PadminiArhant.com
Health Care Legislation Amendment
April 22, 2010
By Padmini Arhant
As stated earlier in the blogposts – National Health Care legislation – March 29, 2010, Universal Health Care – Single Payer System under ‘Health’ category on April 8, 2010, the certainty regarding premium hikes by the Health insurance industry has prompted the legislators to introduce a bill seeking federal regulation on health rates.
According to “The New York Times”, report dated April 21, 2010
By Robert Pear – Thank you.
Democrats seek federal regulation of health rates
“Senators say they fear insurers will raise premiums.”
Washington – Fearing that health insurance premiums may shoot up in the next few years,
Senate Democrats laid a foundation Tuesday for federal regulation of rates, four weeks after President Barack Obama signed a law intended to rein in soaring health costs.
After a hearing on the issue, the chairman of the Senate health committee, Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said he intended to move this year on legislation that would “provide an important check on unjustified premiums.”
Harkin praised a bill introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, that would give the secretary of health and human services power to review premiums and block “any rate increase found to be unreasonable.”
Under the bill, the federal government could regulate rates in states where state officials did not have “sufficient authority and capability” to do so.
The White House offered a similar proposal in the weeks leading up to approval of the health care legislation last month.
But it was omitted from the final measure, in part for procedural reasons.
Reviving the proposal Tuesday, Harkin said:
“Rate review authority is needed to protect consumers from insurance companies’ jacking up premium simply because they can.”
Under the new health care law, starting in 2014, most Americans will be required to have insurance.
Insurers will have to offer coverage to all applicants and cannot charge higher premiums because of a person’s medical condition or history.
Michael McRaith, director of the Illinois Department of Insurance, told Congress on Tuesday,
“There is a distinct possibility that less responsible companies will raise rates to price out people who are sick or might become sick between now and 2014.”
McRaith said he and the governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, a Democrat, “unequivocally support state based insurance regulation” because local officials understand local markets.
He endorsed Feinstein’s bill, saying it would “provide an impetus” for states to regulate premiums if they did not already do so.
Karen Ignani, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group for insurers, said Congress should let the new law work before piling on additional requirements.
Ignagni said the law imposed new requirements, taxes and fees on health plans, which could further drive up costs.”
————————————————————————————————–
Amendment Requirements – By Padmini Arhant
It’s obvious from the news article and the cited blogposts that forewarned the inevitable health insurance premium hikes, especially with the mandatory insurance scheduled to commence in 2014.
Again, as indicated in the blogposts titled – ‘National Health Care legislation,’ “Universal Health Care – Single Payer System,” and per NYT article, the health care amendments are related to the most vulnerable patients subject to higher premiums between now and 2014.
The healthy subscribers may not be affected right now.
However, in the absence of foolproof system for the insurance industry to circumvent the health care laws, the majority will be forced to deal with the prolonged status quo, even after 2014.
Private sectors use the ‘unknown’ market rates for it is determined by demand and supply, to evade compliance on ‘reasonable’ price.
With the mandatory insurance purchase in 2014, the demand will exceed supply providing the insurers a huge opportunity in price management.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill is to address that aspect of the problem.
If the bill is aimed at premium caps augmented with the health and human services discretionary power to block the ‘unreasonable’ rates – it is thoughtful but not guaranteed to be obliged by the Health Insurance industry.
Further, any federal assurance to regulate rates upon the states’ failure or inability to do so, is also a welcome change.
Nevertheless, the resistance from the President of America’s Health Insurance Plans, Karen Ignani, representing a trade group of insurers to any new requirements is conspicuous.
Notwithstanding, the assertion to transfer the costs burden to the consumer, the ultimate payee in the retail business.
It’s always possible to modify and manage products and services under self-control, but it’s much harder when it’s designed and delivered by others.
Regardless of the requirements and legislations, the industry that is a dominant force in the health care service would not easily compromise on the disproportionate profit margins attained thus far.
That’s why, the solid protection for the ‘unaffordable’ customers and those in need of ‘urgent’ care, the existing Medicare expansion is recommended.
As such, the patients under these categories are being assisted with the federal funding to enable access to the ‘private for profit’ health care.
Therefore, it eliminates the opposition to the ‘Universal Health Care’ funding.
In fact, when the cost/benefit ratio is evaluated, the Single Payer system is approved by the economists, Congressional Budget Office and the non-partisan groups concerned about the consumer rights and the rising national deficit.
The purpose behind the health care legislation was to rein in costs to the ‘average’ American families struggling to cope with the private industry’s vertical premiums that will persist despite the regulations as confirmed by the President of the America’s Health Insurance Plans, Karen Ignani.
Although, the coverage denial on pre-existing conditions exacerbated with the higher premiums is prohibited, the present and the future subscribers i.e. in 2014, have not been informed with the relevant details, particularly on the quality and the maximum medical expenses for their individual health condition.
There is lot of ambivalence that requires clarification.
The information on the health care law made available to the public with Q&A interface is necessary to dispel the myths around the insurance plans and the unmitigated health care expenses.
Public awareness and complete knowledge of the health care law is essential to prepare the customers financially in the exclusive private health care service.
