Obamacare Bites

I've been doing a good job at keeping myself at arm's length from politics this year because I'm a bit weary of it. It's silly season, and we have an election in less than three weeks.

But sometimes politics comes to bite you from under the table like a rabid dog in any case. I've just been informed by my 5000+ person company that they are cancelling my preferred insurance plan for 2014.

I'm a little salty about it.

"Regrettably, the Gold Plan -- for many years considered our "premier" level medical plan -- will not be available in 2014. The 2014 costs incurred under this plan rose to an unprecedented high. In addition, this type of plan will be subject to a "Cadillac Tax", under the rules and regulations of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] excise tax."

I've got a large family with a lot of ongoing medical issues. The plan that I rely on to keep my medical costs affordable has just been made un-affordable and un-available.  Instead, I have the option of paying more to get a lesser plan with higher deductibles, higher out-of-pocket limits, lower covered percentages, and fewer options.

So much for "keeping the insurance you like". Empty promises, broken dreams. And will that increased cost be offset by higher wages or subsidies? Not a chance. The company is also taking it on the chin. Medical costs continue to rise and with them insurance premiums. Obamacare does nothing to lower real medical costs and seemingly nothing to lower insurance rates for those that have it.

So let's review: higher costs, canceled coverage, real medical costs increasing, and a shuffling of the chairs on the Insurance Titanic.

Does anybody know of anybody anywhere whose insurance rates went down for the same product?

---

Get more Blynken blog updates here! 

Giving HHS Mandate The "Finger"?

Some things need to be seen and not just heard.  Fr. Leo has a humorous take on a serious subject.



h/t Mark Shea & Curt Jester

Would You Pay For Rosa Parks To Sit In The Back Of The Bus?

Would you pay for Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus and call it justice?

Of course you wouldn't. No decent human being could conscience that. It's just wrong. It's a matter of principle and basic civil rights. Relieving her of an obligation to pay the fare while simultaneously requiring her to sit in the back would not respect her dignity as a human being.

We hold that civil rights are rights precisely because they go to the core of who we are as persons. They cannot be separated from us without grave injury; they are inextricably linked to our human dignity. It abuses the victim and debases the perpetrator.

Among these rights are freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and organizations, along with freedom from discrimination on grounds of gender, religion, or race, etc. It is not a matter of elevating one civil right over another, nor a matter of degree of how much a civil right is infringed -- any attack on these basic rights is an abrogation of the dignity of a person as a person.

Unfortunately, that is precisely what is going on with the HHS mandate (even as amended by the Administration) with respect to Catholics and any person of faith or conscience.  Whether you require Catholics to "pay the fare" or not, being forced to follow a mandate that explicitly violates their fundamental beliefs is literally unconscionable.

Bishop Paul S. Loverde of the Arlington Diocese wrote in the Feb. 16 issue of The Arlington Catholic Herald: (emphasis mine)

Make no mistake: this “accommodation,” as described, is no accommodation at all, but
rather remains a direct violation to our right to religious liberty, a right which is protected in the Constitution.

The president’s new plan purports to transfer the burden from religious employers to their insurers. This is a distinction without a practical difference; the funds still come from the employer and the employees. Moreover, it fails to address the situation of self-insured health care plans such as those offered together by the Catholic Diocese of Arlington and Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Arlington. Under a self-insured plan, the employer is the insurance provider—there is no distinction between the two.

Up to now, we have been free to provide health care coverage that is consistent with our religious and moral principles. This freedom is being taken away. Under the proposed revision, our diocese, as well as other objecting individuals and employers, would be mandated to pay not only for birth control and sterilization, but also for abortion-inducing drugs—such as Ella—which end the life of the human person in the womb. This mandate must be rescinded or overturned.

It is not only Catholics who are being threatened. This mandate is a dangerous precedent for all those who seek to act according to their consciences.

This HHS mandate is reprehensible, plain and simple. Let us have no straw man arguments on whether or not Rosa Parks paid bus fare, how many Catholics use contraception, or how you hate/disagree with Catholic teaching. Spare us your misplaced indignation on how dare you compare my civil rights abuse with your civil rights abuse (that's what analogies are for). Let's not split the gnat's eyelashes on how many degrees of separation are required before it's considered "material cooperation with evil".

It's not about degrees. It's about fundamental civil rights. Religion. Race. Gender. Human.You cannot violate one without violating them all in principle, because they are bound to our humanity. Any attack is not to be tolerated.

This. Must. Not. Stand.

Real World Obamacare

The new year is only 26 days old and we're already seeing fallout from the not-yet-completely-implemented Obamacare.

