. Benjamin Franklin said, "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."

I read a lot of news. I read right wing, left wing and alternative news. I have read things by people who claim to be "patriots" and then decry "collectivism". Many miss the boat. How can we be a nation when it is everyone for himself? How can we be successful when we allow half our population to live at a poverty level? The best America has ever achieved was after world war II and prior to the our implosion. The 50s and 60s were a time of our greatest national achievements and they were accomplished because of a strong middle class.

W. Edwards Deming had some profound thoughts on productivity. He used this equation.


(a) When people and organizations focus primarily on quality, defined by the following ratio,

Quality = Results of work efforts\ Total costs

quality tends to increase and costs fall over time.

(b) However, when people and organizations focus primarily on costs, costs tend to rise and quality declines over time.

The history of management theory used to take into account quality and a educated and dedicated workforce. That is not what business focuses on anymore. Instead of developing the nations workforce, companies seek to hire only experienced people. Lets look at a real life example of this. Apple computer. Steve Jobs founded the company, it was his life and he was totally committed to the product not just to a profit. He was removed from the company once it went public by people who were totally committed to the profit and not the product, as a consequence, the company almost went bankrupt. He came back and revitalized the product and the company increased it's profits.

The same is true for a nation. We succeed based on what we are committed to. If we are committed to a better life for all our people then we will achieve that because we will all work towards that. What would we rather this country look like in 10 years, Sweden where they have national healthcare and take care of their poorest or some third world nation where you have a few rich and everyone else just getting by if they are lucky? I know the statistic and we are not working to becoming like Sweden.

2 Timothy 3

1 "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was."

The first four certainly were demonstrated in the American culture for since the 80s. The fourth is a pretty good description of much of the church today. A form of godliness, not one that truly believes in loving and caring for our neighbor as ourselves. The ninth is where we are now. Look at the Stock Market scandals, look at the manipulation of all markets and the complete corruption of the banking system and the political system.

In "Gone With The Wind" there is a great line. I think it is Rhett Butler that says it, he says that there are two times when you can make a lot of money, when a nation is dying and when a nation is growing. You make it much faster when it is dying. I watched and read many stock brokers and commodity dealers who say that our western economies are going to crash and then tell you how to profit from it. You can make more money, quicker with options trading where you bet against a company succeeding then you can by owning stock in the company and profiting if it does well. We have designed a system that pays people when it fails, that is insanity.