Shecantbeserious KEEPS digging

At some point, HHS Secretary Kathy "A W Livingston" Shecantbeserious became a parody of herself. The exact moment that this occurred is unclear, but certainly this kind of over-the-top rhetoric does little to diminish the feat:

"I think there's no question ... people will run out of money, very quickly [under the GOP Medicare plan if you have cancer]. And if you run out of the government voucher and then you run out of your own money, you're really left to scrape together charity care, go without care, die sooner. There aren't really a lot of options.”

Paging Dr Bugs Bunny.

First, it's pretty pathetic that the same agency which boasts Sir Donald Berwick would have anything to say about killing off old people: pots, kettles and all that.

More importantly, though, the so-called Ryan Plan would do no such thing. The "vouchers" would enable seniors to pick the plan that's right for them, but includes a safety net for the most catastrophic of claims. And it's pretty funny that the same political party that brought us ObamEchanges© would deride the same kind of mechanism for seniors.

Cato's Michael Cannon rebuts that "voucher-like Medicare reforms will lead to reductions in the per-unit cost of producing certain goods and services, and therefore to lower prices." Considering health care in this way helps to really drive home the point that costs are not, in fact, the same as expenses (a point that we've made repeatedly here at IB).

Michael also reminds us that "”nearly 30 percent of Medicare’s costs [spending!] could be saved without adverse health consequences.”

Indeed.

May Alzheimer's News

Alzheimer's is "the defining disease of the baby boomers," according to a new website brought to our attention by Diane Wright. Called generation alzheimer's [ed: lower case in original], it's an online roundup of information and resources for Baby Boomer's and those who care for (and about) them.

The site is a service of the Alzheimer's Association, and includes links, contact info and even videos like this:



Do check it out.

Private Benjamin's

The largest single budget item for the Pentagon is not guns and bullets or 4 star generals. It isn't for black op missions. Roughly 10% of their budget is spent on health care for 10 million active duty personnel, retiree's and their families.

In 2001 they spent $19 billion on health care.

The latest request asks for $53 billion to cover the cost of health care.

Apparently the government can't control health care costs any better than the private sector, but Obamacrap is supposed to make health care affordable and balance the budget.

Someone's nose is growing.

So how much do military retiree's pay for health insurance? According to Yahoo News the amount is shocking.

After years of resisting proposed increases for the military men and women who sacrificed for a nation, budget-conscious lawmakers suddenly are poised to make them pay a bit more for their health care, though not on the president's terms.

The current fees, unchanged in 11 years, are $230 a year for an individual and $460 for a family. That's far less than what civilian federal workers pay for health care, about $5,000 a year, and what most other people in the U.S. pay.

Obama is seeking a fee increase of $2.50 per month for an individual and $5 per month for families, which approaches the current price of a gallon of gasoline.

With our all volunteer armed services, I don't begrudge our brave soldiers and their families anything. But at the same time, the premiums charged are ridiculously low.

Consider civilian retirees, after paying Medicare premiums for years while in the workforce are asked to pay $96.40 to $110.50 per month for Part B premiums.

Joe "you lied" Wilson has this to say.

"I strongly believe military retirees have made significant down payments through their dedicated service to the nation," said the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. "In view of that service, it is not right for the nation to ask them to pay more for the health care for which they are entitled as all citizens are being personally challenged financially by rising gas prices."

In principal, I agree. The sacrifice of these men and women is much greater than the civilian labor force and they should be given a break, but I question how the taxpayers can continue subsidies at this level.

We have an accumulated $14 trillion national deficit and an unfunded liability that exceeds $50 trillion. This is unsustainable and every program must come under the knife. There must not be any sacred cows when it comes to getting our finances in order.

Medical $ociety $wag

As we know, the cost of medical insurance keeps going up, primarily as a result of the increasing cost of health care. Now, when we think of "health care," we generally have in mind our family physician, or perhaps the ER or an annual mammogram. And these are certainly important. But health care also encompasses equipment and medications, and all manner of other goods and services.

These are not free, nor are they generally inexpensive.

