Cavalcade of Risk #167: Now online!

Russell Hutchinson presents this week's Cavalcade of Risk and, as usual, does an outstanding job. As he notes, "whatever the conditions, I usually find at least one writer in each Cavalcade offers something interesting that is written well."

Take his advice and check it out.

Obamacare vs. God

The battle over forced birth control just won't go away. This should not be surprising. Government intrusion in to our life is creating a nanny state.      

Eat this, don't eat that. Warning labels. Calorie counts. You can buy two 16 ounce drinks but not one 32 ounce drink.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Tyndale House is a religious publishing company. You might think they could get a free pass on the Obamacare mandate requiring employers to include "free" contraceptive devices and medication in their group plan.

Apparently not.

Attorneys have filed suit against the HHS Secretary (Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius) demanding an exemption.

“To say that a Bible publisher is not religious is patently absurd. Tyndale House is a prime example of how ridiculous and arbitrary the Obama administration’s mandate is. Americans today clearly agree with America’s founders: the federal government’s bureaucrats are not qualified to decide what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”

ADF Media, "Bible Publisher Isn't Religious Enough"

Put me down as undecided on this.

On one hand, I really do believe government has overstepped their role and needs to back off. The Bible tells us Adam and Eve only had one law.

Then  Moses received 10 new laws from God that seemed to work well for centuries.

On the other hand, just because a company prints Bible's and other religious literature doesn't mean they are a religious entity. Using that argument you could also say companies that manufacture pews and pulpits should also be exempt. Or companies that produce wine (or grape juice for the Baptists), or shot glasses (used for communion).

The list is almost endless.


Thanks to Henry Stern for this tip

Alzheimer's News

It's been a little while since we've written about Alzheimer's; two recent news items on the subject caught my attention.

First, it appears that researchers at the "Barcelona Biomedical Research Institute have hailed a natural hormone linked to the sleep cycle as an important new weapon in the fight against" Alzheimer's. Combined with an active lifestyle (exercise), melatonin seems to be effective in slowing deterioration of the brain.

Nothing conclusive yet, but it seems promising.

The second item relates more to those providing care to folks already suffering from the disease. As we've noted, a major problem for family members as caregivers is that they can "cost themselves major chunks of their own nest-eggs; giving up their ability to contribute to 401(k)'s and the like means that there's less available to them when they need it."

That's the financial side, which is pretty important, No less important, though, is the physical toll this can have on these selfless folks. And that's where "the Hebrew Home at Riverdale's ... ElderServe at Night" comes in. The program offers "a structured series of singalongs, crafts and therapy sessions that lasts until dawn." and is available to folks suffering from dementia. That's the good news.

Here's the bad:

"While many nursing homes offer temporary "respite care" so caregivers can catch up on sleep or go on vacation, the overnight-only program at the Hebrew Home fills a niche. But costs are high, and such programs are rare. An official at the Alzheimer's Association said she knew of no other."

Here's hoping that the phenomenon takes off.

ObamaDentalTax

Dr Kim Henry is a dentist (and friend of Bob's) who practices in Hapeville, Georgia. He's also a veteran (Navy) who served alongside Marines in Lebanon in 1983. Having been in practice for over 3 decades, he's seen a lot of changes in health care. Recently, he penned this post for his own FaceBook page, and has graciously allowed us to re-post it here:

"We were told by the former House speaker that we should “Pass the health care bill so we could find out what is in it.” Slowly we are finding out what is in it, and much of it really stinks.

Beginning January 1, 2013, a new 2.3% federal excise tax will be added to all dental lab work- crowns, dentures, bridges, everything. Bet you thought something called the “Affordable Care Act” was supposed to make health care cheaper, not more expensive, right? Well, I am sure it’s not the first time you have been lied to by politicians.

In June, our US House of Representatives voted to kill this provision, by 270 to 146. Unfortunately, there is not the interest in the more liberal US Senate to back up the House action.

When government makes operating costs of dentists go up, guess what happens to dental fees? Think they will be more “affordable?”

I could write a whole book on how government raises the cost of health care. Unfortunately, class envy demogogues want you to believe it is greedy health care professionals who are responsible.

There will be more Obamacare surprises to come, I guarantee you."

Thanks, Dr Henry, for sharing your succinct - and spot on - thoughts with our readers.

Will Obamacare figure in the debates that start this week?

I think not much. Why not? 

Obama may not want to bring up this law because, despite the Supreme Court decision, it remains widely unpopular.

