Back to Basics

What we can expect from the government takeover of our health care is already starting to reveal its deadly intensions.

The H1N1 vaccine, purchased by and controlled by the government, was a promise that couldn’t be kept.  There was supposed to be enough vaccine available for all those who were at risk as well as it sounding like for anyone else that wanted the vaccine.  Since early this year the government was telling the public how much of an epidemic the H1N1 flu was going to be and was encouraging everyone to get vaccinated.  But when the time came to pay up the government fell far short of their promises.

The H1N1 is a separate vaccination from the regular annual flu vaccinations.  The regular flu vaccination is controlled by private industry.  Those vaccinations have been produced, distributed and are available at your doctor’s office or clinic for anyone requesting it.  In fact, my family doctor asked at my annual exam if I wanted to receive the vaccination.

However, the H1N1 is a different story.  The vaccine was purchased and distribution is being controlled by the government.  While they promised to have enough to go around they fell far short.  The government is controlling all quantities of this vaccine, including where the vaccines are to be sent and how much.  It is only being distributed to government sponsored agencies, so your doctor probably didn’t even receive the vaccine.  In order to obtain the vaccination you have to go to a vaccination clinic.  Even then, if you are not considered high risk you may be denied the vaccination.  So by the end of this year’s flu season only 25% of the H1N1 vaccine will have been distributed.  The rationing has already begun.

Then this week I read an article from the New York Times about a government task force deciding mammograms for women are no longer necessary until age 50, and then only every other year.  They further decided that self-breast exams didn’t do any good and should be discontinued.  Their recommendation was between 50-75 mammograms should be done every other year and after the age of 75 they haven’t yet decided.  Could this be because they are embracing the ideas of the Obama Czars – that anyone over 75 isn’t worth the cost of medical treatment because they have served their usefulness in society already?

How many people know of at least one woman who is alive today because of early detection and treatment of breast cancer?  How many others hear of the terrible tragedy other women face when the breast cancer was diagnosed in a much later stage and it had spread to lymph nodes or other parts of the body.  Sure, they may not have died from breast cancer, but they died from cancer initially caused from the spreading of the breast cancer.

The American Cancer Society came out against the task forces finding.  Does the government task force know more about cancer that the American Cancer Society?  Shouldn’t this decision be between the woman and her doctor?  No, this is all about money.  The task force says that testing 1300 women to save one life is worth it, but testing 1900 to save one life isn’t.  This is the government playing God.  I’m sure if that life that could be saved were yours or a close family member or friend anyone would agree it was worth it.  What price do you put on a life?  What right does the government have to establish that price?

Rationing and denial of services is what we all have to look forward to if the government takes over control of our health by the proposed health care reform bill passed by the House and under consideration in the Senate.  This is only a sample of what we have to look forward to in the future.  Having health insurance is one thing – getting the actual care of your health is another.  The government is only promising the insurance  – BUYERS BEWARE!

A real case of government healthcare…

One of my daughters became pregnant and found to everyone’s surprise she was going to have identical twins.  The news came with mixed emotions as well as difficult decisions.  This was not her first child and she, like many in the family, believes in natural childbirth without medication.  Only her first child was born in a hospital while all the others were born at home with a midwife.

She initially started seeing her midwife for prenatal visits, but when they discovered she was expecting twins the reality of government interference took hold.  The state of Arizona does not allow midwives to knowingly delivery twins, so they had to find a doctor.  They are on the state insurance, which poses it’s own challenges.  However, trying to find a doctor that not only would accept the state insurance but would also deliver twins and accept a patient at 10 weeks became almost an impossible task.  It took her a month to even obtain the booklet of doctors she requested from the state to start her search.  She went through the book and was more often turned down because the doctors no longer accepted the state insurance.  With the help of her midwife and fortunately a state employee willing to help, she was able to obtain the services of a high-risk OB team.