In addition, per the insurance industry stance against the health care law and any requirements, the consumers are challenged with the uphill battle in terms of unlimited health care access and affordable costs.
Unless the ‘Universal Medicare’ is extended to the vast uninsured, the health insurance and the health care industry would continue to maneuver around the health care legislation.
The health care legislation is a preliminary step towards the specific issues like pre-existing conditions.
Since, the actual benefits to the currently insured and uninsured are still dependent upon the ‘private for profit’ health care policy,
Unequivocally, the Universal Medicare for all with 24/7 access, especially to the ‘federal aid’ recipients is the immediate and permanent solution to the emerging and the long-term health care crisis.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Universal Health Care – Single Payer System
April 8, 2010
By Padmini Arhant
On April 7, 2010 the amendments to the health care law were recommended based on the components in the bill.
Since the sole purpose of health care reform was to end the plight of the several million Americans without health insurance and those denied coverage for various unscrupulous practices by the insurance industry, the federal program via public option and expansion of the prevalent system such as Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and VA was proposed.
Besides, the amendments to health care legislation are also focused on containing the burgeoning health care costs that has been contributing to the rising national deficit.
Therefore, in order to achieve the combined goals of providing quality and cost controlled health care, the formal decision is to amalgamate the federal programs into a unified Single Payer System that has been long approved as the most effective measure by the non-partisan groups within and outside the health care industry.
Universal health care through Single Payer system is ideal in many aspects.
The important elements being the non-discriminatory health care access to all citizens regardless of gender, age and medical history as well as the convenience in enlarging the existing model that is accepted by the legislators on both sides of the isle.
In addition, the main feature of this system is the universal standard that would be applicable in the health care management saving lives and costs attributed to overheads reflected in the high premiums charged by the private insurance industry.
Single Payer System set up with a common facility providing services to all – 24/7, and a medical treatment available anywhere around the country is the prudent policy to meet the challenges in the health care crisis.
It would streamline the costs and eliminate the most feared concerns such as waiting period, pre-authorization, annual limits…experienced by the insured and the uninsured patients right now.
Even though the health care legislation that was passed addresses some of these issues, there is no guarantee that the private sector would not default through loopholes. It’s a persisting frustration among the insured.
The universal health care creates opportunity to negotiate periodically with the health service and pharmaceutical industry that would inevitably produce savings for all contributors in the industry.
Furthermore, the centralized system is easy to monitor and update technology, the nerve center of the concept.
Competition among the health care service providers promotes quality including the desirable choices for the insured in seeking the appropriate treatment.
Fraud and malpractice could be curtailed under the blanket rule for the industry.
Rewarding the health service and pharmaceutical industry through incentives upon quality improvement including limiting expenses for consumers and taxpayers would benefit the economy.
Universal insurance under federal program would ease the burden on the society – the individuals, small businesses and the Corporations.
With respect to the private insurance industry and their survival in the face of the ‘Single Payer system’:
The private health insurance industry is going to continue their service to the affluent demography and the segments resistant to federal health insurance program like the single payer system.
During the health care debate, there were voices expressing content with the health care policy they own and have maintained for some time. Perhaps, they belong to the healthy groups and low-risk category.
Needlessly, they were misguided by the opponents propagating false information – ‘the “socialized medicine” an imminent threat to their mere existence and that the federal program is being imposed upon them against their will.’
Nevertheless, it’s a significant proportion of the market share that would allow the private sector to cater to the population interested in high-end products and services.
For instance, there are consumers who prefer the private insurance determined by individual lifestyle and clients seeking non-medical procedures like the cosmetic surgery that would not be covered under the universal health care.
It offers preferences to the insurance subscribers to accommodate their personal needs.
Having monopolized the market until now, there are avenues available to the private sector within the consumer base that are impenetrable.
At the same time, being mindful of the factor that the private insurance industry also employs a large number of the American workforce, the ‘selective media’ critics demand to erode the private sector in the health care repair would exacerbate the unemployment status in the dire economy.
Even though, the job loss in the private industry could be absorbed by the public sector expansion, the disproportionate hiring in the private industry as compared to the public system would leave behind a residual number without jobs, thereby affecting the struggling job market.
Hence, restoring those jobs is essential in the health care salvation.
Innovation is the key to success in a competitive environment and the private insurance not likely to submerge with the abundant resources at their disposal.
Universal Medicare is a guaranteed protection for it would be available 24/7 regardless of the citizens’ health conditions.
The people of the United States deserve an efficient, cost saving, choice oriented health care system such as the Medicare for all.
Under the ‘not-for-profit’ universal healthcare, otherwise the single payer system, the consumers would invest the premiums in their health rather than the insurance industry agenda.
Citizens across the socio-economic spectrum will have peace of mind with the universal Medicare.
I request the leaderships to modify the health care legislation to a “Universal Medicare,” also known as the “Single Payer System,” with recognition that,
It’s legislatively possible through the legitimate reconciliation method, and the law made effective latest by April 16, 2010.
Funding source would remain the same that were passed in the health care legislation including the revival of the deal with the health care service and the Big Pharma during the health care legislative process.
Also, please refer to the article titled “Amendments to National Health Care legislation,’ for funding details.