Mrs. Nod is in her 35th week of pregnancy. Historically she delivers big babies even though she is a small woman. Even Nub, who was 5 weeks premature, weighed in at 8 pounds. The OB told her this week that due to hospital rule changes from Obamacare, they are not allowed to induce her before 39 weeks.

If that happens, we may be looking for all the pieces of Humpty-Dumpty to put her back together again. Mrs. Nod would be "dead on the prairie" if not for modern medicine, early inducement, and really big needles and thread.  We will be appealing.

Next, our family doctor provider (whom we were allowed to keep if we liked them) has regretfully informed us that due to the budget cut tricks in Obamacare (21% cut in payments to doctors) they will not be able to take any more Medicare/Medicaid patients and they will try their hardest to keep the ones they currently have.

Fortunately, we don't use Medicare/Medicaid, but if we had, we'd be hurting about now. I know our doctor is.

Another wrinkle is that the pre-tax amount I was allowed to put away in a medical FSA was slashed by about $1000. So much for saving money and managing my own costs.

These are but a few (small) examples of the ripples that "well intentioned" changes make. I fear for those with a larger stake.

Surgery Update

Mrs. Nod's father has been in the hospital since before Thanksgiving with congestive heart failure. They scheduled surgery yesterday, but pulled him off the table at the last minute (literally) to make way for an emergency surgery.

The surgery was successfully performed today with only minor complications. He had a band placed around his mitral valve and chordae repair. This valve had moderate to severe leakage. The doctors also replaced his aortic valve with an organic valve from a pig. If he'd opted for the mechanical valve, he'd be required to be on blood thinners permanently.

Apparently, the calcium build up in his aortic valve indicated several years of problems. The doctor claimed his aortic valve was worst he has ever seen. Unbeknownst to everyone he had a congenital defect of only having 2 flaps instead of 3. As a result his heart muscle has swelled inordinately and his pulmonary (lung) blood pressure is sky high.

Somehow the echocardiogram from six months ago missed this very obvious defect. But it's all corrected now. Mrs. Nod's dad is going to have one heck of a sore chest when he wakes up, but he'll regain his strength and energy by being able to breathe and get some oxygen into his blood. It may take six months before he makes a full recovery.

Thanks to all who offered prayers.

One Up, One Down

Mrs. Nod took Nub in for his follow-up appointment to the neurologist following his reported seizure. After examining him and viewing the footage taken by his teacher, the neurologist concluded that Nub was not, in fact, having seizures.

We got corroborating testimony from the eye doctor who dilated his eyes and looked at his optic nerve, and said it looked fine. Apparently, you can see damage there if there have been serious seizures. So that is a big relief. I don't blame his teacher for reacting the way that she did, even though it was incredibly stressful at the time. We had told her that Nub had taken a tumble down the stairs and to look out for anything unusual. Well, rolling your eyes up and shaking is definitely unusual. However, the way he was doing it was -- well, entertainment to him. Weird, yes; dangerous, no.

That's the good news. The bad news is that Mrs. Nod's father is in the hospital with congestive heart failure -- a little something we know about. The echocardiogram shows his aortic valve has become defective and will have to be repaired with open heart surgery.

The prognosis is good; after this he will regain the energy he's lost over the last two years and no longer suffer the severe shortness of breath he's been struggling with. Of course, he has lots of complications as you might expect (he's 70, diabetic, gouty, bad back, severe allergies, tons of medications). As with any surgery, there is risk; Mrs. Nod and her mother are understandably worried.

But God is good, and we submit all things to His divine providence. The doctors want to do the surgery soon -- within the next few days perhaps -- so any prayers would be appreciated.

HC Bill: More Harm Than Good

Here's my problem: even if the recently passed health care "reform" bill were to benefit me personally or even primarily, I would have voted against it.

The reason is not because I'm against making the health care system better, or that I don't care about poor or sick people, but rather because of all the OTHER things that were hidden in the bill. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: omnibus bills are bad and are designed to hide things that couldn't get passed on their own.

From my previous post:

It's little flubs like this that just make my point for me: omnibus bills are bad. It's bad governance. An Omnibus bill can be defined as a legislative bill which provides for a number of miscellaneous enactments or appropriations. In plain terms, this means "a kitchen sink bill". This is how legislative pork gets passed -- buried in attachments, riders, and amendments to a larger spending bill that "must" get passed.

If even half of the stuff that got introduced made it into the final version, it is still sickening. What does takeover of student loans by the Government have to do with health care?? [The bill needed the $$$ to count as "savings".]

Abortion coverage accounting tricks? Still in there. Obama's Executive Order promise? Worthless. Here is the money quote:

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop ... a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements ... [and] to interpret the Act’s segregation requirements.