Romney may not want to bring it up either.  That’s because the Obama campaign would very likely not respond on the issue, but instead would respond by claiming "Romneycare" in Massachusetts was the model for Obamacare.  That’s false; Romney’s actual proposal was less intrusive and less expensive than the law that was ultimately enacted in Massachusetts.  But, nevertheless:

(1) the explanation is complicated, and would not sway many votes.  That’s because most voters would ignore it just because it’s complex.

(2) Worse, it would be a diversion, taking limited debate time away from focusing on Obama’s main governing failures – his wretched economy and his wretched foreign policy.

For these reasons, neither candidate may see much use in bringing up Obamacare; in fact both candidates may see potential harm in doing so. That’s why I think Obamacare will not figure importantly in the debates.

Additional info is here and here.

Among other things, the first linked article reports

The Romney proposal included an employer mandate that required only catastrophic coverage, not the comprehensive and expensive "Cadillac plan" coverage that was ultimately included in the Massachusetts law, and in ObamaCare. 

So, clearly, the Obama plan did not follow the Romney “model” in this feature – a feature important enough that it was disputed all the way to the Supreme Court.  There's more:

Romney's successor, Governor Deval Patrick, greatly increased the mandated level of coverage while implementing the law

Deval's tinkering resulted in much higher costs not contemplated in the original law, and those costs still adversely affect the state’s finances.  Yet the whole thing is tagged as “Romneycare”.  Go figure.

A further insight, which both the linked articles report:  On the day that Romneycare was signed into law, Romney line-item-vetoed eight elements changed in or added into the final draft of the bill . . .  After the signing ceremony, though, the Democrat legislature returned to the State House and overrode all eight vetoes. (in fact, during 2006 alone, Romney's last year as Governor, Romney issued 250 vetoes, every single one of which was overridden.)

. . .  see how easily an Obamacare discussion leads away from the economy and foreign policy?  My bet -  Romney won't go there - and neither will Obama.

Assinine Industry Tricks

Back in the day (2 months ago), I could get competitive quotes from several carriers using the application of just one. Apparently, the carriers think the new ObamaTax Exchanges are preferable to (icky) agents, though, because that's now a thing of the past.

Professional agents "pre-screen" groups so that the quotes have some basis in reality. If a carrier has no medical (underwriting) information, then they're just going to use their "book" rates without adjusting for folks who are, for example, pregnant or diabetic (or both!). These quotes are worse than useless, because they will never reflect what the actual rate will be. By using one carrier's application to obtain quotes with several carriers, we could provide meaningful quotes to our clients.

Well, that used to be the case.

Now, if I want (need) competitive quotes, I can no longer use just one carrier's application. Sure, some carriers will still accept (for now) another carrier's application for rating purposes, but this number is quickly dwindling.

Of course, I can pay an extra fee to a 3rd party to collect that information for me, which is (one supposes) convenient. But what with MLR and carriers looking to cut costs, this is hardly an economically viable alternative to those of us in the (soon to be gone anyway) small group market.

It's almost as if the carriers want to be marketing through the ObamaTax Exchanges.

Gee, I wonder why?

Sarah P and The MVNHS© [UPDATED]

If you want to see how the system on which the ObamaTax was modeled really works, you have only to pick up a British newspaper:

"Cost-cutting NHS chiefs are routinely assigning just one family doctor to districts that stretch over hundreds of square miles ... Patients are still put at unacceptable risk by apparently negligent practices.’"

As we've pointed out before, such provider shortages are looming on our own horizon, as well. And no wonder: more folks with insurance seeking care from fewer and fewer doctors results in the text-book definition of rationing.

It's ironic that former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin made this call years ago. It's even more ironic that her banner's been picked up by erstwhile auto bailout maven Steven Rattner:

“We need death panels ... unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."

Gee, ya think?

UPDATE: Turns out, it's not just us laypeople who are worried. The folks on the front lines, who will be called upon to actually render care to all these extra 10's of millions of new "patients" aren't exactly thrilled, either. Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine and medical director of Doctor Radio at NYU Langone Medical Center, weighs in:

"President Obama and Congress should have checked with the country’s physicians before passing a law that relies on our efforts to handle health insurance expansion to more than 30 million more people ... Perhaps most disturbing, more than half of doctors surveyed by The Physicians Foundation revealed that they will cut back on patients (including Medicare) or reduce patient access to their care over the next three years."

So, more demand, fewer resources, what could possibly go wrong?