Monday, March 12, 2007
Unhealthy Care
Big article in the Des Moines Register today about children's health care and the Hawk-I program. There are several key points that the article misses out on that anyone with common sense and a little research behind them would be able to include.
Shortfall endangers kids' coverage
There are around 30,000 Iowa kids on the program. Originally, the program was a matching federal grant to states known as the State Children's Health Insurance Program. When Congress set it up in the 1990's (Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy co-sponsored), expenses were capped at $40 billion for the decade. Capped at $40-billion.
You can guess what happened to that cap. With no real enforcement on behalf of the federal government, it naturally grew.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia...is a longtime supporter of the program. [He says] it's beneficial for families to have parents included, but the program was aimed at children, he said. "When states use funds intended for children to instead cover adults, that means fewer dollars are available for kids," Grassley said.
Harkin said he's more comfortable with covering adults. "What I understand is when parents enroll, maybe kids are more likely to enroll, so maybe that's OK," Harkin said.
Duh. Of course he wants less responsibility to be placed on parents to get their kids insurance coverage. The more that don't have insurance, the more a state gets money. Which is why we set the income eligibility level so high.
To start the story, the Des Moines Register report included a sad-sack story (read: biased) to get you to care and want more government goodies. Later, we find out that the family DID check into private insurance.
Shouldn't the program be helping with no choice instead of those who are too lazy to pay for it on their own?
That applies to corporate welfare too. Last year, following 9/11, the federal government devoted $500 million to persuade companies to remain in lower Manhattan after the damage. American Express alone pocketed $25 million...despite the fact they had had an office in the area for 150-years and had never expressed a desire to move to another area. They took the money anyway.
-----------
-----------
Support the Advertisers that support GregAlan.net!
Official Release April 24th. Pre-order yours now!
WKRP in Cincinnati: The Complete First Season (3 Discs)
Shortfall endangers kids' coverage
Come late June, the help provided by Hawk-I might be harder to come by for many youngsters.What tight federal budget cuts? I haven't heard of any...have you?
The program in Iowa - and 13 other states - faces a shortfall that could leave thousands of Iowa kids without insurance.
Congress is scrambling to come up with a solution, and kids' insurance is seen as a top priority for the Democratic majority, but nothing's certain yet at a time of tight federal budgets.
There are around 30,000 Iowa kids on the program. Originally, the program was a matching federal grant to states known as the State Children's Health Insurance Program. When Congress set it up in the 1990's (Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy co-sponsored), expenses were capped at $40 billion for the decade. Capped at $40-billion.
You can guess what happened to that cap. With no real enforcement on behalf of the federal government, it naturally grew.
Popular with both Democrats and Republicans, the program with a $5 billion national budget this year is aimed at working families who aren't the poorest of the poor - they hold down jobs but can't afford the rising price of health insurance.$5-billion dollars THIS YEAR ALONE certainly exceeds the CAP of $40-billion originally intended, doesn't it? It's not surprising that the CAP was exceeded, though...all a state had to do to get more money was to make the program open to more people.
Compared with some states, Iowa has been modest in its approach to the program, lawmakers say. Iowa restricts health insurance coverage to people under age 19, while some states have included pregnant women, parents and even childless adults.Any low income program that makes anyone with an income 200-percent above the poverty level eligible isn't necessarily a low-income program anymore. New Jersey, for instance...has the eligibility set at 350-percent above the federal poverty level.
The top income limit for eligible Iowa families is 200 percent of the federal poverty level, which comes out to about $34,000 a year for a family of three. But 15 states - many on the East or West coasts - set limits higher, saying their cost of living is higher.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia...is a longtime supporter of the program. [He says] it's beneficial for families to have parents included, but the program was aimed at children, he said. "When states use funds intended for children to instead cover adults, that means fewer dollars are available for kids," Grassley said.
Harkin said he's more comfortable with covering adults. "What I understand is when parents enroll, maybe kids are more likely to enroll, so maybe that's OK," Harkin said.
Duh. Of course he wants less responsibility to be placed on parents to get their kids insurance coverage. The more that don't have insurance, the more a state gets money. Which is why we set the income eligibility level so high.
To start the story, the Des Moines Register report included a sad-sack story (read: biased) to get you to care and want more government goodies. Later, we find out that the family DID check into private insurance.
Whatever the debate in Washington, [Knoxville family Marci] Ruff said the Hawk-I program has been of great assistance.CHOSE to go without primarily because they could get someone else to pick up the tab. I currently pay an "astronomical" amount of $100 dollars a week for coverage for myself and 3 others.
"I've been married to my husband for 18 years, and we've always had health insurance," she said. But when he lost his job, then found a new one, the health insurance was an "astronomical" $90 a week and they chose to go without, she said.