So whether you believe that the bill preserves the spirit of the Hyde Amendment or not, the (promised) EO is about how to do the accounting of abortion payments. Get it? Segregation guidelines to be written and interpreted by the Secretary of HHS (who I'm sure is impartial).

And maybe a hundred other things.

So the question is, which of these things are worth insuring 32 million Americans at the expense of the other 275 million? Invasion of privacy? Invasion of financial records? Mandatory purchase of coverage on pain of tax, fine, or imprisonment? Lack of conscience protection? Rationing? Financial instability?

Maybe, just maybe, there is a better way than a one-size-fits-all solution, hmm? The Devil is always in the details. So to recap -- principle: good; execution: more harm than good.

Hospital Magnet

We just can't get away from those guys in white lab coats.

Sibling #3 got hit by a car while riding his bicycle on the snow covered streets. His brakes failed and he slid into the intersection and got nailed. One helicopter ride and three broken ribs later, he ended up in the hospital. Fortunately, there don't seem to be any worse injuries. He should be released tomorrow. Prayers appreciated.

The main thing to look out for with broken ribs is complications. Broken ribs usually mean shallow breathing due to pain. If the lungs don't expand all the way it can lead to a collapsed lung, pneumonia, or other upper respiratory infection.

Strangely enough, you should sleep on the side with the broken rib, so the other side can expand all the way.

Nib Endoscopy 2

Nib is my smart, cute, funny little two year old girl. She's also a pint sized munchkin.

Her growth chart is abysmal, with height and weight starting to fall off the bottom of the curve. So she's headed in to the specialist for an endoscopy to see if there are any upper-GI or digestive issues.


Update: Nib had her endoscopy, which means they stuck a fiber-optic camera down her throat, had a look around, and took a biopsy while they were in her stomach.

The good news is that they didn't find any obstruction, her bloodwork came back negative for celiac disease, crones disease, allergies, and vitamin D deficiency.

The bad news is they didn't find anything at all, so we don't know anything more than when we started. We are now going with the high-calorie food-o-lympics complete with record book.

Never a dull moment around here.

DMC: In Their Own Words

Divine Mercy Care has provided our OB-GYN and baby needs since 1998. The doctors there are fantastic and show all of us how to bring our Catholic faith into everyday life.

Divine Mercy Care is a grass roots, community-based healthcare corporation that is at at the nexus between the culture wars and the healthcare crisis. Divine Mercy Care is not a series of programs. It is not social work. For healthcare workers, Divine Mercy Care is our vocation in medicine: caring for all stages of the human person; fighting illness and suffering yet recognizing their role in the mystery of life; and supporting our communities by seeing all people including the weakest and most vulnerable. Divine Mercy Care is how we love God and love neighbor in our practice of medicine. This is the foundation of our excellent care for all people.

These are true, committed Christian doctors who use the Theology of the Body in their everyday practice. They serve the poor, the under-insured, and the uninsured every day for free as part of their regular practice, as well as ordinary Joes and Janes like us.

Most of them haven't been saints their whole lives, but their conversion to the Gospel is real and tangible. We are blessed to have them as our doctors. If you've never had your doctor pray with you -- you're missing out on an amazing experience.

Pray for them and for like minded doctors everywhere; contribute if you can -- you are literally helping the most vulnerable and at-risk members of our society by doing so.

Read about them in their own words (emphasis mine):

Divine Mercy Care (DMC) is the Catholic tax-exempt health care organization for Northern Virginia. Recognizing that the health care system in the United States is broken, DMC answers the problem by bringing sound medical and moral principles into the business environment of health care at its most vital level—the individual and the community. Waiting for the government to legislate or for the economics to evolve is not acceptable. DMC is filling a moral and medical leadership void in the delivery of heath care. The key issues facing health care are: service to the under-insured, the anti-life bias, and the conversion of physicians into technicians. DMC answers these issues.

1. DMC's commitment to serve the poor, not out of excess but out of our day-to-day work, is fundamental. Serving them within the community is a more effective model than government-directed health care.
2. By not ignoring the spiritual aspect of medicine, DMC provides authentically holistic and comprehensive health care.
3. DMC runs a value-based, consumer-driven business by retaining the sound medical practices of the profession while treating each patient with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Divine Mercy Care's original, nationally respected and regarded entity is the Tepeyac Family Center (TFC), an Obstetrics and Gynecological medical facility founded in 1994 by Dr. John Bruchalski. Reading the economic realities of medicine, TFC was reorganized as a tax-exempt entity in 2005. Today, the team of six physicians and one nurse practitioner provides services to women regardless of their race, creed, culture, or ability to pay. At TFC over the last three years, 25% of the babies were born to mothers with no commercial health insurance. It is the only practice in the country that provides full obstetrical care for patients from Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs), and it is the only practice in the area that serves charity patients on a routine basis.

