Booze (Health) Nooze

First, the bad news:

"Alcohol causes about 13,000 cancers a year in Britain ... A team of researchers found that most of these cases were caused by people drinking more than the recommended daily limits"

Thus (perhaps) proving the old adage about moderation.

And if you're thinking "no problem, I'll just fuhgedaboutit," well, think again:

"Drinking to forget your problems? Scientists have found that drinking will actually help you to remember them."

Oops.

Turns out, drinking can actually increase activity in the areas of the brain that enable us to remember things.

And there's this:

Drinking can actually increase activity in the areas of the brain that enable us to remember things.

Who knew?

Rom-Obamacare Lays Egg

And behold, Romneycare begat Obamacare and all was good.

Well, maybe not that good . . .

The Massachusetts plan to provide affordable health insurance for everyone sure sounded good when conceived five years ago. But that baby is still a mere child but is already showing growing pains and aging way beyond its' years.

As a health care plan, Romneycare is an unmitigated fiasco. It has caused costs to skyrocket, insurance premiums to soar and nonprofit providers like Blue Cross to suffer hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.

Gosh, who would have thought that?

I mean, other than the folks at InsureBlog.

Somehow we saw the hand writing on the wall and knew there were going to be problems.

In 2008 — when Obama was running for president and Ted Kennedy was towering over the Senate — nearly 70 percent of Massachusetts voters supported the plan.

But after five years of actually experiencing this new universe, even the Kennedy Democrats have had enough. A new Suffolk University poll showed that nearly half of Massachusetts voters say the law isn’t helping, while just 38 percent say it is. As Michael Cannon at the Cato Institute pointed out, Romneycare is almost as unpopular here as Obama- care is across America.

Heading in to an election year, that can't be good news for those that can be tagged with a universal health insurance agenda.

You know. Folks like Obama . . . and Romney . . .

The direct cost of Romneycare has gone from less than $100 million a year to at least $400 million — and even that number is suspect. But we do know we’ve spent more than $35 million in a single year on health services for illegal immigrants, and tens of millions more on illegal, unallowable or outright bogus claims.

But wait!

Obamacare is Romneycare for the other 56 states and is supposed to generate lower health care costs not higher ones. And with Obamacare comes the promise of "not adding one dime to the deficit".

Somehow I think that promise is going to go up in smoke like a Cheech and Chong movie.

Many people have seen their (health insurance) premiums double in the past five years

Well yeah, but that is just a fluke. Obamacare is supposed to lower our premiums by 3000%.

Or will they?

Thanks to Henry Stern for this tip!

Don't get sick on the MVNHS©

One of the more odious aspects of rationed care is that, just like at the deli, waiting on line until one's number is called can be tedious. Unlike the line at the deli, of course, is what's at stake while you're tapping your feet:

"The most seriously ill patients in the NHS have become the victims of “neglect” as surgeons are forced to focus on hitting waiting list targets for pre-planned operations ... while the NHS has succeeded in reducing waiting times for pre-planned operations ... this has come “at the cost of relative neglect of the needs of the patients admitted as emergencies.”

Translated, this means that the concept of "triage" is taking a back seat to expediency. When the government runs health care, it's the bean counters - not the caregivers - that set the priorities, often to the detriment to those whose very lives are at risk.

It's simple supply and demand, really: when the government promises "free" health care to everyone, then everyone wants their piece of the pie. Of course, the supply of those able to actually deliver that care is finite, and so waiting lists become the de facto order of the day. What happens if you're in dire straits but have a high number? Well, the odds are you're not going to get the best of (or perhaps any) care.

This is, of course, a direct consequence of the nature of the Brits' system, and soon to be of ours. Not to be a tease, but our Resident MOM (Medical Office Manager) will have some words on this as regards the new ACO's (Accountable Care Organizations) shortly.

Stay tuned....

How to say ObamaCare© in Klingon

No idea how I missed this before, but in correspondence from February, United Healthcare (UHC) advised its group clients that effective this July, "[ObamaCare©] requires that group health plans make certain member notices available [in] non-English languages when specific group thresholds have been met."

According to the memo, if there are a number of folks who are literate only in some language other than the erstwhile official tongue of the land, then UHC has to offer those folks EOB's and other routine notices in their native language.

Gee, that's not going to add to the cost of health insurance.

Group admin's are then told to log onto a dedicated UHC website to complete a survey which will determine whether or not they're affected. But of course, everyone's affected by this silliness, since it increases the cost to handle day-to-day transactions, and for which everyone's rates will have to be increased.

The silliest part?

This:

"If you do not [take the survey], we will assume that your group does not meet the threshold."

Just another Stupid Government Trick©.

Medicare and Claims: The Search is on...

The Senate is considering a bill that would create a "searchable Medicare claims database that the public can access at no cost."

On the one hand, Ms Shecantbeserious and her minions would be responsible for building and maintaining the database, which aims to provide more transparency in how and where Medicare expenses are paid.

On the other hand, Ms Shecantbeserius and her minions would be responsible for building and maintaining the database, which means that exemptions from participation will no doubt be available for unions and providers who make the appropriate, um, contributions.

Who's in?

Worth 1000 Words . . .

If a picture is worth 1000 words, how much is 6 pages of Obamacrap worth?

About 429 pages of regulations. Section 3022 of Obamacrap refers to Medicare shared savings.

Six pages of law begat 429 pages of regulations.

Among other things, the Medicare shared savings program creates ACO's (Accountable Care Organizations), a form of managed care for seniors. The upshot of ACO's is they will be rewarded for offering lower cost preventive care and treatment.

ACO's are to report directly to HHS which is another way of saying the government will know who is being treated, for what conditions, and how much money is being saved.

The link to Sen. Barrasso's summary points out that not only will the Medicare shared savings plan do little to really save money but he also reminds us that almost 3 million people have been granted Obamacrap waivers by HHS.

You can read the six pages addressing the Medicare shared savings plan by searching for Section 3022 of the law. The 429 pages of regulations from HHS can be viewed here.

At this rate, the bill that had to be passed so we would know what was in it will easily surpass 100,000 pages of legal mumbo jumbo that results in reduced care, fewer choices, higher premiums and higher taxes.

Just another stupid government trick.

Reining in costs: Networking revisited

As agents, we often tout a carrier's broad network of providers as a selling point. The idea is that switching insurers doesn't have to mean finding a new primary care doc, or leaving one's favorite cardiologist. It's always been a case of "bigger is better."

But is it?

Sometimes, as in the case of Sutter Health, one provider network can drive costs up while simultaneously reducing choice. But hospital chains such as Sutter's aren't the only model:

"Thousands of employers ... are opting for 'narrow network' HMOs, which offer notable savings on insurance premiums but also offer fewer medical providers."

In this case, by reducing access, it's hoped that insurance claims costs (and hence, premiums) can also be reduced. This makes a lot of sense: choice costs. That is, more flexibility means more admin costs, which are in turn passed on to the insured.

One key question left unanswered here, of course, is whether reducing "choice" also reduces "quality." One supposes that time will tell.