Your understanding and cooperation is appreciated.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Amendments to National Health Care Legislation
April 7, 2010
By Padmini Arhant
The health care legislation was signed into law in late March 2010. Subsequently, there is lot of disappointment to the effects of law and the insurance industry obligations that appear to contain many loopholes resembling the status quo.
Hence, upon reviewing the major components of the bill per the statements from the President’s letter, along with the data made available by Congress and the Congressional Budget Office,
It’s clear that amendments are necessary to protect ‘average Americans’ interests from the health industry behemoths.
Statements from the President’s letter:
“Now we need to begin the process of implementing these historic changes.
To ensure a successful, stable transition, many of these changes will phase into full effect over the next several years.”
1. “But for millions of Americans, many of the benefits of reform will begin this year – some will even take effect this week.”
Recommendation: Although, it’s claimed that the uninsured with pre-existing conditions would be covered beginning this week, the data should be provided for public knowledge.
The insurance companies willing to offer coverage to the uninsured population with pre-existing conditions including the information on the eligibility, the premium costs and the federal funding source is essential to confirm the benefit.
2. “Uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions can join a special high-risk pool to get the coverage they need, starting in just 90 days.”
Recommendation: “High-risk” pool coverage starts effective immediately and not in three months’ time.
Insurance industry must note that this is a health issue and not a decision about any recreational activity or a vacation.
For some it could be a life threatening illness requiring urgent medical intervention.
Moreover, in the absence of specifics from the insurance industry – on coverage costs, limits and treatment level, the patients could be inhibited from seeking the comprehensive coverage they might need for their health problem.
3. “And Americans with insurance will be protected from seeing their insurance revoked when they get sick, or facing restrictive annual limits on the care they receive.”
Recommendation: This legislative law applies to the ‘currently insured,’ who are pre-screened and selected as the ‘low risk’ subscribers.
However, the law must be extended to the uninsured regardless of medical history.
4. “We passed this reform for 5th-grader Marcelas Owens, whose mother died because she didn’t get the health care she needed after she got sick, lost her job and her health insurance. Marcelas’ message to Congress was simple: “Finish health care reform. No other kid should lose their mom because they don’t have health care.”
We passed this reform for Natoma Canfield, who wrote to tell me that she could no longer afford her health insurance policy. Since losing her health insurance coverage in January, Natoma has been diagnosed with Leukemia and is fighting for her life.
Recommendation: In order to protect victims of such tragic situations, the Medicaid and Medicare (if age qualified) expansion is vital as suggested below.
5. We passed this reform for Ryan Smith, a small business owner with five employees. Ryan was doing his part to provide health insurance to his employees, but cannot keep up with rising health care costs.
Small businesses will receive significant tax cuts, this year, to help them afford health coverage for all their employees.
Recommendation: The public option is the reliable option for Small business and self-employed individuals struggling to compete in the dire economy.
Because, it’s being facilitated through tax cuts (federal funding) to enable their private coverage,
The public option is the ideal choice that would produce savings for this demography and the government.
6. “Early retirees will receive help to reduce premium costs.”
Recommendation: Again, the burden is shifted from the insurance industry to the taxpayers via federal help.
Instead, the Medicare threshold should be lowered from 65 to 55 in the amendment that would adequately address the issue.
7. Young people will be allowed coverage under their parents’ plan until the age of 26.
Recommendation: It should be at no additional costs to the subscribers.
8. Children will be protected against discrimination on the basis of medical history.
Recommendation: It’s verified to be true for the ‘insured’ but not the uninsured.
It was also revealed that the law is interpreted by the insurance industry as a discretionary action. Otherwise, a non-committal response and even coverage denial to this piece of legislation.
Therefore, imposing penalties for failure to comply will make the law effective.
9. We’re also making investments to train primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.
Recommendation: It’s a step in the positive direction.
To make the investment worthwhile, it’s imperative to utilize the health care services for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, VA patients as well as the ‘Public Option’ subscribers rather than the private industry solely benefiting from it.
10. “State-level consumer assistance programs to help patients understand and defend their new rights” –
Recommendation: This could create variation in practice allowing the insurance and the health care industry to circumvent the respective state laws as seen in the environmental matter on carbon emissions, leading the environmental agency to adopt a standard law across the country.
That’s why, the independent and non-profit ‘National Consumer Health Rights Agency,’ would be ideal to deliver the service.
“In Marcela, Ryan, Natoma, my mom and so many other Americans, we are reminded of what this fight was about. It wasn’t about politics. It was about doing the right thing, and taking care of the hardworking people that make our country great.”
It would be beneficial to the suffering population upon incorporating the above recommendations and the amendments listed below.
————————————————————————————————–
By Padmini Arhant
Amendments to the National Health Care Legislation
Since the health care legislation is already passed, the applicable changes should be rapid without any legislative rigmarole.
1. Effects of law commencing in 90 days, 6 months and within a year must begin tomorrow and no later than April 12, 2010 to accommodate all different health situations experienced by those who are ill at present.