DMC Pharmacy, LLC, a pro-life pharmacy located at a major crossroads in Chantilly, VA, opened in October 2008 and is operated by Mr. Robert Semler who has operated pharmacies for over 30 years. For the past 12 years he was the manager/owner of one of [only!] seven pro-life pharmacies in the country.

Imperial Senator Reid Makes Bill Repeal Illegal

In a stunning display of arrogance and hubris, Senate majority leader Harry Reid has included language in the Senate version of the health care reform bill that prevents it from being repealed or even amended without a super majority of votes (67).

Reid's language in Section 3403 clearly binds future congresses (both House and Senate) and changes the standing rules of the Senate (rule XV) which is designed to prevent the tyranny of a majority over the minority. And the Democratic leadership is enabling it.



Put in plain language, the Democrats are so anxious to create "universal health care" (something this bill doesn't actually accomplish) and maintain government control over a sixth of our economy, that they are changing the definition of the very words used to prevent such abuse.

This is a major step forward towards tyranny.

This calls to mind that scene in Star Wars, the Empire Strikes Back, when Darth Vader tells Lando: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Same tactics.

The Manhattan Declaration

Some things speak for themselves:

MANHATTAN DECLARATION
A Summary

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the
weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of
civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to
reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our
fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These
truths are (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union
of husband and wife, and (3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty. Inasmuch as
these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are
inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from
powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their
defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are
brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this
commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the
crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Human Life

The lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are ever more threatened. While
public opinion has moved in a pro-life direction, powerful and determined forces are
working to expand abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, and
euthanasia. Although the protection of the weak and vulnerable is the first obligation of
government, the power of government is today often enlisted in the cause of promoting
what Pope John Paul II called “the culture of death.” We pledge to work unceasingly for
the equal protection of every innocent human being at every stage of development and
in every condition. We will refuse to permit ourselves or our institutions to be implicated
in the taking of human life and we will support in every possible way those who, in
conscience, take the same stand.

Marriage

The institution of marriage, already wounded by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is at
risk of being redefined and thus subverted. Marriage is the original and most important
institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all. Where marriage
erodes, social pathologies rise. The impulse to redefine marriage is a symptom, rather
than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding
of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil law as well as our religious
traditions. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean
abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it,
the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and
destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about the unique character and value of acts and relationships
whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection
of life. Marriage is not a “social construction,” but is rather an objective reality—the
covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize, honor,
and protect.

Religious Liberty

Freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized. The threat to
these fundamental principles of justice is evident in efforts to weaken or eliminate
conscience protections for healthcare institutions and professionals, and in anti-
discrimination statutes that are used as weapons to force religious institutions, charities,
businesses, and service providers either to accept (and even facilitate) activities and
relationships they judge to be immoral, or go out of business. Attacks on religious liberty
are dire threats not only to individuals, but also to the institutions of civil society including
families, charities, and religious communities. The health and well-being of such
institutions provide an indispensable buffer against the overweening power of
government and is essential to the flourishing of every other institution—including
government itself—on which society depends.

Unjust Laws

As Christians, we believe in law and we respect the authority of earthly rulers. We count
it as a special privilege to live in a democratic society where the moral claims of the law
on us are even stronger in virtue of the rights of all citizens to participate in the political
process. Yet even in a democratic regime, laws can be unjust. And from the beginning,
our faith has taught that civil disobedience is required in the face of gravely unjust laws
or laws that purport to require us to do what is unjust or otherwise immoral. Such laws
lack the power to bind in conscience because they can claim no authority beyond that of
sheer human will.

Therefore, let it be known that we will not comply with any edict that compels us or the
institutions we lead to participate in or facilitate abortions, embryo-destructive research,
assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that violates the principle of the profound,
inherent, and equal dignity of every member of the human family.

Further, let it be known that we will not bend to any rule forcing us to bless immoral
sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from
proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality, marriage, and the family.

Further, let it be known that we will not be intimidated into silence or acquiescence or
the violation of our consciences by any power on earth, be it cultural or political,
regardless of the consequences to ourselves.

We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no
circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Health Care Bill - Geek Style 2

"U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills."

So how can there be a Senate version of the proposed Health Care (insurance) Reform Bill? Because they are playing games with parliamentary rules, that's why. They just take an existing House bill, gut it, and insert whatever they want into it. This trick is as old as the country probably. Just one of many beefs that I have with the process; and yes, I do have a degree in this.