Through the ultrasounds they discovered the babies were identical twins, had separate bags of water but shared one placenta.  This put her in a higher risk category.  At one point during the pregnancy they determined she was experiencing twin-to-twin transfer and was then referred to a specialist.  Because of this the doctors wanted to see her 3 times a week and she underwent regular ultrasounds and non-stress tests.  During her third trimester an ultrasound indicated she actually had two placentas; that there was a division in the placenta that had not previously been noticed; the twins may not be identical.  At that time it was also revealed that she had not actual experienced twin-to-twin transfer, it was only borderline.  With only 4 weeks remaining until her due date the doctor told her she needed to find another doctor because she was now no longer considered high risk!

She took childbirth classes at the hospital she was to deliver at.  She is also a childbirth instructor so these classes were quite unnecessary from a childbirth aspect, but with this unusual pregnancy she wanted to be informed about the hospital, their procedures, as well as the special considerations in delivering twins.

During her regular doctor visits they discussed the expectations of delivery.  This resulted in a difference of opinion from the doctors and expectant parents.  The doctors believed in a medicated birth with a likely outcome of an induced labor as well as a cesarean delivery.  The parents believed in an unmedicated birth, as natural as possible, and only in an emergency to save the mother and/or babies did they want a cesarean.  They created their birth plan and the doctors made their modifications.  They were able to “negotiate” delaying an induction until 38 weeks.

She went in to labor naturally and the first baby came quickly.  They never made it to the hospital.  Labor never stopped and what seemed like a very short time later the second baby was delivered; he was a breech delivery.  Both babies were well and of good size, especially for twins (7 lbs. 14 oz. and 6 lbs. 9 oz.) with the mother and father cooperating during delivery; no one else was present.  This was a Sunday and at this point they did not want to go to the hospital because there was no need.  So they contacted one of their midwifes who came over to make sure mother and babies were okay – everyone was fine.  It also turns out the twins are identical, sharing only one placenta – the latest ultrasounds were wrong!

On Monday morning they contacted the OB doctors and told them the babies were delivered.  The parents asked if they should come in to be seen by the doctors and were told by the doctor’s office that they should come in 2 weeks.  The parents questioned this and the doctors decided they should make an appointment for that Thursday.  Everything seemed fine.

However, the parents received a call from the referring midwife indicating the doctor had issued a 911 call and told her to see the mother and babies immediately.  This second midwife came over Monday and checked everyone out – everyone was fine.

They kept their appointment on Thursday with the doctors, and again everyone was fine – or so they thought.  They expected to return to the doctor for her 6-week visit.

The democrats’ approach to reforming the health care system makes about as much sense as amputating an arm because someone broke a finger.  Instead of addressing the problems in smaller doses they are going to turn the entire system upside down.  I don’t know if they have been listening, but the United States has the best health care in the world.  Why would you want to destroy that?  They want to model it after systems like Canada, but have they listened to the complaints and problems Canada has?  People from Canada come to the United States for treatment because they can’t get it in their own country!  Canadians also have to carry secondary insurance because the government insurance isn’t good enough.  They also pay a HUGE percentage of their income (and not just the “rich”) to pay for these programs.  Is this really what we want?

Even in our own country the state of Massachusetts has their own version of universal health care.  Just recently they reported a cut in coverage to certain groups of people because they don’t have the money to keep the system running.  People who once had good coverage are complaining because they now have to wait to see a doctor or get treatment.  Sure, they may brag that they have the lowest uninsured population, but having the insurance and obtaining care are not the same thing.  The Massachusetts system has started failing in 3 years!

So I ask again – are the democrats listening?  Repackage, renaming or doing whatever creative means to disguise the same bill is still an attempt at passing the same bill.  We are getting tired of the democrats and president trying to sell the same used car with a different paint job.

Reform should start with the very basics and address the problems of the system.  Take it a step at a time, making changes to address the critical problems first, and then continue to monitor the system to see how much more is needed.  Treat the system like a patient – don’t do radical surgery when medication or a change of diet may solve the problem.

The uninsured is one of the current issue.  There are a good percentage of uninsured that have chosen to be uninsured.  They are people who are making a decent living and have made a personal choice not to obtain insurance.  Perhaps they are young and don’t feel the need for it.  They may be a family who does not have the children covered but the parents are.  Whatever the reason, it is their choice.  The government should not force them to purchase insurance.  However, if they have chosen not to obtain insurance then taxpayers should also not have to foot the bill for their medical issues.