2. The contentious settings in 2014 and 2019 for full effects should be brought forward to June 2010.
3. Simultaneously, the tax laws scheduled for 2013 and 2018 should be modified to be effective immediately.
Accepting the uninsured patients as new subscribers should not be a daunting task given the resources and the established system that are currently in place.
In addition, the federal funding for private insurance coverage should be diverted to ‘public option,’ program, CHIP, Medicaid and Medicare expansion notwithstanding the VA patient care.
4. Introduction of public option to induce real competition is the hallmark of the amendment.
5. Lowering the Medicare eligibility threshold from 65 to 55 as agreed by most legislators in Congress during the health care debate.
6. Medicaid expansion to the unemployed and senior citizens falling short on prescription drug expenses despite the $250 rebate upon them reaching the coverage gap.
NB: The votes are available in the House and the Senate to pass these rules via ‘the reconciliation process,’ if the bipartisanship remains impossible.
7. Revive the deal with the health care service and Big Pharma on the estimated $500 billion dollar savings that was initially committed by the industries.
8. Jan 1, 2011 – Enactment calls for ‘marketplace’ insurers to invest premium dollars on medical services by 80 percent for individuals and small plans, whereas the large groups by 85 percent respectively.
Recommendation: Monitoring is essential to ensure such practice among the insurers.
The law would be redundant without oversight.
Independent and non-profit ‘National Consumer Health Rights Agency,’ is appropriate for it would prevent breach of the investment criteria.
9. Anti-trust laws passed by Congress should be extended for a longer period i.e. until 2020.
10. Mandatory insurance should be based on affordability and individuals without sufficient financial means automatically qualify for federal medical program via public option at a lower competitive cost and not higher than the private sector as determined earlier to boost the private insurance sales, during the health care legislative process.
Alternatively, the Medicaid program should be accessible for these individuals and families experiencing sudden change in status due to loss of family income generating an insurance lapse in premium payments.
These changes will provide for all Americans.
The health care reform would be meaningful with the all of the above recommendations and amendments.
Those who contribute to these enactments need not be concerned about their re-election for they will be guaranteed a victory in November, 2010.
The legislators from both sides of the aisle could make this happen by showing their willingness to prioritize their constituent’s physical health over the special interests’ financial gains.
Ultimately, the power lies in the citizen’s vote regardless of corporate campaign financing.
‘Change’ is made possible by the people in a democracy and not the profit seekers.
If there is will, there is a way.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
P.S: Comprehensive analysis on National Health Care Legislation was previously published on March 29, 2010 under “Health,” Category on this website.
Response to President’s Statements on National Health Care Legislation
April 6, 2010
By Padmini Arhant
With respect to the content from President Barack Obama’s letter, the explanation is not necessarily accepted as ‘satisfactory.’
Hence, the White House must provide reasons to the legitimate questions raised in the analysis on National Health Care legislation and more to be submitted shortly.
Democracy thrives when the voice of the people are heard especially, with the legislative matter that affects millions of lives.
Avoiding the subject only arouses suspicion and creates confusion among the vast majority yet to be convinced on the ethical aspect of the legislation.
Since the Presidency was sworn in on transparency and accountability premise, it’s important to exemplify the pledge through action in the critical moment of public frustration.
Therefore, I request the authorities not to evade the issue any longer and be forthright in their response to the press and the public on the “insurance industry” favored health care reform.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
President’s Statements on Health Care Legislation
April 5, 2010
By Padmini Arhant
Hon. President Barack Obama
Dear Mr. President,
Thank you for your letter on the health care legislation.
I deeply appreciate your kind remarks and present the main content of your letter for public reference.
“We succeeded where seven presidents did not.
We mobilized and organized. We helped secure the dream of our nation’s founding.
Our success marks a new season for our country – one in which mothers, fathers, sons and daughters no longer live in fear of a system that works better for the insurance industry than it does for ordinary people.
What we have done here is remarkable. It is historic. And many believed this day would never come.
With all the punditry, with all of the lobbying, with all of the game-playing that too often passes for governing, it’s been easy, at times, to doubt our ability to finish the job on health insurance reform.
We would not fall prey to fear. We would not settle for an easy way out. We would not stop until we passed this reform.
We passed this reform for 5th-grader Marcelas Owens, whose mother died because she didn’t get the health care she needed after she got sick, lost her job and her health insurance. Marcelas’ message to Congress was simple: “Finish health care reform. No other kid should lose their mom because they don’t have health care.”
We passed this reform for Ryan Smith, a small business owner with five employees. Ryan was doing his part to provide health insurance to his employees, but cannot keep up with rising health care costs.
We passed this reform for Natoma Canfield, who wrote to tell me that she could no longer afford her health insurance policy. Since losing her health insurance coverage in January, Natoma has been diagnosed with Leukemia and is fighting for her life.
And we passed this reform for my mother, who argued with insurance companies even as she battled cancer in her final days.
In Marcela, Ryan, Natoma, my mom and so many other Americans, we are reminded of what this fight was about. It wasn’t about politics. It was about doing the right thing, and taking care of the hardworking people that make our country great.
Now we need to begin the process of implementing these historic changes.
To ensure a successful, stable transition, many of these changes will phase into full effect over the next several years.
But for millions of Americans, many of the benefits of reform will begin this year – some will even take effect this week.