Here is the text in the current Senate bill where this shell game gets played:

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—111th Cong., 1st Sess.

H. R. 3590

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members
of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees,
and for other purposes.

Referred to the Committee on ____ and ordered to be printed

Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE intended
to be proposed by Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS,
Mr. DODD, and Mr. HARKIN) _____

Viz:
1 Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
[text of bill]

Now I don't know what is so hard about reading these things, assuming that this is the actual bill and not the "plain text version" touted by Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, who claimed that he wouldn't (or couldn't) read the bill before voting on it.

Sure there are a bunch of cross-references to other laws (but that's what libraries are for -- you look them up) and a bunch of self references (paragraph ii, part b), but it's no harder than a programming language where you first:

1) define the variables and functions, and then
2) reference the variables from the main program or sub.

I mean, honestly, if you're not smart enough to read and understand the laws you're voting on, then maybe we need to vote in somebody who can. I'm reading it, and other than needing a few clarifications on what the impact of

‘(2) EXCEPTIONS.—The following provisions of
this title shall apply to a grant made under this section to the same extent and in the same manner as such provisions apply to allotments made under section 502(c):"

means, I don't think it's too hard to follow. You just have to follow each thought to its logical extension (that's the real work). I know what the words mean, the question is what would that really DO to people, markets, actual services in the real world?

Bottom line: if you can program (or read) in any G3 or G4 language, scripting language, or macro language, then you are probably smarter than your average Congressman.

Health Care Bill - Geek Style

There are some things that only a geek could love about the proposed Senate Health Care Bill -- maybe the only things to love about it.

My U.S. Senator, Jim Webb, alerted me to the health care proposal linked from his Web site. I give him credit for that since I have sent him more than one email stating my opinion (not that he actually read it).

My first attempt to download and read this massive omnibus bill resulted in this error. My default reader couldn't open it, so I was forced to download Adobe Reader.

Sigh. Doesn't bode well.

• From the graphic you can tell that the file is a healthy size: 2.5 MB and 2,074 pages.
• According to the properties, the creating program is ACOMP.exe version 2.0, Nov 24 2008 on Windows-- possibly a custom typesetting system or even an AutoLISP compiler.

UPDATE (h/t kalendello) : ACOMP.exe appears to be the "creator" part of Adobe Distiller (a compiler) as seen in this similar code: /Producer (Acrobat Distiller 5.0.5 \(Windows\)) /Creator (ACOMP.exe WinVer 2.0 Nov 24 2008)

• The original file name is Merge2.lc; LC files may be Textbridge Classic bin file (aka Optical Software Recognition (OCR) scanner software).
• The PDF software used is Adobe Acrobat Distiller 9.2.0 (Windows)
• The PDF is secured by Password Encryption using 128-bit RC4
  
• The operating system used to create the file is Windows XP or later, as evidenced by the directory name DOCUME~1 (Documents and Settings) and confirmed by the lack of 8 dot 3 restrictions and long file name: patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf
• The user name and home directory of the person who created the final file is "bai".

Opening the file you can immediately see that the file was converted and merged from 9 separate XML files. The header on each page has the following line or similar:

O:\BAI\BAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C.

• I have no idea what S.L.C. means.
• User BAI has a Windows networked mapped drive O: (home or shared drive?) that has a folder called BAI; the file name is BAI09M01.xml. BAI (user's name) 09 (2009?) M01 (no idea)
  

File 2 of 9 has this header:

O:\ERN\ERN09C11.xml [file 2 of 9] S.L.C.

• Again a mapped O: network drive, this time folder ERN (home or shared drive), ERN may be the user's initials.
• File 2 file name: ERN09C11.xml; ERN (user initials) 09 (2009) C11 (no idea)

The rest is just the same:

O:\MAL\MAL09863.xml [file 3 of 9]
O:\BAI\BAI09M04.xml [file 4 of 9]
O:\KER\KER09924.xml [file 5 of 9]
O:\MAL\MAL09852.xml [file 6 of 9]
O:\KER\KER09925.xml [file 7 of 9]
O:\ERN\ERN09B60.xml [file 8 of 9]
O:\OTT\OTT09505.xml [file 9 of 9]

So BAI, MAL, KER, ERN, and OTT put this document together. Interesting.

Other miscellany:

• Fonts: DeVinne, New Century Schoolbook, Times-Roman, Symbol, Gpospec5
• PDF version 1.5 (Acrobat 6.x), can be opened by Acrobat 6.0 or greater
• 8.5 x 11.0 paper
  

And we determined all that without any special tools at all. Remember to clean up your metadata!

