HR 2520

Since there is sparse to nil coverage on the Republican sponsored health care bill (yes there is one)-- in the interests of full disclosure I wanted to share with my readers. Please note the date on HR2520-- May 2009... This is not a new bill. I realize the Republicans have a minority in Congress but I believe the American people deserve to be presented with both HR2520 and HR3200:

HR 2520

And the aforementioned (in my most previous post) much more widely publicized Democratic bill:

HR 3200

Unfortunately due to my daughter's Christening and my parents upcoming visit I haven't had the time to continue reading HR3200 (as riveting as it is). I have skimmed over a summary of HR2520 and from what I've read thus far, HR2520 shifts much of the responsibility for health care reform to the individual state governments. Given some state governments this could be a good or bad thing. But the fact does remain that our country was founded with strong state governments and a weak federal government. I will concede that there are arguments both for and against perpetuating that model but that's a much more philsophically macro discussion for another time.

I'm also fed up with being portrayed as being against health care reform just because I'm against HR3200. Health care reform is most definitely needed. There are flaws in the system, I can't and won't even try to deny that. I believe THAT is the common ground that most of us Americans have. Most of us believe in the need for reform. The schism remains on what kind of reform and how that reform should be implemented. Should it be government driven or market driven? Should it be driven by the public sector or private sector? The Federal government or the state governments?

These are all valid questions worthy of discussion-- however a majority of our elected leaders in Congress would have us believe that it's HR3200 or the highway. We can take it or leave it. But if we leave it, that's it-- no other options for reform.

HR 3200

I've downloaded and started reading HR 3200 (the Health Care Reform Bill). I'm up to page 35 (of 1017 pages). That's not too much of a feat considering that approx. 8 pages are the "table of contents" for the Bill.

The Bill is not an easy read as there are constant and repeated references to other sections in the bill. "such and such is defined as blah blah blah as referenced in Sec.3 par. 2line 23" and wouldn't you know I get to page 39 where I start reading:

PLAIN LANGUAGE.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘plain language’’ means language
that the intended audience, including individuals with limited English
proficiency, can readily understand and use because that language is clean,
concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain language
writing.

And I thought to myself. o O (... unlike this bill)

There are measures in the bill for reforming the existing health care industry that I'm not against, but there's a lot more there that makes me very leery.

I've read a little about the "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" (pp. 30-37) which I'm guessing is one of two possible committees I've read about thus far that may be the "death panel" that Sarah Palin referred to in her comments on the bill. As the bill reads now the advisory committee would determine standards and guidelines for what insurance companies do and do not cover. This committee would be chaired by the Surgeon General and appointed by the president to serve on 3 year terms. That sent up warning sirens...

Even those who support and like Obama-- keep this in mind, if this bill passes... After Obama's out of office, say there's a Republican president appointing a Republican Surgeon general... There would be SOME overlap of members of this panel into that president's first term. But then he/she would be able to appoint new members of that panel whose politics are closer to him/her. I could see this panel being highly politicized and making health care even a more politicized and divisive issue than it already is.

In Subtitle D - Additional Consumer Protections: Sec. 131 Requiring fair market practices by health insurers (p. 37)...

I'm hoping to stumble upon something about the fair marketing practices of pharmaceutical companies later in the bill. I still believe that we can drive down the cost of pharmaceuticals by offering tax incentives to pharmaceutical companies that choose to divert their marketing dollars to lower the cost of their medicines to make them more affordable to a larger percentage of the population rather than advertise on TV, radio, & print and rather than splurging on expensive lunches for doctors (it's essentially pharmaceutical payola-- something that was deemed illegal for the music industry to be practicing-- so why are we still letting pharmaceutical companies get away with it?)

Oh and I just read another laugh out loud part...

SEC. 135. TIMELY PAYMENT OF CLAIMS. A QHBP offering entity shall comply
with the requirements of section 1857(f) of the Social Security Act with respect
to a qualified health benefits plan it offers in the same manner an Medicare
Advantage organization is required to comply with such requirements with respect
to a Medicare Advantage plan it offers under part C of Medicare.