Small businesses will receive significant tax cuts, this year, to help them afford health coverage for all their employees. Seniors are going to receive a rebate to reduce drug costs not yet covered under Medicare. Young people will be allowed coverage under their parents’ plan until the age of 26. Early retirees will receive help to reduce premium costs, and children will be protected against discrimination on the basis of medical history.
But we’re not stopping there.
Uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions can join a special high-risk pool to get the coverage they need, starting in just 90 days. And Americans with insurance will be protected from seeing their insurance revoked when they get sick, or facing restrictive annual limits on the care they receive.
We’re also making investments to train primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals, and we’re creating state-level consumer assistance programs to help patients understand and defend our new rights. These changes will benefit all Americans.
We did it…And America is better for it.”
Sincerely,
Padmini Arhant
National Health Care Legislation
March 29, 2010
By Padmini Arhant
Last week, President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress achieved a historic victory in passing the health care legislation.
The legislative components and the effective period are presented below:
According to the New York Times report March 22, 2010
By Robert Pear and David M. Herszenhorn – Thank you.
Source: Speaker of the House, Congressional Budget Office, Kaiser Family Foundation, MCCLATCHY – TRIBUNE
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL LEGISLATION, WHICH WILL:
1. 90 days after enactment: Provide immediate access to high-risk pools for people with no insurance because of pre-existing conditions.
2. 6 months after enactment:
Bar insurers from:
Denying people coverage when they get sick
Denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions
Imposing lifetime caps on coverage
Require insurers to:
Allow young people to stay on their parents’ policies until they turn 26
3. Within a year: Provide a $250 rebate to Medicare prescription drug beneficiaries who reach the coverage gap called the “doughnut hole”
4. Jan 1, 2011: Require individual and small group market plans to spend 80 percent of premium dollars on medical services; large group plans would have to spend at least 85 percent
5. 2013: Increase the Medicare payroll tax on dividend, interest and other unearned income for singles earning more than $200,000 and joint filers making more than $250,000
6. 2014: Provide subsidies for families earning up to 400 percent of poverty level ($88,200 a year for a family of four)
Require most employers to provide coverage or face penalties
Require most people to obtain coverage or face penalties
7. 2018: Impose 40 percent excise tax on high-end insurance policies
8. 2019: Expand health insurance coverage to 32 million people
———————————————————————————————–
Late deals added to bill’s revisions – By Alan Fram Associated Press – March 22, 2010 – Thank you.
The latest changes to the bill include:
Tax-exempt insurers would have to pay a new fee levied on insurers on only half their premiums.
An Aug.1, 2010, deadline on new doctor-owned hospitals to apply to the government for eligibility to serve – and get paid for Medicare patients would be extended to Dec. 31.
A new 2.9 percent excise tax on medical devices would be lowered to 2.3 percent.
But it will be broadened to apply to some lower-cost devices it hadn’t initially covered, though hearing aids, contact lenses and other items would be excluded.
————————————————————————————————–
Review and Analysis – By Padmini Arhant
There have been numerous questions by the anxious uninsured and they are being presented in this analysis.
Congressional Report dissection:
Clarification from the legislators would be helpful in understanding the criteria in the following categories:
1. 90 days after enactment: Provide immediate access to high-risk pools for people with no insurance because of pre-existing conditions.
From the concerned individuals – the uninsured with pre-existing conditions but are unsure of their acceptance in the high-risk pool due to variations in the health issue.
A. Who are the qualifiers under the ‘high-risk’ pool in the ‘insurers’ language?
B. Should the insured expect escalation in premium costs due to their ‘pre-existing’ diagnosis as compared to the healthy individuals?
C. If there is a difference in coverage costs; by what percentage will it affect them?
As per the Associated Press report, March 24, 2010 –
D. “But a provision to protect children in poor health has a gap. Insurers would still be able to deny new coverage to kids with health problems until 2014.”
Is it possible for these kids to access care under ‘high-risk’ pool, which is expected to be effective in three months from now, i.e. June 2010?
Therefore, specifics are required in this respect.
————————————————————————————————–
2. 6 months after enactment – October 2010,
The legislative component reverses the status quo for those who are currently insured and,
A. Have difficulties on coverage during their illness including children with pre-existing conditions.
B. Parents are permitted to keep their adult offspring until age 26, on their policy.
C. It prohibits the insurers from limiting coverage and policy cancellation when the patients require treatment.
Unequivocally, it’s a crucial piece of legislation.
However, it could have been made effective immediately rather than a six months delay, due to the nature of the problem.
As it’s well known that in health situations, the cost and cure factor is dependent upon early intervention.
————————————————————————————————–
3. Within a year i.e. in 2010 the legislation involves $250 rebate to Medicare prescription drug beneficiaries upon them reaching the ‘doughnut hole’ or the coverage gap –
Any financial relief to senior citizens and others dealing with enormous health care costs is a welcome change.
———————————————————————————————-
4. Jan 1, 2011 – Enactment calls for ‘marketplace’ insurers to invest premium dollars on medical services by 80 percent for individuals and small plans, whereas the large groups by 85 percent respectively.
