Tag Archives: healthcare

Musings on Freedom

     Today was an interesting day.  Our family is fighting the remnants of a sinus infection and we are not feeling the best that we could.  In a perfect world (or at least one without massive government regulation) I could call my doctor and discuss with him my treatment options.  I might give him a credit card over the phone so he could be paid for his time.   He would then tell me to go to the pharmacy and to pick up an antibiotic,an anti-histamine and a decongestant. (Sudafed)  I would then (after sniffling, sneezing and clearing my sinuses.) get in my vehicle and drive to the pharmacy.  I would then walk up to the section on the shelf that said  antibiotics, select the one he suggested, then do the same for the anti-histamine and decongestant.  I would then take them to the counter, pay a reasonable price for them and then go home.

     But this is not a regulation free world, nor is it free in any way.  Let’s compare the scenario above to today’s reality.  If I call my doctor, more often as not because he is worried about law suits, he will not just recommend a medicine.  Instead I have to go in and see him.  Actually he can’t recommend the medicine, he has to call the pharmacy and tell them to let me have the medicine he wants me to take.   The government does not trust me enough to pick the correct medicine from the shelves as I might pick the wrong thing, take to much or too little or even worse, I might get high on Keflex. We can’t have our sick people getting high on over the counter antibiotics  that would be terrible.  So instead we have this whole system where we pay people to approve a drug, then pay them to dispense the drug, and then pay them to track how much of the drug was used.  What a waste.  I wonder how many lives are lost because access to simple prescriptions has gotten so convoluted? I wonder if that information is kept out of the news.  Already the FDA has started to try to limit access to the more expensive cancer drugs.

    What about the Sudafed.  It used to be I could walk up to the shelf an select an anti-histamine that contained Sudafed.  Now I have to go to the counter, show my drivers license and have the pharmacy check and see if I will be concocting methamphetamine from the Sudafed.  If I am sinusy more than 20 days this month I will be cut off because I am clearly a criminal.  Of course, traffic in methamphetamines  has not decreased, it just gets brought in from Mexico.  I however am treated like a criminal.  The next time I apply for a driver’s license they are going to look at me and say. “Sorry sir,  you tried to buy more than your allotment of sinus medicine.  We are going to have to deny you a license.  Please return next year and show that you are clean.”

    Oh my gosh, I have a Sudafed record.  They are going to lump me in with those old people smuggling cheap blood pressure meds and Plavix from Canada.  No wonder our jails are filled with drug abusers.  

    Actually, the point is that this whole infrastructure designed to protect us from ourselves is costing us a fortune while actually limiting the legitimate use of drugs.  How many terminal cancer patients have been denied pot, morphine, or codeine just because the physician was afraid of what the government would say.  His prescribing habits are being tracked and monitored.  Once again I can here the doctor explaining the issue.  “Yes, I know you are in pain and will die in the next few months.  There is nothing I can do to heal you and the government is worried that you might get addicted to codeine so we are not going to give you any pain relief.  You could end up a junkie and on the street.  You will addict your family members.  No we would rather you die a slow, horrible painful death. We are the government and here to help with your every health care need.”

    The current system already costs us, the consumer far more than a system that was truly free of government regulation.   The problems associated with inappropriate use would work themselves out with far less problems than the government thinks.  The cost savings would be tremendous.  Right now, the opposite is occurring.  Government regulation is impacting the legitimate distribution of drugs.  Life saving drugs that cost too much are being limited.  The motive for drug companies to develop new life saving drugs is being stripped away and less R & D is already happening.  Instead of a system that brings the best care, where the vast majority have better access to care than anywhere else in the world we are moving to a system that dispenses medical care the same way we dispense Sudafed.  If you use to much care, you will be denied.

     The government won’t have to kill its enemies, just forbid them to get ambulance rides when they need one, or cut off their medical device allowance.  We are going into a brave old world.  This is a world where freedom exists only for the powerful that can escape the system.    It’s why Congress does not have the same rules applied to them as the rest of us.  Where is the Constitution when you need it?

The Law is the Law — a Terrifying Truth

The President has gotten out his pen and announced a whole host of Obomacare waivers, delayed implementations and exceptions.  The problem is, he did not have the power to actually implement any of them.  Perhaps he can prevent the IRS from going after the unions and businesses he provided waivers to.  Since he did not have the ability to provide those waivers, any fees, taxes and costs associated with Obomcare are still accrueing.  The question then becomes, when does the IRS decide that those back fees weren’t really waived, but are due immediately, plus penalties?