Alternative Healthcare Proposal Unveiled

My comments inline.

The LA Times reports:

House Republicans offer alternative healthcare proposal

Reporting from Washington - After months of criticizing Democratic healthcare proposals from the sidelines, House Republicans this week began presenting their plan, an effort intended to undercut the portrayal of the GOP as the "party of no." [Where have you guys been? About time!]

Unlike the Democrats' strategy of trying to provide near-universal coverage and force other major changes to the insurance system, the Republican approach is an incremental one with a different goal -- controlling healthcare costs. [I think most people if they stopped to think about it would support this approach. I think a majority actually do. What's easier to fix or correct -- A one-time TRILLION dollar mistake that creates a bureaucracy that can't be killed and sticks it to us for 10 or 20 years, or a series of modest changes whose impact can be phased in and measured and adjusted?]

GOP lawmakers propose to do so through market-oriented measures that would limit medical malpractice lawsuits, expand the use of tax-sheltered medical savings accounts, let people shop for insurance outside of their own states and make it easier for small businesses and hard-to-insure people to get coverage. [These are things that real people want.] The ideas reflect conservatives' suspicion of sweeping new programs, federal spending and additional regulation. [That's because big sweeping programs hide lots of dirty little secrets.]

The GOP plan is, by design, a less costly bill with more modest ambitions. Its price tag, which is still to be determined, surely will be far less than the House Democratic bill. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the cost of that plan would exceed $1 trillion over 10 years. [Almost anything else would be cheaper.]

Unlike the Democratic plan, it does not include subsidies or other provisions that would make coverage more affordable to people of modest means. [This is probably the only less than stellar part. Helping poor people get coverage = good, bankrupting the country to do it = bad]

"What we've learned over many, many years is that the reason people don't have insurance is that they can't afford it," said Drew Altman, president of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, an nonpartisan health policy research group. "You can't make much progress toward helping the uninsured unless you help them buy it."

The Republicans' proposals long have been on their wish list, yet they were not enacted even when the party controlled Congress and the White House. [And paid a heavy price for it.] And they are being resurrected at a time when some Republicans warn that the party is in danger of being seen as guardians of an unpopular status quo in healthcare. [We'd like to think that this isn't just a partisan ploy for sympathy, but this IS Washington, and the 'Pubs didn't do anything when they held all the marbles under Newt.]

"Come campaign time, voters need to know what healthcare reforms Republicans have supported," said Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster. [Yup, partisan posturing.]

House Democratic leaders on Wednesday laid the groundwork for a Saturday vote on their massive healthcare legislation, after settling on a compromise to diffuse disagreement in their own ranks over how to restrict federal funding for abortions. [This is Pelosi trying to do an end run around the pro-life Democrat Stupak (since he's on bereavement leave) who's been a thorn in her side. Cowardly, Madame Speaker! ]

The proposal does not differ substantially from one in the original bill that required consumers to pay for any abortion benefit with their own money, rather than with federal insurance subsidies. Senior Democrats hope that by tightening that restriction further, they will be able to satisfy enough socially conservative Democrats to get a majority. [Your fake pro-life amendment isn't fooling anyone.]

President Obama is going to Capitol Hill on Friday to meet with House Democrats ahead of the expected vote, according to a senior Democratic aide who requested anonymity when discussing the volatile healthcare issue. [A little arm-twisting going on? You bet your Chicago brass knuckles!]

Republicans, who harbor no hopes of passing their alternative plan during Saturday's scheduled debate, have spent months criticizing the Democrats' plan as an intrusive, expensive government program [That's because that's what it is.] -- an argument with strong appeal for the party's conservative base. [Conservative yes, but I ain't your base -- nobody owns me.]

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) said that in his solidly conservative district, he has staged all of his healthcare speeches in front of signs that read "16 Reasons to Oppose Obamacare." But this week, House Republican Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) shifted the emphasis by unveiling the GOP alternative and launching a campaign to raise his party's public profile on the issue. [Posturing ...]

"This is an intentional strategic shift toward not being just the opposition party, but trying to be the alternative party," said David Winston, a Republican pollster close to the congressional leadership. [More Posturing ...]

The Republican bill lacks many major elements of the Democratic proposal: There is no expansion of Medicaid, no requirement that individuals buy insurance, no penalties for employers that do not offer coverage, and no subsidies to help the needy pay premiums. [What? No blank checks?]

In addition, the GOP proposal does not include one of the most popular elements of the Democrats' plan -- a ban on denying coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions. [Meh. Fix that.]