Monitoring is essential to ensure such practice among the insurers.
In the absence of oversight, the law would be redundant.
That’s why the independent and non-profit ‘National Consumer Health Rights Agency,’ would be ideal to deliver the service.
————————————————————————————————-
5. 2013: Increase the Medicare payroll tax on dividend, interest and other unearned income for singles earning more than $200,000 and joint filers making more than $250,000
This was the proposal from the House of Representatives to generate revenue for the health care overhaul.
It appears to be preset to meet with the ‘PAYGO’ budgetary requirement to pay for expenditures with funds for the program in progress.
A prudent fiscal policy that is necessary to address the national deficit and approved by the Congressional Budget Office. It’s an important feature of this legislation.
The Republican opposition projected the negative implication of this particular rule on Medicare recipients quoting that ‘the Medicare quality would be affected.’ They need to explain their position.
————————————————————————————————
6. 2014: Provide subsidies for families earning up to 400 percent of poverty level ($88,200 a year for a family of four)
Require most employers to provide coverage or face penalties
Require most people to obtain coverage or face penalties
7. 2018: Impose 40 percent excise tax on high-end insurance policies
8. 2019: Expand health insurance coverage to 32 million people
In reference to Points 6, 7 and 8:
Perhaps, the funds from the Medicare payroll tax mentioned above are allocated for the subsidies and Medicaid beneficiaries.
Similarly, the 40 percent excise taxes on high-end insurance policies set up to eventually expand health insurance coverage to the targeted 32 million uninsured in 2019.
Again, the same reason stated under 2 C of the analysis, applies to these rules of law.
The people who can’t afford health insurance are most vulnerable to health problems that ultimately become the tax payer responsibility as experienced up until now.
Hence, the law being effective in 2014, four years away from the signed legislation and the reality of the 32 million people being covered in 2019 is a legitimate cause for disappointment among the uninsured.
The authorities owe a plausible explanation to the suffering population regarding the distant period setting for the effectiveness of the law, especially 2014 and 2019.
What is happening to this segment between now and then?
Are there provisions for tax credits to the middle class families and Medicaid expansion to cover the interim premium costs by the uninsured and the unaffordable groups in the society?
If so, how is it being paid for?
Since the revenue from Medicare payroll tax and the excise tax are scheduled in 2013 and 2018, to fund the federal subsidies to lower income families in 2014 and the 32 million uninsured in 2019 respectively,
The health insurance reform cannot be truly evaluated until after 2014.
Besides, the health insurance legislation based on ‘private for profit’ strategy is subject to market rates in 2014 and beyond.
Meanwhile, the legislation tackles the problems faced by the “insured” groups in the society that are significant and guaranteed to save lives.
According to the media reports, the House and the Senate leaders confirmed the available votes to implement a ‘Public Option’ in the health care legislation through reconciliation process within the year.
Indicating that – “We have the votes and we need the will to move forward.”
It’s the best hope for the average citizen in the health insurance reform, considering the anticipated changes becoming law not until 2014 and 2019.
Having passed the legislation, the lawmakers can amend the bill to accommodate the genuine requests from the average citizens for whom the reform was initiated.
It’s a matter of honoring the people’s will in a democracy.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Successful passage of Health Care Reform
March 22, 2010
By Padmini Arhant
Congratulations! To President Barack Obama, the Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Senate majority leader Harry Reid and the Congress members responsible for the successful legislation of the health care reform.
The debate had consumed more than a year and came to fruition last night. With any legislation, the views are expected to be conciliatory and contradictory.
I take the opportunity to wish our President Barack Obama and the legislators continued victory in all their present and future endeavors.
This website will remain committed to the humanitarian cause without being affiliated to any particular political faction in order to maintain objectivity and keep democracy alive.
My contribution is focused primarily on peace and environmental goals for humanity i.e. ‘Save the Planet,’ and ‘Peace on Earth.’
I look forward to the inevitable peace, progress and prosperity through coherence among the global community.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Response to Presidential Communiqué – View on Health Care
March 19, 2010
From: Padmini Arhant
Hon. President Barack Obama
Dear Mr. President,
Thank you for the ‘beautiful’ artwork of the North Portico of the White House by the talented artist Dan Kessler.
It is an honor to serve our nation and your Presidency. I appreciate your kind remarks in this regard.
I commend you for the recent success in the bipartisan legislation of the jobs bill. I’m confident that this bill would have a positive impact on the economy, particularly in improving the unemployment situation.
According to the reports, the legislative measures would save and create approximately 200,000 jobs that are considered ‘meager’ by the opposition. Nevertheless, the number is significant for it eases the burden on the families struggling to make ends meet.
Every single job saved in the dire economy is a blessing in disguise for the American workforce.
I hope to witness similar rigorous actions to expedite the economic recovery.
In the economic front, the stimulus package passed last year was beneficial in stabilizing the economy and the global financial market from the brink of collapse. There is no doubt that the crisis is far from over.
The stock market performance in the past few months has been impressive, boosting the investor confidence that has shifted from the housing market.
Unfortunately, the residential and the commercial markets are still lagging behind with not much appreciation in the home values nationwide. Obviously, the sector needs attention to keep the families in their homes.