Shouldn't the program be helping with no choice instead of those who are too lazy to pay for it on their own?
That applies to corporate welfare too. Last year, following 9/11, the federal government devoted $500 million to persuade companies to remain in lower Manhattan after the damage. American Express alone pocketed $25 million...despite the fact they had had an office in the area for 150-years and had never expressed a desire to move to another area. They took the money anyway.
-----------
-----------
Support the Advertisers that support GregAlan.net!
Official Release April 24th. Pre-order yours now!
WKRP in Cincinnati: The Complete First Season (3 Discs)
Labels: corporate welfare, health care
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Health Care Racket
Everyone - including me - complains about the cost of health insurance coverage. The increases we see every year are often high enough to lead many otherwise right-thinking people to consider single payer and/or universal health care plans offered by various candidates.
Most people don't consider many of the reasons for the increases - especially those attributed to themselves.
-Overuse. People go to the doctor for everything these days. Partly because we've been trained to...partly because we're just a bunch of babies. Your car insurance goes up every time you have an accident or moving violation...is it any wonder your health insurance goes up when you go to the doctor for anti-biotics when you have a cold?
-Protective medicine. Doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine in order to protect themselves from unseemly lawsuits. A 2-thousand dollar MRI charged to your insurance company is no big deal.
-We don't pay the bill. We don't read the bill, either. We only pay a small percentage (and often complain about the "size" of copays) of the bill. It's always been a mystery to me why people would try and get a larger deductible on their car insurance in order to lower their rates...but complain about having to pay $500 dollars when they get their appendix taken out.
Here's another reason costs increase. Quietly, our lawmakers force the insurers we have to cover more and more things that indirectly force you to pay more.
Bill would force insurance coverage of drug, alcohol abuse
Even Republicans' knees buckled under the populist pressure of such a proposal...
-----------
-----------
Support the Advertisers that support GregAlan.net!
Official Release April 24th. Pre-order yours now!
WKRP in Cincinnati: The Complete First Season (3 Discs)
Most people don't consider many of the reasons for the increases - especially those attributed to themselves.
-Overuse. People go to the doctor for everything these days. Partly because we've been trained to...partly because we're just a bunch of babies. Your car insurance goes up every time you have an accident or moving violation...is it any wonder your health insurance goes up when you go to the doctor for anti-biotics when you have a cold?
-Protective medicine. Doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine in order to protect themselves from unseemly lawsuits. A 2-thousand dollar MRI charged to your insurance company is no big deal.
-We don't pay the bill. We don't read the bill, either. We only pay a small percentage (and often complain about the "size" of copays) of the bill. It's always been a mystery to me why people would try and get a larger deductible on their car insurance in order to lower their rates...but complain about having to pay $500 dollars when they get their appendix taken out.
Here's another reason costs increase. Quietly, our lawmakers force the insurers we have to cover more and more things that indirectly force you to pay more.
Bill would force insurance coverage of drug, alcohol abuse
A bill making its way through the statehouse would force insurance companies to cover a broader array of mental health services, including treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Under current state law, if a company has more than 50 workers on its payroll and offers health care benefits the policies must cover treatment for "biologically-based" mental illnesses.There's minimal mention of the costs it will have on your premiums in the story. Certainly, those same Democrats know this and will campaign on it in future years...using it as a battering ram against the insurance industry, doctors, and the rising cost of health care. I can't believe they wouldn't consider that the added costs in coverages wouldn't be passed on to consumers. Democrats are dumb...but they're not that dumb. If I were to believe in conspiracies...this would be one of them.
(It) would require additional coverage for substance abuse treatment, eating disorders and depression. Supporters like Senator Keith Kreiman, a Democrat from Bloomfield, say it could help keep people out of prison because studies show most inmates are either addicts or have some mental health problem. "The financial costs, the moral costs of not doing this bill are so great," Kreiman says.
Even Republicans' knees buckled under the populist pressure of such a proposal...
But Some Republicans like Senator Dave Mulder of Sioux Center complain the move will raise insurance rates, making it difficult for businesses to continue to provide health care benefits to employees...Despite that, Mulder voted for the bill in committee.I'll never forget the time I applied for insurance coverage following my first round of cancer in my youth. I had a pre-existing condition, so I could not find an insurer who would cover me. All I wanted was to be covered for medical possibilities outside of cancer - if I broke my leg, for instance. After researching the issue - why a private insurer couldn't write a policy that could exclude coverage for cancer - I found it was lawmakers who make the rules.
-----------
-----------
Support the Advertisers that support GregAlan.net!
Official Release April 24th. Pre-order yours now!
WKRP in Cincinnati: The Complete First Season (3 Discs)
Labels: health care
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