This would imply that Medicare actually pays doctors and providers in a timely manner. There are a lot of doctors out there who refuse to deal with Medicare due to either slow or non-payment of claims. So I got a good chuckle out of that bit.

Then I got to the other committee (p. 41 for those of you following along at home):

SEC. 141. HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CHOICES
COMMISSIONER.
(a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby established, as an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, a Health Choices Administration (in this division referred to as the ‘‘Administration’’).
(b) COMMISSIONER.— IN GENERAL.—The Administration shall be headed by a Health Choices Commissioner (in this division referred to as the ‘‘Commissioner’’) who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate.

I thought the Commissioner was Michael Chiklis and I thought his show was canceled in the early-mid 90s.

"The Commish" will be responsible for:

SEC. 142. DUTIES AND AUTHORITY OF COMMISSIONER.
(a) DUTIES.—The Commissioner is responsible for carrying out the following functions under this division:
(1) QUALIFIED PLAN STANDARDS.—The establishment of
qualified health benefits plan standards under this title, including the
enforcement of such standards in coordination with State insurance
regu1lators and the Secretaries of Labor and the Treasury.
(2) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The establishment and operation of a Health Insurance Exchange under subtitle A of title II.
(3) INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS.— The administration of individual affordability credits under subtitle C of title II, including determination of
eligibility for such credits.
(4) ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS.—Such additional functions as may be specified in this division.
(b) PROMOTING ACCOUNTABILITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall undertake activities in accordance with this subtitle to promote accountability of QHBP offering entities in meeting Federal health insurance requirements, regardless of whether such accountability is with respect to qualified health benefits plans offered through the Health Insurance
Exchange or outside of such Exchange.
(2) COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION AND AUDITS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The commissioner shall, in coordination with States, conduct audits of qualified health benefits plan compliance with Federal requirements. Such audits may include random compliance audits and targeted audits in response to complaints or other suspected non-compliance.
(B) RECOUPMENT OF COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH EXAMINATION AND AUDITS.—The Commissioner is authorized to recoup from qualified health benefits plans reimbursement for the costs of such examinations and audit of such QHBP offering entities.
(c) DATA COLLECTION.—The Commissioner shall collect data for purposes of carrying out the Commissioner’s duties, including for purposes of promoting quality and value, protecting consumers, and addressing disparities in health and health care and may share such data with the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(d) SANCTIONS AUTHORITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case that the Commissioner determines that a QHBP offering entity violates a requirement of this title, the Commissioner may, in coordination with State insurance regulators and the Secretary of Labor, provide, in addition to any other remedies authorized by law, for any of the remedies described in paragraph (2).
(2) REMEDIES.—The remedies described in this paragraph, with respect to a qualified health benefits plan offered by a QHBP offering entity, are—
(A) civil money penalties of not more than the amount that would be applicable under similar circumstances for similar violations under section 1857(g) of the Social Security Act;
(B) suspension of enrollment of individuals under such plan after the date the Commissioner notifies the entity of a determination under paragraph (1) and until the Commissioner is satisfied that the basis for such determination has been corrected and is not likely to recur;
(C) in the case of an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, suspension of payment to the entity under the Health Insurance Exchange for individuals enrolled
in such plan after the date the Commissioner notifies the entity of a determination under paragraph (1) and until the Secretary is satisfied that the basis for such determination has been corrected and is not likely
to recur; or
(D) working with State insurance regulators to terminate plans for repeated failure by the offering entity to meet the requirements of this title.

*emphasis mine

The trouble I see with the sanctions (civil money penalties and suspension of enrollment) is the aforementioned potential politicization of both the Health Benefits Advisory Committee and the Health Choices Administration. I could see sanctions being waived for large donors to a sitting president and sanctions being unjustly levied against those who oppose the sitting administration. These fears are rooted in the increazing polarization of not just Washington but the country as a whole. And while our country may not yet be in a place where health care has the potential to be politicized, I believe we are headed in that direction, unfortunately.