Liquidity freeze is a matter of great concern. The banks are still on the fence, despite the toxic assets removal from the balance sheets through taxpayer bailout.
The executives’ extravagant bonuses continues while the average Americans are being subject to credit crunch and huge financial charges in spite of the legislation introducing a cap on credit card interest rates and transaction fees.
A tough financial reform comprising fees and taxes on bonuses and stock options per your proposal with an independent consumer protection agency is the only effective strategy to protect the financial market from potential crisis.
Unequivocally, the Federal Reserve or the Treasury department should not be the oversight for the consumer protection agency due to the inevitable conflict of interest as seen until now.
Therefore, it’s essential to set up a non-partisan, independent consumer protection agency to defend consumer rights and offer advisory services, especially on the mortgage products.
I concur with you on the fact that your Presidency inherited the worst problems.
However, there was tremendous political capital that could have been utilized in transforming the system in Washington and across the globe.
I understand that the entire year was consumed with two important issues – the economic stimulus package and the health care bill.
There are three years left in the first term of your Presidency and lot could be achieved between now and the end of the term.
It’s never too late to revise the policies to benefit the people at home and around the world.
I’m always there to extend my support to your Presidency that addresses the people’s plight against the special interests. I genuinely care about our national and international challenges.
It’s my duty as a humanitarian and your good friend to be honest about the negative consequences of any action endangering life, not barring yours and the national reputation.
The warnings were issued to safeguard your administration and our country’s image.
We might disagree on the elements of core issues but we both share a common goal and that is to make this world a better place for all.
Besides, the evolutionary process can neither be stalled nor differed and humanity is due for a revolutionary change with a golden era on the horizon to those who are willing to adapt to the ‘common good’ philosophy.
‘Change’ is natural. Nothing is meant to stay permanent in any shape or form on earth.
Truth and Justice cannot remain suppressed forever.
It’s time to liberate those who are oppressed, persecuted and deprived of freedom.
Further, the population suffering from poverty, hunger and disease must be relieved with a renewed life.
Nations who have invaded and occupied lands should return power to the indigenous people.
It’s important to practice non-violence and initiate peace dialogue with one another to resolve conflicts.
Likewise, the leaderships across the globe are expected to conform to the developments that have begun and make positive contribution with a paradigm shift in the governance by allowing democracy to prevail through free and fair elections.
Corporations must allow the people to govern the nation rather than the other way around.
It’s in their best interest to limit the engagement to corporate management and focus on the economy, job creation and sustenance.
The corporate investments in recruiting lobbyists to win political favors could be directed towards R&D and for company growth to benefit the economy.
Right now, the world affairs are run by the following organizations:
Wars and the military base – It’s absorbing enormous taxpayers’ spending and unaudited with no oversight. It’s exclusively under the military industrial complex.
Political system is ruled by the powerful corporations in the finance, health care and insurance, communications, along with the energy industry.
Thus, the corporations control the economy, environment and the media with the exception of the public funded cable networks.
Foreign policy is again heavily influenced by the specific lobbyists such as AIPAC, Chinese leadership and others deterring the possibility of peace and liberty to the vulnerable population.
The people have no representation in a democracy and other form of governments.
I present my views and grievances in the health care legislation that is currently taking place.
You have my empathy on the political and economic ramifications of not passing the health care legislation.
At the same time, the alternative in passing the impending bill that is disproportionately beneficial to the industry with more than thirty million mandatory subscribers in the absence of premium caps and robust competition via Universal Medicare or public option has serious repercussions through voter backlash in November hurting the political career of everyone involved.
The opposition will spin it around, no matter what your administration does with any legislation.
I can relate to your predicament of being ‘doomed if you did’ and ‘doomed if you don’t.’
Accordingly, it would be safe to go with the popular choice i.e. “Medicare for all,” since they are the ultimate power in a democracy, before, during and after the elections.
Human nature is to complain when they don’t have something to their satisfaction and that could be eliminated through ‘Universal Medicare.’
Moreover, when everyone is entitled to the same coverage, there is no comparison and the cost is evenly distributed producing savings overall.
The main features of this bill are scheduled to be effective in 2014 and not at the moment.
A vast majority of the population need health care services now and they are not in a position to wait until the future date.
Every individual is mindful of the ‘once in a while opportunity’ to pass this bill.
That being the case, it’s incumbent on the lawmakers to do what is right for the constituents and the nation in the immediate and the long run.
The real victims and the professionals overwhelmingly desire “Medicare for all.”
When you are risking your Presidency to take a giant leap,
Why not do it for the people who entrusted the power in you?
The Corporations might buy elections but the ultimate power rests with the people i.e. the consumers and the taxpayers enduring the pain and agony under the present health care and insurance industry monopoly.
Ironically, the proposed legislation regardless of the highlighted consumer gains is a conspicuous carte blanche to the industry that is primarily responsible for the status quo.
This argument about the position, it’s ‘either my way or the highway,’ projecting a scary scenario of flying over the road block and speeding towards a cliff is applicable to the decision made by the legislators predominantly from the special interests’ pressure on them.
Thereby, confirming the Washington reality with the lobbyists’ firm grip on the political power.