But the Republican plan has adopted some of the more modest Democratic provisions. It too would make it easier for young adults to remain on their parents' health policies. [Not too bad.] It also would end the controversial insurance practices of imposing annual or lifetime limits on benefits and of canceling coverage after a policyholder becomes sick. [One of the worst and greediest ideas. Evah.]

And rather than give more power to the federal government to address the nation's healthcare problems, the Republican plan looks to states, market forces and individuals. [Powers not expressly given the Fed are delegated to the States. Where have we heard that before?]

Their bill would provide aid to the states to form "high-risk" insurance pools that would cover people -- including those with preexisting conditions -- who cannot get coverage through their jobs or in the individual market. The GOP bill also would provide incentive grants for states that reduce premiums and the ranks of the uninsured. [Better. And practical.]

Small businesses would be encouraged, but not required, to cover their employees under provisions that would make it easier to band together to get group rates. [Incentivize without mandating ... sounds like freedom.]

To curb costs through increased competition, the GOP plan would make it easier for insurance companies to sell policies across state lines. [Yes!] And it would impose new curbs on medical malpractice lawsuits [Yes! Yes!] -- on the theory that healthcare inflation is fueled by defensive medicine and the rising cost of malpractice insurance. [Not entirely, but a healthy percentage. I've heard maybe up to 25%.]

To increase incentives for individuals to control their own health spending, the bill would expand the use of tax-favored health savings accounts. [Encourages personal responsibilty] And it would allow employers to provide steeper discounts in insurance premiums to employees who adopt healthy lifestyles. [Ditto.]

janet.hook@latimes.com

Noam N. Levey in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.

Now if we only had some leaders who would actually ACT on this...

Two Percent?

So the Democrats in the House want to put us $900 BILLION dollars in debt to cover 2 percent of the population? That's $900,000,000,000 dollars in case you've got number fatigue.

WASHINGTON (AP) - What's all the fuss about? After all the noise over Democrats' push for a government insurance plan to compete with private carriers, coverage numbers are finally in: Two percent.

The danger is that even if this enormously incompetent plan passes, it is just a seed from which the Hydra grows.

While a government plan might start out modestly, insurers fear that Congress could change the rules later, opening it up to all people and setting take-it-or-leave payments for hospitals and medical providers, instead of negotiating, as the House bill calls for.

Oh, you bet they will. Tell you what, Congress: give up your Gold Plated Plan and then come to the table. Until then talk to the hand -- the voting hand.

Health Care Subsidarity

David Freddoso has an enlightening article at the Examiner about doctors who want to give away health care for free, but are constrained from doing so largely by the Government.

Stan Brock just wants to help. The former co-star of "Wild Kingdom" wants to deliver free medical, dental and vision care to the poor. Whereas most politicians talk about "bending the cost curve" in health care, Brock simply wants to break it - to provide care free of charge, at the hands of unpaid volunteer doctors and dentists using donated equipment.

RAM [Remote Area Medical] runs on a shoestring budget of about $300,000 and takes no government money. It concentrates its operations in Tennessee for one simple reason: It is the only state with a full-blown "open-borders" policy toward volunteer out-of-state doctors. The obstacles in many other jurisdictions are daunting for an organization that seeks to treat thousands of patients in a short period.

Now I understand the need for high medical standards and accountability and to make sure that not just any quack can start tinkering with the lives and health of the poor (simply because they are poor), but outfits like RAM illustrate a vital point: people who actually want to help out their neighbor don't lack the skill or the will, just the way.

Seems like we need more of this kind of thing and less of that centralized planning model kind of health care "reform". Government's job should be to encourage and enable this kind of innovation, not take it over. What RAM appears to be doing here fits a lot better with the Catholic principle of subsidarity (h/t Brad Miner):

subsidiarity: A term (the Latin subsidium for aid, help) from Roman Catholic social philosophy which expresses the view that, whenever practicable, decisions ought to be made by those most affected by the decisions.

Put another way: the national government ought only to do what the states cannot; the states only what communities cannot; communities only what families cannot; families only what individuals cannot.

This is not to suggest that Catholic social theory (especially as read in papal encyclicals) is always in favor of the minimalist state. John XXIII in Pacem in Terris (1963), while affirming the doctrine of subsidiarity, called for publicly funded health and unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, and government support for the arts. Still, it is clear that “a planned economy . . . violates the principle of subsidiarity.

Or put another way, we desire health care subsidarity, not just subsidies. Catholic Bishops have been calling for "universal health coverage" for decades, but the devil is in the details. The "preferential option for the poor" is not synonymous with the current "public option" being rammed down taxpayers' throats in what amounts to a takeover of a fifth of the U.S. economy. Troubling issues remain like abortion coverage, individual mandate, penalties, rationing, privacy concerns -- there does not have to be this all-or-nothing approach the current legislation proposes.