The government has caused one of the problems in the system today by passing a law stating everyone has access to health care through the hospitals whether they can afford to pay for it or not.  This law allows anyone, including illegal immigrants, to visit their local hospital and obtain care for anything.  Many of these visits are for something that should be taken care of in a doctor’s office or clinic, but because they don’t have insurance they visit the hospital.  If insurance reform is made, then this law should be revised to only include life threatening illnesses or injuries only to citizens or legal immigrants.  Any minor health issues would be seen as long as the person could pay for the services, or should be referred to a clinic or doctor – which also would require payment.  So, if the person makes the choice not to purchase health insurance then they would have to deal with the financial consequences – not the taxpayers and not the hospital.

I am not talking about the citizens who simply cannot afford insurance.  Part of any reform should include government subsidies to help those people obtain insurance.  Many are now eligible for Medicaid or a state health care system, so they are not without coverage.  If they have not applied for that coverage you cannot blame the system; you have to hold the individual responsible at some point.  These services should continue, but should be limited to citizens or legal immigrants only.

The second group of uninsured are those with pre-existing conditions or chronic illnesses who cannot afford coverage or have had coverage cancelled or been declined coverage.  Congress has already passed a bill that allows states to set up high risk pools to provide insurance for these individuals.  The system has already been established, but many states have failed to create that system.  Some states have done a great job, others have struggled.  You have to start holding states responsible.  Take those states that have created the system that works and make it mandatory for all states to create a system that models the ones proven to work.

Another group of uninsured are those whose employer does not offer health insurance or the small business owner.  There are some policies offered to cover these individuals, but in my own search for a policy I found it difficult to find, more expensive with less coverage.  There is no reason creating new pooling systems to provide insurance policies to these people cannot be done.  The insurance companies need to be responsive to the need and demand for these policies and they need to be allowed the opportunity to create such pools.  The policies should be equivalent to those offered to large corporations at similar rates.  Further, anyone that pays for their own insurance policy should be given some sort of tax advantage, similar to what employees receive when they purchase insurance through their employer.

Insurance policies should also be customizable to individual needs.  Your basic insurance plan needs to be established to cover all the basic medical needs anyone may encounter.  The individual should then be able to determine and purchase additional options to customize their care.  If you are a single male or a female beyond childbearing age or have had a hysterectomy, then you would not need to “add” maternity coverage to your policy.  If you don’t smoke or drink alcohol then you wouldn’t need to add coverage to address those issues.  You may want to “add” chiropractic services to your plan, maybe naturopathic medicine, children’s well care checkups, hair replacement treatments, or any number of other options that would meet your needs and personal beliefs to address your health issues.  Other options would include what deductibles you want to set, co-pays for office visits or other services, and the percentage you want to be responsible for.  In this manner people would be paying only for the services they want and need instead of some inflated policy covering medical issues they will never use.  These policies should be made affordable and each individual would have control over their costs.  If they can only afford the basic coverage, then that would be their choice.  If they really want cosmetic surgery covered, then maybe that is an option they could add that they would also pay an additional premium fee for.  The choice should be up to the customer – not the insurance company or employer.

John Shadegg’s 2^nd Town Hall onAugust 25, 2009

Rep. John Shadegg - Phoenix Town Hall, Aug 25, 2009

AZ-Rep. John Shadegg held his 2^nd of 3 Town Hall meetings last night in Phoenix, Arizona.  There was a good turn out, not quite filling the high school auditorium with people from all ages and backgrounds, including some from other districts because their representatives were not holding town hall meetings.  Everyone was welcome and encouraged to speak freely, but maintain the respect of others.  There were no protestors, not even one picket sign from any point of view.  Two state representatives, Carl Seel and Sam Crump, also made an appearance at the meeting.

Unlike Shadegg’s first town hall meeting, many of the attendees seemed to already be familiar with H.R. 3200 as there were few questions directly relating to specifics in the bill.  Rep. Shadegg introduced his alternative bill, H.R. 3218, which I have previously covered.