I'll keep you all posted as I delve deeper into this riveting page turner.

Questions for Senators and Congressmen/women

Before I entrust the US government to positively and efficiently reform health care I would like to ask a few questions-- these are open to any and all senators and representatives-- regardless of whether or not they support the current health care plan:

1. How many years of experience do you have working in the health care industry?
2. What about your background makes you eminently qualified to understand the health care industry in such a way that would give you the necessary insight to positively and effectively reform the problems that currently exist within the industry?
3. What guarantees can you provide that any of the health care plans currently floating around the halls of the US Capitol Building will work effectively and efficiently?
4. How much have you collected in campaign contributions from representatives of the health care industry?
5. If Obama's health care program is as good and effective as is claimed by many of your colleagues-- are you and your colleagues willing to be put on the same health care plan as the rest of us?
6. The government already has dipped their toes in the health care industry with Medicare. There are now proposed cuts to both the Medicare and also the Social Security program reducing coverage to people who depend on both. If the government is having to reduce those programs-- how can we, as a country, afford a Universal Health Care system? Who will pay for it? and how will it be paid for?
7. President Obama has mentioned a "public option" and certain senators and representatives have used the term "single-payer system"-- these terms imply a government run health care program-- if that truly is not the case could you please, in the simplest terms posssible, explain who would control and be responsible for either a public option or single-payer system if it's not the government?
8. If a public option were available, how would private insurance companies remain competitive in the marketplace?
9. What has Congress done to earn the trust of the American people? Please cite specific examples of why the American people should trust Congress with the reform of our health care system?
10. During his campaign Obama spoke of bipartisanship and working with leaders in both parties to achieve goals that would benefit the American people and would carry the support of the American people. Lately I've heard scenarios from leaders in Congress in how the current health care reform package can be passed without any Republican support. What happened to the bi-partisanship?
11. There's been a marginalization of the opposition to the government's program on this issue-- do you honestly believe the opinions of those who oppose Obama's health care plan are less valid than the opinions of those who support it? If so, why?

These are MY questions. I've received no email from and had absolutely no contact with any lobbyists in any industry. I haven't been spurred to action by anyone other than myself. I'm asking these questions out of genuine concern for myself and my family-- not because of anything I've heard or seen on FoxNews (which would be difficult as I rarely-- if ever-- watch FoxNews)-- not because of anything I've heard on TalkRadio-- again difficult as I work all day with no access to radio except on my morning and evening commutes.

I'm not yelling, screaming, hollering, kicking, or punching my way through a townhall meeting. I'm asking as a concerned American citizen to an elected official. I've given you the courtesy of civility and basic human decency and would appreciate the same in return.

The Health Care Debate

The current health care debate raging here in the United States has turned into a rather ugly monster. And while I agree in principle with many of those who oppose "Obamacare" I can't say I necessarily agree with their methods or the delivery of their message.

So, to put it in the simplest terms possible without all of the overblown rhetoric of "death panels" and the other scare terms that many of the other opponents of Obamacare are bandying about I submit to you the following argument against Obama's health care plan in the simplest terms I can possibly muster:

Trust and respect should never given freely. They must be earned. As of yet our government has done little or nothing to earn my respect or trust. And when it comes to an issue as important as health care-- trust MUST be present before I would even begin to consider any government health care plan.

Trust is also a two way street. Recently on whitehouse.gov we, the American people, were asked to report "fishy" behaviour to them. This amounts to spying on and squealing on each other. Not only is this a sign that our government doesn't trust us, they are doing their damnedest to ensure that we no longer trust one another... Divide and conquer if you will.

If our government, clearly doesn't trust us-- how can they expect us to trust them... especially on something as important as health care?

