On Tartys in Applis...

We're very proud of our work here at IB, and apparently other folks like it, as well. We get requests to reprint our work, which we almost always grant. That's fair, and it's also right: contrary to what some folks believe, being "on the web" doesn't mean "in the public domain." Unfortunately, that's not evident to the purported editor of Cooks Source Magazine (which offers both online and "dead tree" versions, both of which are supported by paid advertisers).

Back in '05, food writer and Medieval connoisseur Monica Gaudio reprinted her adaptations of 14th and 17th century apple pie recipes, in the original ("Ye Olde") English. One imagines Mr Chaucer enjoying a slice or three.

Fast forward 5 years, and these recipes, "edited" to "correct' the "awful writing" appear in the pages of Cooks Source Magazine. To her credit, the editor does name Monica as the source. To her discredit, she neither sought nor obtained Ms Gaudio's permission to reprint - let alone "correct" - the post. Ms Gaudio was notified of this situation by a friend, and promptly wrote to CSM's editor, a Ms Judith Griggs. After some back-and-forth, Ms Gaudio indicated that all she really wanted was a public acknowledgment and apology, and for CSM to make a modest donation to a journalism school.

What she received in reply is priceless (and by "priceless," we mean "epically asinine"):

"Yes Monica, I have been doing this for 3 decades, having been an editor at The Voice, Housitonic Home and Connecticut Woman Magazine. I do know about copyright laws ... But honestly Monica, the web is considered "public domain" and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole article and put someone else's name on it!"

Really? Do go on...

"I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally ... you should compensate me!"

Gentlemen, I believe we have found a winner for the "New Definition of Chutzpah Award."

As one might imagine, this was not well-received, and the blogosphere is aflame today with recriminations. If you're interested - and you should be, if you ever post original content on, for example, a blog - this post provides an excellent starting point.

More Stupid ObamaCare© Tricks: HSAs vs "Young Adults"

This is to laugh:

Under ObamaCare©, your 26 year old "baby" is generally eligible to stay on your health plan (or re-up to it if the little darlin' had already "aged off"). And it means that the insurance benefit remains non-taxable to said "dependent." Which is fine, if you have a typical, generic "co-pay" plan.

But what if you were a savvy buyer, and own a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) and a Health Savings Account (HSA)? Well, the premiums for the HDHP are still non-taxable, but any HSA distributions may not be.

Here's the problem: ObamaCare© defined "dependent" in the context of the insurance policy, but the HSA isn't "insurance," it's money. So it continues to operate under the pre-existing rules regarding dependents, which is a completely different definition.

Result: disbursements for Junior who doesn’t meet the definition of “tax dependent” may be considered nonqualified, which means subject to some pretty hefty taxes and penalties.

How hefty, you ask?

Well consider that, next year, the penalty on nonqualified disbursements is increasing from 10% to 20%. Ouch!

Hmmm, maybe we shoulda read it before we passed it? Naaaah!

Timing is everything...

In email from UHC/Golden Rule (I'm still a bit confused on the branding), Vice President of Sales Susan Fowler has some news about that carrier's rate guarantees. Up 'til now, the default rate guarantee was 12 months; concerned buyers could opt to "buy up" to a 24 month lock-in. As with most carriers, that initial 12 month guarantee had a CYA clause: moving to a new area or changing benefits voided it (which makes sense).

As a result of ObamaCare©, though, the company has made some substantive changes to the underlying guarantee; those whose plans were effective on or after September 23rd will see no change (for now). But those whose plans pre-dated the 23rd are going to get hot with some unexpected "change:"

■ They will receive additional health reform benefits as of 1/01/11.

■ These customers will experience a rate change due to the additional benefits provided.

That's because, as we've pointed out before, even so-called "grandfathered" plans are not immune to some of the changes, which will necessarily result in higher rates (although how high is still not known).

But remember, "if you like your current plan..."