Time was, you could walk into your doc's office and see the Viagra pen on the desk, the Lexipro clock on the wall, and perhaps the occasional Crestor notepad on a desk. Those are dwindling, for a variety of reasons, but there's one area where this kind of business is booming:

"From the time they arrived to the moment they laid their heads on hotel pillows, the thousands of cardiologists attending this week's Heart Rhythm Society conference have been bombarded with pitches for drugs and medical devices."

Everything from customized key cards to logo-embossed carpeting, from huge convention hall display booths and company-sponsored parties. It's big business, and it's largely unregulated (which is not necessarily a bad thing, just worth noting).

Let's pause a moment and consider the nature of "swag:"

"The other day, I attended a CE (Continuing Education) class on Ethics. My fellow participants couldn't understand why I was giggling about an "Ethics" course given - for free! - to agents who'd received a "goody bag" full of tschochkes (chip clips, staplers, etc)."

Harmless enough, and certainly low-tech (and low-cost). But that vendor had to pay for the customized staplers and notepads, the cost of which is passed on to the consumer. So who pays for the hotel ballrooms and high-end tours provided gratis to the SanFran-bound heart specialists?

Well, it's not the manufacturers. Nor is it the doc's themselves. It's tempting to say, "well, Medicare or Blue Cross pays the hospital bills, so I guess this is on them, too." But of course that's sophistry: you and I as tax-payers (Medicare) and/or insureds (Blue Cross, et al) or - more simply - health care consumers pay those bills."

USAToday opines that "one area of medicine still welcomes the largesse: societies that represent specialists." But we already know that a "Medical Society" is simply an association of providers who pay dues for, well, whatever the Society does for them." As the old saw goes, money makes the world go 'round. And these organizations, as USAToday notes, benefit greatly from their relationships with vendors.

To be fair, the organization highlighted in the USAToday piece claims that "industry money does not buy influence and is essential to developing new treatments. Still, on Thursday the group unveiled a formal policy that, among other things, requires more detailed disclosure of board members' industry ties."

How nice for them.

The thing is, though, that there's really nothing inherently wrong with this kind of marketing: ever been to an Auto Show? Or the National Home Builders' annual shindig? It is, quite simply, capitalism at work, and it seems to be effective, at that. But let's don't kid ourselves: this does impact the cost of health care (and hence, insurance), and we need to acknowledge that it is, in fact, a part of the problem.

HWR here at IB

Next week, we're proud to once again host the Health Wonk Review, the bi-weekly roundup of health care policy and polity.

Please submit your posts via Blog Carnival (or email), and be sure to include:

■ Your blog's url
■ Your post's url
■ The post's trackback URL (if available)
■ A (brief) summary of the post

Submissions are due no later than next Wednesday (May 11th), but be warned: this is "first come, first served."

Advertising Update

This past January, we celebrated 6 years "on the air." In all that time, we had never accepted paid advertising at InsureBlog. This was my decision, and I'm quite happy with it. It's not there haven't been opportunities; as one of the premier insurance law and health blogs on the 'net, we get quite a few inquiries.

Still, I resisted.

But, times change, and I have been ably persuaded to change my mind (see, sometimes old dogs can learn new tricks!).

And so, I'm proud to say that we've accepted our first paid advert here at IB, from the fine folks at Hiscox, business insurance experts from Across the Pond. Their ad can be found on the sidebar just below our linklist. Please feel free to click through - they're very friendly folks.

And if you'd like to discuss advertising opportunities here, just drop us a line. Fair warning: we're very picky.

Old Salt, New Facts

You know all those nanny-staters that want to drastically reduce the amount of salt to which we're exposed? Much like the Great Egg Cholesterol Scare of the 80's, this one's taking a licking:

"People who ate lots of salt were not more likely to get high blood pressure, and were less likely to die of heart disease than those with a low salt intake ... The findings "certainly do not support the current recommendation to lower salt intake in the general population."

Says whom?

That would be Belgian scientist Dr. Jan Staessen (no waffler, he), who oversaw an 8 year study of almost 4,000 Europeans (whose physiology, it turns out, is remarkably similar to our own).

Contrast this with current US guidelines that are based on "data from short-term studies of people who volunteered to be assigned to a low-salt or high-salt," a rather self-selected group.

Now, if you've got high blood pressure or a heart condition, it's probably a good idea to continue limiting your daily intake of sodium chloride.

As for the rest of us, it's pretzel time!

[Hat Tip: RWN]