I can envisionsion several scenarios.  Perhaps those fees and penalties will suddenly just apply to conservative businessowners.  If you gave to a conservative candidate you will now owe all your waived penalties with interest.  Your employees will no longer have health insurance coverage.  Your business will be placed in receivership.  

Perhaps the accrued fees will be used to create a need for a single payor system.  The arguement will be made that since businesses are not paying as they should the employees are at risk of losing their coverage so we need to get rid of all employer paid coverage.  In either situation the waivers may well be a huge ruse designed to further the goals of this administration and to centralize their power.

Beyond the obvious, using the waivers to protect democrats in 2014’s midterm elections,  they are part of a more sinister plan.   Their eventual enforcement will be used to cowtow their enemies and to further destroy health insurance markeplace.  

If you own a business, run and insurance company, manage a pharmaceutical company, or provide medical services in any way you best stop this train now.  Your livelihood is about to be destroyed.  Already more people have lost their insurance because of Obomacare than have gained new insurance.  The administration cares only for its agenda.  They are willing to kill or disrupt the lives of as many citizens as it takes to implement their vision.  Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, and Mao all had the same approach. Implementing the vision was more important than human life, freedom, or liberty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Letter to Jeff Sessions

Senator Sessions,

You can’t keep your group healthcare plan if the premium portion the employee pays goes through the roof. I am a heart patient and because of rate increases I will most likely lose the coverage I am happy with in two weeks. I don’t qualify for subsidies but cant afford more than I am already paying per month for my family. What right does government have in destroying a system that worked for the vast majority of Americans. President Obama lies to the American public and boldly states he will not uphold the laws of the United States, a clear violation of his Oath and not one Congressman or Senator truly works to bring articles of impeachment. The changes in the health insurance market place may kill me sooner than I would die otherwise. Many others have been put in more immediate jeopardy. The effort Congress and the Senate have put toward stopping this carnage is pathetic.

As much as I like so much of what you do, in this area, every member of both houses is responsible.

Claims Department — Affordable Care Act

Hello, welcome to the IRS Health Claims pre-approval hotline.  If you are calling about a prior claim please call our Claims Service Hotline, otherwise for pre-approval,  please enter in your social security number and press # when done.  Someone will be on the line to assist you momentarily.

                                (2 hours later)

“JIM”:   Hello, this is Jim, welcome to the IRS Health Claims Pre-approval hotline.   I see that you have indicated that you will

need approval for the treatment of heart disease.   Reviewing your current information, I see that you have had a heart attack previously,

is that correct?

“GEORGE”;  the patient:   Yes, that is correct.

“JIM”:   What procedure do you need to have approved?

“GEORGE” : According to my doctor I need blood work for cardiac enzymes, a stress test, a catheterization, and most likely stents.

“JIM”:   Our records show that you are 58 years old.  Are you planning to return to work after the procedure?

“GEORGE” : Why does that matter?

“JIM”:   This information is used to calculate your available lifetime medical benefit under the affordable care act.  Since you already used $256,432 of your maximum benefit we need to calculate how much additional benefit you qualify for.

“GEORGE” :  How is that benefit calculated?

“JIM”:   We at the IRS take great care to calculate that benefit from all the information that you provide or which is already in the file we have on you.  It is our goal to make that determination as fairly as possible given all the factors.

“GEORGE”: But what are the factors?

“JIM”: Expenses already incurred, the likelihood that more expenses will be incurred, your age, your estimated productive remaining years and such.  Now, please just answer the questions as they are addressed to you. 

“JIM”:  Are you planning to return to work after the procedure?

“GEORGE”: yes.

“JIM”:   Do you currently work for a profit or non-profit organization?

“GEORGE”: profit

“JIM”:  How many times did you eat fast food last month?

“GEORGE”: about 20.

“JIM”:  Do you smoke?

“GEORGE”:  Used to.

“JIM”:  Do you vote in presidential elections?

“GEORGE”: What?

“JIM”:  Do you vote in presidential elections?

“GEORGE”: Why is that pertinent?

“JIM”:  Sir, you need to answer the questions.  These all have statistical correlations.

“GEORGE”:  Ok, yes I vote.

“JIM”:  Would you classify yourself a more liberal or conservative?

“GEORGE”:  I don’t see….