Obamacare Impacts AARP Premiums

Marketing behemoth and politically active AARP is increasing premiums and changing benefits in reaction to Obamacare. Roughly 4500 employees and dependents will be affected by this change. According to Yahoo News:

AARP adds that it's changing copayments and deductibles to avoid a 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans that takes effect in 2018 under the law. Aerospace giant Boeing also has cited the tax in asking its workers to pay more. Shifting costs to employees lowers the value of a health care plan and acts like an escape hatch from the tax.

"Plan value changes were necessary not only from a cost management standpoint but also to ensure that AARP's plans fall below the threshold for high-cost group plans under health care reform."

An "escape hatch". Wonder how many of those that put together Obamacrap anticipated this move?

My bet is no one.

Just like they did not expect employers to consider dropping group health insurance altogether, opting to pay the fine and let employees fend for themselves.

Nor did they anticipate companies dropping retiree benefits, shifting former employees on to Medicare and creating more of a financial strain on an already taxed system.

And how about those child protection laws? Requiring health insurance companies to cover dependent "children" up to age 26 or telling health insurance companies they have to cover any child under the age of 19, regardless of how expensive their medical condition may be to treat.

How well did that work out?

AARP warned its employees that more cost-shifting could be in store. "AARP intends to make similar changes, as necessary, in the future to avoid the (health plan) tax,"

More cost shifting.

That is code for more coming out of your pay check and less coverage.

For more information on Medicare supplement plans visit Georgia Med supp.

The MVNHS©: Dying young

Proponents of ObamaCare© like to point to the Brits' health care scheme as an exemplar of gummint-run health care. The argument seems to be that the MVNHS© does sooo much better than our system, allowing folks to live longer lives as a result.

Turns out, not so much:

"Americans, aged 65, can expect to live on average around three months longer than their equivalent retirees across the Atlantic."

Ooops.

This despite our (allegedly) higher rate of diabetes and cancer. The fact is, our system is much more adept at effectively treating these diseases, resulting in better outcomes across a broader spectrum. For those who think we're not getting our own money's worth, I give you Jim Smith, a senior economist at US-based think tank Rand Corporation:

"We are spending twice as much as England on health and we are getting the benefit of the extra years of life."

That is, until Mr Berwick gets through with us.

Cool Tool: Pills That Get "Sick"

One of the problems with health care is that, as Bob pointed out this morning, a lot of us don't take out own responsibility all that seriously. That translates into other issues, of course, but one that we see with increasing frequency is folks who just stop taking their meds. They do this for a variety of reasons, of course, but one surely must be lack of immediate and notable feedback.

That's where Mathieu Lehanneur, a French artiste, comes in:

"Instead of redesigning you, why not redesign the pills? ... If the boy doesn't take his medicine on time, the inhaler will change color "displaying its own physiological problem and indicating to the patient the urgency of taking the medication."

That's right: if you don't take the pill, it gets "sick."

And he's designed an inhaler and other delivery systems, as well. I'm sure there'll be all kinds of hurdles to get these on the market (starting with an often recalcitrant FDA), but how cool would it be to want to take your medicine?

Maybe a syringe with a spoonful of sugar?

Wikio Health: November Rankings

The good news is that we’ve been asked once again to (exclusively!) publish this month's rankings for Wikio's Health blog category.

The bad news is that we've slipped a bit, down several spots to #17, but still solidly in the Top 20.

Not bad for an insurance blog, I'd say.

And now, without further ado, your November Wikio Health Blog Rankings:

1	Well
2	Kevin, M.D. - Medical Weblog
3	Respectful Insolence
4	Science-Based Medicine
5	Dr. Wes
6	Pharmalot
7	The Health Care Blog
8	In the Pipeline
9	John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
10	Health Beat
11	White Coat Underground
12	Healthcare Economist
13	The Last Psychiatrist
14	The New Health Dialogue
15	Better Health
16	The Happy Hospitalist
17	InsureBlog
18	Health Care Renewal
19	Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog
20	Managed Care Matters

Health

Ranking made by Wikio