The efficacy of any government program is inversely proportional to the urgency of the need they claim to pass it.

Vasovagal Attack

Here's a recipe for a killer headache: low blood sugar and a pronounced vasovagal reaction.

Huh? Wuzzat? That's what I said.

I went to the doctor to have a blotch on my shoulder looked at. He said it looked benign but we'd biopsy it just to make sure. So he does his thing and gives me one stitch to make it all nice and neat. No biggie.

Only problem is he gave me lidocaine with epinephrine as a local anesthetic. It's kinda like taking a downer with a chaser of adrenaline. (Adrenaline supplements make the numbing agent last longer.) I hadn't had anything to eat that morning and I tend to be on the low end of both blood sugar (hypoglycemia) and blood pressure (110/65).

All of a sudden I felt dizzy and nauseous. The doc lays me down, but I go 1-2 seconds with my eyes rolled up in the back of my head. I bolt upright with my heart pounding, feeling flushed, and break out in a fine sweat all over. "Ugh. (pant pant) What happened?"

[WebMD] Fainting, also called syncope (pronounced SIN-ko-pe), is a sudden, brief loss of consciousness and posture caused by decreased blood flow to the brain. Many different conditions can cause fainting. These include heart problems such as irregular heart beat, seizures, panic or anxiety attacks, low blood sugar (hypoglycemia), anemia (a deficiency in healthy oxygen carrying cells), and problems with how the nervous system (the body's system of nerves) regulates blood pressure.

A simple faint, also called a vasovagal attack or neurally-mediated syncope, is the most common type of fainting. It is most common in children and young adults. A vasovagal attack happens because blood pressure drops, reducing circulation to the brain and causing loss of consciousness. Typically an attack occurs while standing and is frequently preceded by a sensation of warmth, nausea, lightheadedness and visual "grayout."

Warmth, nausea, lightheadedness -- yep that's me. That little episode made me feel off all day, even after eating and taking a little nap after work.

A little unnecessary excitement if you ask me. I know what you're thinking: Dude, you fainted.

Yawn, Wake Me When It's Over

These days, when speeches and announcements are leaked well ahead of the event, it's hard to get an honest reaction. Pollsters and pundits are so concerned about how it will play in Peoria, that they forget about real life. You want to know how it will play in Peoria? Go there.

Tonight the President gave his speech to the joint houses of Congress on the health care reform initiative. I'll be honest, I didn't watch it. Based on the early returns, it looks like he didn't say anything new. If he couldn't be bothered to say -- or more importantly do -- anything new, why should I care or bother to have a different reaction?

All the politicians and all the newshounds had their reactions to the President's speech canned well ahead of the event with a few fill-in-the-blanks. It's all so fake, it makes astroturf look real. Yessiree, genuine-synthetic-naugahyde right here.

If this whole health-care-cum-foie gras didn't make me so angry, I'd be snoring already.

Real People, Real Care

The whole health care debate is so raucous that it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. No matter what side you come down on, we can all agree that there is much to dislike. Which is all the more reason to slow down and look at things afresh.

The role of government in this case should not be to take over our responsibilities to take care of ourselves, our families, and one another, but rather to enable the atmosphere, the laws, and incentives that can make that happen. Too many times, people just want the government to "take care of things" for them. This does not engender proper respect for persons, personal accountability, and love for neighbor. What is does promote is a culture of dependency, entitlement, and hostility over higher taxes when the inevitable waste and corruption set in.


Every third Thursday or so, Martha's Table comes to designated spots in Washington DC downtown and feeds the hungry. The Martha's Table mission statement reads:

Martha’s Table’s mission is to help at-risk children, youth, families and individuals in our community improve their lives by providing educational programs, food, clothing, and enrichment opportunities.

Martha's table has a dozen permanent staff and a whole host of people volunteering to feed, clothe, and teach those in need. These are people who are putting their faith in action; these are the kind of programs and ministries that transform people's lives. I can't even think of a government program that was actually transformative on a personal level.

The best part is there are thousands of groups and organizations like Martha's Table that take care of people in their own communities. There is no one-size-fits-all. That is the beauty of it -- it meets the actual needs of actual people and there are real people doing it.

There is no government mandated program for which you get to fill out bureaucratic forms, no rammed down your throat entitlement. The role of good government is to incentivize the private sector into providing more options, make it easier to give and make a difference, through laws and tax credits, not to dictate what the options are. That way we become better citizens and better people by helping one another instead of waiting for "the government" to do it.

Unfortunately, the government is good at taking great ideas and ruining them. That's why they shouldn't be allowed to run anything much beyond the national defense.