There's the old adage, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." It's been shown in recent years that our government-- in particular our legislative branch (Congress) is especially corrupt and that corruption knows no party lines-- each party is just as bad as the other. And now members of Congress are asking us to trust them to come up with a health care plan... a plan that would give them even more power and not only that access to the health care industry.

The sad thing is there is a definite need for health care reform, that is something most of us Americans can agree on. It's the solution where we find ourselves often at odds with one another. Due to each side marginalizing the opposition with over the top hyperbole we're being driven even further apart on this issue, rather than working together for health care reform that can and will actually work. I honestly believe that the solution to this problem needs to come from US-- the people... not THEM-- the government. This is too big and too important an issue for us to leave in control of Congress-- a Congress that shows time and time again an air of superiority-- that they know better what's best for us, than we know ourselves what is best for us.

In order to better flesh out my own arguments and thoughts I often listen to talk radio from BOTH ends of the political spectrum... On my evening commutes I often find myself switching between the conservative Michael Medved and the liberal Thom Hartmann.

The other day on Thom Hartmann he had a caller who was admonishing Obama's call to African-American fathers to take more responsibility. The caller argued that (paraphrased) "We're all adults and should be treated as such. Thus Obama's comments were out of line as they insinuated we aren't adults."

I thought to myself as I was listening-- therein lies one of the biggest philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives in this country...

Conservatives believe that things like respect and trust must be earned.

Liberals believe that trust and respect are a given. We are all entitled to these things.

I think that also speaks to how/why liberals and conservatives view certain rights differently. I'd argue that most conservatives believe that most rights come with responsibilities... Rights aren't freely given, they're earned by acting responsibly. The Constitution grants us these rights with the implicit understanding that we will exercise our rights responsibly.

Liberals on the other hand look at rights as entitlements-- we're given them freely. Thus there are certain rights we shouldn't have as we aren't responsible or smart enough to exercise those rights properly-- we need Big Brother Government to tell us how to exercise those rights responsibly.

"Disinformation"

From our own White House blog:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

With that in mind I plan on emailing flag@whitehouse.gov with the following message:

To whom it may concern;

In the interests of providing economic stiumulus to the publishing industry I would like to suggest that President Obama invest heavily in the Merriam-Webster company by providing dictionaries and thesauruses for all staff members in the executive branch of the government. In a recent blog posting @ Whitehouse.gov, the assistance of the American people in thwarting "disinformation" was requested-- I believe the term you are looking for is misinformation.

Also, in the interests of being a politically active citizen of this country I would like to inform you of something I found fishy regarding President Obama's health care plan. If you go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/ you'll find a request for people to report
"disinformation" to this email address. I find this fishy as this speaks more to the tactics used in Nazi Germany to silence dissent than tactics used in our nation which was founded on many principles-- including free speech.

How are we, the American people, supposed to know what is correct information and what is misinformation? I know that there are various different health care bills on the house floor and some of those bills are hundreds or even thousands of pages
long... Reading through those bills ourselves is prohibitive given their volume
and that many of us are currently employed and need to remain so in order to
continue "stimulating the economy."

In the interests of full disclosure in the simplest to understand form, might I suggest an FAQ that tackles ALL the questions we have about this health care bill in a simple easy to understand format?

Also I submit to you that your appeal for us to report "disinformation" comes across as hostile and fosters more partisanship on this issue-- not less. Most Americans will agree that health care reform is necessary. Where we tend to differ is what needs to be done to reform health care, who should be doing it, and how they should be going about doing it. The concerns of those who disagree with the President's plan are just as valid as the concerns of those who support it.

Lastly, there are those out there who are more extreme and vocal in their opposition to the President's health care plan than I am. These people will have a field day with your request which can be interpreted as squealing on the opposition in order to silence them (see previous paragraph re: Nazi German silencing tactics) and will, at any and every opportunity use that request to illustrate that the current administration would like to curtail the first ammendment rights of the American people.

Best Regards,
(my name here)