“JIM”:  Just answer the question sir!

“GEORGE”:  Conservative.

“JIM”:  At what age do you plan to retire?

“GEORGE”:  65.

“JIM”:  Thank you sir for answering the questions.  The system is reviewing your information. 

Based on the computer’s projection we will approve all the diagnostic tests and procedures.  Should you need stents or some other therapeutic treatment the Affordable Care act will not cover those.   You are already close to your lifetime maximum.

 “GEORGE”:  Are you telling me that if I try to get my heart fixed, you will not pay for  it.

“JIM”:  That is correct.

“GEORGE”:  Surely there is some way to appeal this.

“JIM”:  Sir the ACA does not provide for any appeals the decisions of the IRS are final.

“GEORGE”:  but….

“JIM”:  Thank you for calling the IRS, have a good day.  CLICK!

 Back at the IRS office Jim speaking to his co-worker says, “There is one more white conservative who won’t be voting next year.  High FIVE!!!!!”

 

 

 

Childhood and The President — I will do what I want.

Growing up, I was always in trouble.  Whenever mom or dad would tell me to do something I would announce my intention to either do the thing or not do the thing.  I not only announced my intention but would announce it with attitude.   They always knew where I stood and should I refuse to do what they asked I would get into big trouble.   Often a power struggle ensued.  As a kid however, you have no power so I lost most if not all of those battles.

My brother however had a different strategy.  Whenever he was told to do something he would just agree to do it.  Now before you think he was being compliant and obedient, note that verbal agreement is not action.   He would agree whether or not he had any intention of carrying out the task.   Often the request itself would get lost to time and the task would never be completed.   The result was that there were almost no power struggles between him and my parents.  His approach seldom resulted in conflict.    

Most of us would say that if you agree to something then you should do that thing.  Whole philosophies are built on that concept.  The basis of honor, honesty, commitment and contracts are all based on the concept that someone’s word can be depended upon.  For me, the convenience of just agreeing never sat very well.   I did not see commitment as a fuzzy concept.  To his credit, as my brother got older he was one of the most dependable people I ever knew.   His word was something you could depend with absolute assurance.  He was still incredible at maintaining peace, but did so with a commitment to his word.  Not so, President Obama.

Our president has demonstrated much the same approach to commitment as did my brother as a child.  Saying what is expedient to get the most mileage has become one of his trademarks.  It is as if his intentions or words of the moment are reality and we are supposed to believe that reality from moment to moment.   Of course he said that, “If you like your insurance you can keep it.”  He knows it was false, but it was what he wanted people to believe.  My brother wanted my parents to believe that he would do his chores.  He did not want to do the chores only to convince them of his good intentions.   My brother, unlike President Obama grew up to be a man of his word and the “I will do what I want philosophy” no longer dominated his actions. 

Unfortunately, the “I will do what I want” approach to governing is not a good model for a democratic society.  Recently Obama announced that he would double gas mileage standards by 2024 and save each person $8,000 per year.    Whether or not there was any science to make that promise was not relevant. Whether or not it is possible was not relevant.  The announcement also assumed that he knows what the price of gas will be in 10 years.  The only basis he had for the announcement is that it is something he wants.  Sadly, most of the news goes along with announcing this without ever challenging the announcement’s factual underpinnings.   According to the President, his announcing the thing is the same as its becoming reality.  Facts do not matter.

With the Healthcare law and immigration law the President has told the nation what parts of the law were valid and what parts were not valid even when those decrees were completely antithetical to the actual wording of the law.  The penalties that are part of not complying with the law as written are still due even if the President decided not to “implement” them.  Beyond the fact that he has no actual power to change a law that is already passed, just because he says that he is changing the law does not actually change it.  Those that cross our borders and live here without going through formal channels are still illegal aliens under the law.   The President can call it what he likes and violate his oath of office by not enforcing the law, but they are still illegal under the law. 

Just like with my brother, If Mom and Dad did not come back to him and challenged him on the fact that he did not do as he said he would, then he would never have done what was expected.  If Congress does not go back to the President and force him to follow the constitution he will continue to do what he wants with no check on his power.  He has been clear in action and deed that this is an “I will do what I want.” presidency.  Perhaps, while a child is learning responsibility, a short venture into the ”I will do what I want lifestyle”,  it is not so bad.  It is also what you would expect of a dictator.  It is not a good approach for the democratically elected leader of the United States.