Health Care: Pre-existing Conditions

Now that the convention is over and Mitt is the anointed Republican candidate, his story is starting to shift in an attempt to appeal to the masses.  While the rhetoric before the convention was REPEAL OBAMACARE,  now he is saying that parts of the law are good and should be kept.  One of the parts that he likes is not allowing insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

First, by admitting that insurance companies should be compelled by law to insure a certain class of people is an admission that the free market economy will NOT  deliver the best result for the people in all cases.  It is not in any insurance company's interest to insure someone known to be sick.

Second, given that insurance is to be provided, how is it to be paid for.  There are basically three scenarios.  1. You just add them to the pool of those already insured, in which case the cost of insurance goes up for everyone in order to cover the added expense of insuring people with known health issues. 2. You create "high risk pools" into which these people fall and for which insurance companies will provide coverage.  Unfortunately, insurance companies are "for-profit" entities and they must set the premiums at a level that, on average, will cover the expenses of the group of sick people plus administrative overhead  and profit.  To take a simple example, let's say the "high risk pool" consists of people with cancer, the treatment of which costs $50,000/year.  In order for the insurance company to survive, it must charge $50,000/year plus 15% for administration and profit.  Who can afford that.  3. You can spread the risk, and cost across all people  by insuring the healthy as well as the infirm.  This is how insurance works, the people who are fortunate enough to never need it are the ones who pay for the less fortunate.  This is exactly what the "individual mandate" in the affordable healthcare law is supposed to enable.

If you already have insurance and you really don't care if someone else does or not, I guess you're going to ignore this line of reasoning.  Just remember though: as we learned in 2008, most of us are one "economic downturn" away from being jobless or switching jobs.  When that happens, perhaps your current beloved insurance will no longer be available.  If you've got diabetes, you're screwed.

Of the 3 options above, the only one that seems reasonable is exactly what the Affordable Care Act is trying to do.  The biggest issue I have with it is that it keeps the "for-profit" insurance companies in the middle of the whole thing.  Get them out of the way and go for a Single Payer system and we'll be on our way to a modern, affordable health care system.

Dredge the Rivers!

State Senator Tom Libous was interviewed about the need to dredge the rivers, presumably to avoid floods such as the one in September 2011.  First, Mr. Libous stated that he's not an expert on this kind of stuff.  And, he stated, even if he did know something about it, the rivers are under control of the Army Corps of Engineers, not state or local government.  But Mr. Libous, not having any credentials or authority, said we should dredge the rivers.

To me this whole interchange was mildly amusing, until I realized that thousands of ignorant people will take up the chant and potentially wind up spending my tax money to to do something that will have little, if any effect on the potential for flooding in the future.

Just exactly what was the point of that interview anyhow??

12 Million Jobs

I WILL CREATE 12 MILLION JOBS!!!!  Trust me, vote for me... just don't ask me how.

Haven't we heard this before???

Can't Wait For DNC

I can't wait for the Democrats to trot out a group of people unemployed due to Bain Capital actions.  This is better than any reality TV show!  It's such an advantage to go 2nd!!

Humanizing Mitt

So, we  found out a lot about Mitt Romney, the "person", through incredibly well scripted and staged testimonials.  But when Mitt took the stage, it was the same old MITT.  What a let-down.  Rubio was great! Eastwood was entertaining.  Mitt was Mitt.  Exactly what are you going to replace "Obamacare" with Mr. Romney??????

Political Ad Mute-cott

Over the next few months, there will be enormous amounts of money spent to capture our eyes and ears by candidates running for office. With the presidential race soon to be in full swing, assisted by the fully funded Super PACs, we're about to be deluged with information and dis-information.

 How about if we band together and shut out the noise! Keep your remote handy and every time you see a political ad start on TV, press the MUTE button. When you're driving in the car and you hear one on the radio, turn the volume down for 30 seconds. Sure, it takes a little effort, but the only reason these people spend obscene amounts of money is because we listen and they think they have a chance to capture our vote. If nobody is listening, they lose. And we win by taking the responsibility to figure out which candidate best fits our personal views by doing our own research and finding out for ourselves, rather than letting some high paid advertising agency jamming twisted truths (at best) or lies down our throats.

 Remember, every time you hear or see a political ad, MUTE IT. It's not easy... these advertisements are made to be engaging... to capture our attention.... to make us believe. Don't do it. Turn it off. Don't fall for the sound-bites. You will feel better for taking control of your own opinions and the country will be better with citizens that make the effort to find "truth" rather than being fed "engineered truth".

 SEE IT - MUTE IT

HEAR IT - MUTE IT

Eliminate Lead Poisoning Risk

Headline in USA Today: New lead poisoning limits put 365,000 at risk. My question is: If you can put people at risk by changing the guidelines in one direction, can you not reduce the risk by changing it in the other? If the CDC declares that any amount of lead is safe, does that make it so?