The Wealth of Nations and Health Care Spending: No Surprises Here

0

Category : Random Musings

I discovered a quite well-researched and penetrating analysis of health care spending this morning on R.C. Hoetzlein's Web site. Not that there's really anything groundbreaking or new here, but he does a nice job of providing good reference links and crossing a lot of T's and dotting a lot of I's.

What I drew from his work was the observation that health care spending across the globe pretty much tracks the wealth of nations. The wealthier nations tend to spend more of their GDP on health care, probably reflecting a desire to do so by the populace.

The one exception is Japan, but having once worked in Japan, I must say it's not a place where you'd want to get sick unless you had lots of money and/or lots of connections.

A graph follows, but I can't vouch for its graphic quality:

chart of health care spending worldwide v. GDP of each nation

With Health Care Costs Down, Time for Govt. to Screw Things Up

0

Category : Federal Labor Law

health care spending With Health Care Costs Down, Time for Govt. to Screw Things UpHealth care costs have been ameliorating, annual increase-wise, since 2002, with 2008 showing an increase of just 4.4 percent, the lowest in 50 years.

So how does the government react? It comes up with a plan to raise everyone's premiums by mandating coverage for all people, regardless of age, health or pre-existing conditions. Now, of course, it's ideal that everyone be covered, but what the Democrats cover up don't talk about is that it's more expensive to cover everyone, and someone has to pay.

They can hide some of the cost increases through deficit spending and hidden taxes (on the so-called wealthy or on "Cadillac health plans"), but ultimately the costs all rebound to the users, either in terms of higher insurance premiums (guaranteed under Obamacare), longer waits for treatment and medicines (ditto), or flat-out rationing (ditto redux).

Look for all three if so-called health care reform passes.

Senate: Go Ahead and Keep Your Insurance if You’re That Stupid

0

Category : Federal Labor Law, Random Musings

The Kennedy plan to take over health care and remake it in the image of himself has–snare drums please–sailed out of committee with a resounding majority party vote in favor. In short, the Democrats steamrollered a bill through committee with nary a concession to opponents, living or dead. What else is new?

So, now we bring you Kennedycare!

I spent good parts of the morning reading through a summary of the bill (which will have to be reconciled with a competing bill being written in the Finance Committee, and then presumably with whatever far-left “solution” comes out of the House), and the disingenuousness of it all was what struck me most.

The whole thing is blatantly and patently designed to kill off private health insurance in America. It sets up all kinds of impractical standards that no for-profit insurance plan could ever reach without going bankrupt and then feigns to let insurers off the hook with a throw-in line, “Existing health plans are exempt from the requirements specified….”

Of course, it exempts them because it wants the private plans to be compared to the “Public Option” (not fully explained in the bill, deliberately). Once that comparison is made, the public will rush to the better equipped public plan. Goodbye health care as we know it, folks.

Then, I love this line, which is so condescending as to be an affront to all of us: “If individuals like their current coverage, they can keep it.”

Sure, we’ll all keep our horse-driven buggies (private insurance) when our neighbors are driving supercharged Cadillacs (the public plan).

If the Democrats want to socialize medicine (“if” haha), they should have the guts to admit it. Don’t play us all like a bunch of fools.

The next stage of this charade will take place sometime after the 2010 elections (assuming Democrats retain a filibuster-proof majority) when the cry goes out that the only way to balance the public health plan’s budget is to take over the whole system. Voila, socialized medicine, signed, sealed and delivered in the name of “affordable (haha) health care” and “universal access.”

Duelling Memos: Baucus Enjoins Kennedy in Battle

0

Category : Federal Labor Law, Random Musings

This past week saw Ted Kennedy and his Senate Committee on Health (and a zillion other things) issue a paper on how the Massachusetts Senator envisions America’s new health care system. Now, his counterpart over in Senate Finance, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, has joined the fray with his own paper on the subject.

Actually, there’s not much difference in the two, but Baucus reveals some juicy details about how the Obamacrats intend to enforce rationing of health care (which they still won’t admit is on the table, but they cloak it under the concept of “clinical (read: cost) effectiveness”).

In envisioning a Health Fed to run the nation’s doctors and hospitals (modeled after the Federal Reserve in both its overweening power and its so-called political independence), Baucus proposes a $10,000 fine for each instance of “medically improper or unnecessary care.”

Now, about that hip replacement you wanted to get after the age of 60, forget it. It’s unnecessary since you won’t be able to work long enough to justify the expense. (This is actually the policy in Great Britain.)

To paraphrase Al Davis, “Just suffer, baby.”

Personnel Concepts Jumps on the White Paper Bandwagon

16

Category : Random Musings

I’ve always liked the BLR (Business and Legal Reports) site because it features  informative, lengthy pieces that go by the prevailing title of “white papers.” However, when I did an on-site  search of BLR’s white papers the other day, I think the most current one I saw was from the summer of 2008, though I may have missed some in my search.

BLR also doesn’t always broach some of the regulatory topics affecting employers like the ADAAA (Americans With Disabilities Amendments Act, which took effect this Jan. 1) and the FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act, which was restructured this Jan. 16).

That’s why I was happy to see that Personnel Concepts has added its own white paper section, and the section already contains lengthy, analytical pieces on both of those laws, as well as good stuff on other issues affecting employers. And if you wanted the lowdown on Lilly Ledbetter, that’s there too.

If you’re a labor law junkie like me, these kinds of resources are nice to have available.

Tom Daschle Lives On in the Stimulus Package

2

Category : Federal Labor Law, Random Musings, State Labor Law

Those who were fretting that the extinction of Tom Daschle as potential secretary of Health and Human Services might delay health care reform needn’t worry.

The inclusion of several stealth provisions in the stimulus package now sailing through Congress will implement, mostly unnoticed, provisions from Daschle’s government-heavy idea of reform in his book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.

His idea to prescribe which treatments and medications can and cannot be used by individual doctors lives on through the electronic health records (EHRs) initiative, which would be overseen by a National Coordinator of Health Care Technology. This latter person/office would monitor everything going on in the EHRs to make sure every doctor is following government guidelines and giving cost-effective care. And every doctor means your doctor.

Not only that, but the stimulus package includes the creation of a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research to define and dictate cost-effective care: What physicians and hospitals can and cannot do.

In other words, this is the stealth implementation of Daschle’s plan to create a board similar to the one in Great Britain that dictates every medicine and every procedure for every known medical problem so that they are both efficient and cost-effective (but most of all cheap). Now, on the surface, this sounds reasonable until you face the actual results as a patient.

The British agency Daschle fell in love with (with the totally disingenuous acronym of NICE) has done things like, well, forbidding treatment of macular degeneration because the medicine was too expensive until the patient went blind in one eye. (This policy was reversed finally after three years of public outrage.)

Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York and now an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute,  calls this “Ruin Your Health With the Stimulus Plan.” She explains:

The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

There’s little wonder, then, that President Obama continually and frantically insists that the stimulus package be hurried through Congress–he doesn’t want anyone actually reading it. As his chief of staff quipped, this is “no time to waste a good crisis.”

As these pages have been predicting since the git-go, the only way anybody in government–using government solutions–can make health care both “accessible and affordable” is by restricting and rationing what’s available.

Hey, if you successfully lower health care expectations, maybe enough people will start kicking off before they reach 65, and the government won’t have to pay Social Security or Medicare.

Nice plan.