Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March 23rd, 2010

While we’re worrying about the health care thing, this has been going on for a long time but it makes it no less wrong:

One problem facing all the state proposals is that federal law generally trumps state law.

States are proposing things against the new Health Care Reform voted in, and you see statements like that.

Should there not be much more bristling at this sort of talk?  Yes, yes, I know it has been this way a long time, but the federal government was only supposed to have powers given to it explicitly, not have any powers it wants that were not explicitly taken away.

Such consequences are what Lincoln set in motion when he laid the idea of State’s sovereignty in the ground so many years ago.

****

Let’s use California as an example of the griping, even though it is other states involved in the story… because there are states that are griping and are going to SUE THE US GOV’T OVER THE HEALTH CARE BILL.  Oh, won’t this be fun?

States that sued:  The states that sued are Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington, McCollum said in astatement on his office’s Web site.

This is significant because ONLY ONE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM (a Louisiana turncoat from New Orleans – surprise, surprise).

Some states look like they were drug in – Louisiana, Florida, and Texas, for example.  Louisiana looks a teensy bit bad because they had the one Republican turncoat but had a Democrat vote against, too.

Note:  By “drug in” I mean that they’d rather not even had this issue at all and really would rather they didn’t have to sue to get their rights back.

Washington, Colorado, and Michigan – you look like crap, you guys – you can vote in people that won’t listen to you but when it comes time to pony up the bucks you sue against the Fed because it’s a crappy law.

Another state which I think would love to sue but won’t, at least until they find out how much they personally will have to spend would be California and their 34 Democrats to 19 Republican seats – not a one of those democrats voted against the bill..

Louisiana 6-1, Republicans.

Florida 15-9 (1 vacant), Republican.

Texas 20-12, Republicans.

Pennsylvania 11-1 (1 vacant), Republican.

Nebraska 3 Republicans.

Alabama 5-2, Republicans.

Idaho 1-1, tied.

Utah 2-1, Republicans.

South Carolina 4-2, Republicans.

South Dakota 1 Democrat (Stephanie Sandlin – who voted against the bill)

Virgina 6-5, Democrats.  (Two dems voted against so I don’t know what to think)

Michigan 8-7, Democrats. (Michigan has Stupak, which is humiliating)

Colorado 5-2, Democrats. (One dem against – bad show you jerks)

Washington 6-3, Democrat. (One dem against)

Well, I won’t say I have respect for a single one of the 39 Dems that voted against HRC.  I got burned by Stupak already.  For all I know, those 39 just didn’t get their palms properly greased like Stupak did.

Give California time – sticker shock just hasn’t set in – they’ll start bitching once people stop accepting their IOU’s.  By roughly 56%, Californians helped pass this sumbitch of a law by virtue of the idiots they voted into power.

****

They think that Obama/Demo-Care will take away our freedoms.  Oh pish.  How could government-run health care possibly take a way our freedoms?

I didn’t have the heart to even post 15 and 16, which are so bone-chilling, so hair-raising, so terrifying – based on the effect that they will have on pharmaceuticals and device makers – that I can’t put it on a family blog.

Europe is just amazed how we can be happy with our current medical care system and slap each other on the back about how civilized their systems are.

Simple fact – more gets innovated and developed in the US through our way of doing things than anywhere else.  The world greatly benefits from our pharma system.  They had best hope this doesn’t put a crimp in that, or they’re going to have two choices:  (1) pay lots more for drugs, or (2) be more blatant about stealing the recipe and reverse-engineering/making knock-off drugs.

With thanks to By David Hogberg…

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

Makes me want to do all three things myself….

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

TWENTY-SIX???

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision careYou’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

And that is the ONLY way this could even hope to be set up without being so obvious to even the lowest cretin that it cannot work.  Someone has to pay a disproportionate amount if other’s aren’t going to pay their share.  Simple fact of life.

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

What’s he talking about?  Anyone ever tells you that the government will not use information it has if it decides the need exists, look at Japanese internment in WWII.  If that information is there, it WILL be used by someone who feels they have a right or need to it.

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)).

Like… is #12 permanent?

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

Read Full Post »