One of the concerns expressed was; “Is H.R. 3200 constitutional?” – that is still questionable.  Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has introduced a bill, Enumerated Powers Act (Introduced in Senate) S 1319, which would require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws.  Some Congressmen, including Rep. Shadegg, are asking that question – what authority under the US Constitution allows for the enactment of this bill?

A small number of people expressed their support of a public option, and most of those individuals either had no insurance or a pre-existing condition or chronic illness.  They felt the only way for them to get insurance coverage was through a government option.  They were not concerned how this bill might affect anyone else, they were just thinking about their own situation.  Even though other options were explained to them, they seemed to want what they considered an easy solution in the form of a government option and remained clueless or didn’t comprehend the alternatives.  They just didn’t seem to want to take responsibility for their own health care.

There was a concern voiced about the possible involvement of the insurance industry’s role in the creation of the bill, as it expands the restrictions of ERISA.  ERISA applies to all group insurance policies and limits the responsibility of the insurance company even if they willfully deny coverage that results in death.  The case of Corkran v United Health Care was the case sited, in which the Corkran family lost their baby at birth due to United Health Care’s refusal to authorize treatment prescribed by Mrs. Corkran’s doctor.  Through discovery it was found that United Health Care’s doctor agreed with Mrs. Corkran’s doctor, but treatment had still been denied.  The Corkran’s could collection nothing for their loss.  Did the insurance companies agree to cover pre-existing conditions and chronic illnesses in exchange for this protection?  How will ERISA affect your treatment or ability to receive proper treatment?

Discussion and questions took place on the alternative bill, H.R. 3218, which provides insurance to all Americans through the enrollment of their choice with no government takeover.  Through new pooling mechanisms and tax credits, individuals would be able to make their own decisions and choices on health insurance policies.  If you like your company-offered plan you can keep it.  If you don’t, or are not insured, then you would be given tax credits to purchase a plan for you and your family.

One clarification on the H.R. 3218 plan that had not been previously addressed was covering the person who didn’t purchase a plan.  People are known.  If you have ever had a social security number the government knows you exist.  If an individual failed to respond and did not purchase insurance then money equivalent to the credit would be deposited into a fund.  If one of these individuals visited an emergency room or doctors office, information could be obtained from a national data bank and determine if they were one of these individuals.  If so, treatment would be made under this fund and they would be offered the option of enrolling in a plan of their choice.

Rep. Shadegg also stated he has previously submitted a “Patients Bill of Rights” as well as an amendment enacted in 2006, the “State High Risk Pool Funding Extension Act of 2006.”  This act allows states, with the use of federal funds, to create state high risk pools.  Some states never responded.

Health Care Reform – Back to the Basics

All this talk and debate over healthcare reform, government taking over – what next?  If we get back to basics it could be simple.

1. Remove all the illegal immigrants from getting free or subsidized services.  If they don’t like it then they can go back to where they came from.  If they need medical treatment they pay for it.

2. Offer affordable healthcare insurance to every legal American.  Make the healthcare packages the same as those offered to large corporations, and at a competitive price so everyone can get the same type of coverage.

3. Put all government employees and elected officials on the same medical plan.  If it is good enough for the general public it should be good enough for them!

4. Give tax incentives to those people who do not have employer paid plans to help offset the cost of purchasing healthcare insurance.  Give incentives to those employers who do offer insurance coverage and pay or help pay the premiums.

5. Do not make it mandatory for everyone to have to purchase insurance, but if an individual does not have insurance they must pay for their medical treatment.

6. Have all doctors, hospitals, etc. accept all insurance policies.  There is no reason a consumer must shop around to find what doctor is covered under their plan.  Then if their company changes plans they may have to shop around again.  Make it simple – if you have insurance it is accepted – period!

7. Alternative medicine should be accepted by all insurance companies.  This includes chiropractors, naturopathic doctors, midwives, etc.  Anyone with a medical license should be covered by the insurance without special limitations.  Sometimes the least invasive procedure is the best and more often costs less.  Why spend thousands of dollars for expensive medical treatment when a natural remedy may do better, with less side affects and lower costs.

8. Let the patient and their doctor decide what is best.  Insurance companies and government should not have a say in your treatment.