It’s not fair to blame the special interests entirely. If the lawmakers resist the funds from these groups and deliver the service to the public per the constitutional oath, they could be re-elected on their merit without the ‘corporate sponsored’ stigma.
The public funding would flow like a river to the duty bound legislators not having to fear the corporate funded negative attacks during the elections.
If one remains pure and strong, then sky is the limit for them.
It requires will power and determination to attain the targeted goals, not to mention the good deeds or Karma rewarding their selfless act in abundance.
Perhaps, it’s something to think about in the health care legislation by fulfilling the desperate needs of the weak and the dying over the profit-oriented industry.
Hence, as your friend and a well-wisher, I request you to pass the ‘Universal Medicare’ that is already established and a proven success admittedly by the opposition in Congress.
I guarantee every legislator a victory in November upon passing the ‘Universal Medicare.’
As a spiritual seeker, I consider the ideal gift in recognition of my service to humanity is to kindly honor the requests made on behalf of the voiceless and the defenseless in the society.
“Universal Medicare,” is a necessity and not a privilege to the millions deserving national health care.
I’m with you in every decision that would help ‘Save the planet’ and establish ‘Peace on Earth.’
I believe that humanity thrives with peace, progress and prosperity for all as opposed to a selective few.
I always remain your true friend and convey my best wishes to you and your family.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Padmini Arhant
Universal Health Care – The Ideal Remedy
March 4, 2010
By Padmini Arhant
Health care reform has consumed significant time without any consensus on the important national crisis.
The last week bipartisan summit confirmed the status quo.
Now the discussion is held on passing the legislation in different format. Some advocating for piece meal legislation while others believe in the consolidated package approval.
Those who opposed the reform from the beginning remain steadfast in their opposition to saving lives for political and personal interest. The obstinacy speaks volume about their commitment to public service.
The back and forth exchange is counterproductive when an alarming proportion, an estimated 45,000 young and old people are dying every year.
Although, the Senate health care bill without public option is upheld as the ‘adequate’ measure, it continues to be an uphill battle in securing the Senate majority vote.
Despite the public testimonials sharing their harrowing experiences along with the facts on the escalating costs, the universal health care was never an option previously among the ‘Super Majority’ democrats with the exception of few legislators in the House and the Senate.
In 2009, when the democrats were a super majority, they lost a once in a lifetime opportunity to provide the American electorate, the deficit reducing and an affordable health care through universal Medicare.
Not all is lost, since the Democratic members and the administration are forced to consider the reconciliation process – an avenue used by the Republican administration and the members on numerous occasions in the past for the military and the corporate agenda.
However, it’s incumbent on the democratic members to serve the public interest by adopting the Single Payer system, when considering the simple majority rule.
Why is the Universal Medicare, an ideal remedy?
1. It’s simple and cost effective in every sense.
2. The system already exists for seniors via Medicare and the VA health care for the veterans. Further, Medicaid and COBRA are also federal funded programs.
3. Current Medicare coverage to seniors and the Federal funded VA programs are acknowledged as the phenomenal milestone in the national health care, even by the Republican members in the Congress. They appreciate it because they are entitled to the health care privileges as the members of the United States Congress.
4. Therefore, the Medicare expansion for all would resolve the disputed intricacies in the present health care debate.
5. Standard rules on the health care services would effectively address the excessive health care management costs attributed to the rising national debt.
6. Competition among the health care service providers promotes quality including the desirable choices for the insured in seeking the appropriate treatment.
7. Fraud and malpractice could be curtailed under the blanket rule for the industry.
8. Mandatory insurance for all under federal program would ease the burden on the society – the individuals, small businesses and the Corporations. It’s stipulated in the pending legislation, but in the absence of a federal run program the private insurers gain absolute monopoly leading to the ‘business as usual’ environment.
9. Negotiations with the pharmaceutical industry under universal Medicare would also substantially reduce the drug costs. Thus benefiting all.
10. Universal Medicare is a guaranteed protection for it would be available 24/7 regardless of the citizens’ health conditions.
The people of the United States deserve an efficient, cost saving, choice oriented health care system such as the Medicare for all.
Under ‘not-for-profit’ universal health care, otherwise the single payer system, the consumers would invest their premiums in their health rather than the insurance and the health care industry CEO’s wealth.
America should not agree to anything less than a Universal Medicare and it’s legislatively possible through the legitimate reconciliation method, currently decided by the democratic members for passing the unpopular Senate version of the health care bill.
Finally, Healthy People means Wealthy Nation.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
American Democracy at Work
February 5, 2010
Dear Fellow Americans,
The health care legislation is being stalled in Congress by the legislators on the special interests’ payroll.
Despite being well informed on the horrendous economic liability accumulated to our national debt from the abominable health care costs and that an estimated 45,000 Americans are dying every year due to lack of health insurance, these legislators simply don’t care about these facts because they feel secure about their job.
Is American Democracy so weak that you will take a “NO” for everything that concerns your interest from the party of “NO?”
C’mon America, show your power. Call your local representatives in the House and the Senate and demand that you want the health care legislation now.
Remember, the crying baby is the one that gets the mother’s attention.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant