Day: August 17, 2009

Health Co-op: Your Public Option

An Inkwell Institute paper

Subject:  Health Co-ops

We have heard a lot of crap about the public option and since it is about as popular with the Repubs as a turd in a punch bowl, it is basically on life support.  Meaning it is really close to being red lined from the bill.  But wait there is more!  I listen to Obama recently and it sounds to me like the public option is alive….well, the phrase is alive….I look for the final deal to have a health co-op in it and that the admin will use it as a public option…not exactly what is meant…but when the prez needs  a victory you can change the meaning to fit the victory.

Now, does anyone really know what a health co-op is all about?  That is a rhetorical question…I will tell you what it is….first what the insurance industry is saying:

There’s nothing wrong with co-ops, per se. Their appeal is that they’d be a sort of kinder and gentler version of private insurance.

But press some co-op enthusiasts for details, and there’s a lack of clarity about how they’d get started, how much the start-up would cost, how long it would take, how they’d grow big enough to compete with private insurers, how they’d significantly differ from the original state Blue Cross/Blue Shield organizations and, most importantly, how they could save serious money.

History is not encouraging. Hundreds of health co-ops were formed after the Depression to provide medical care in rural areas, and nearly all of them failed. Even the one considered most successful — Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound in Washington state — took more than 60 years to reach the roughly 600,000 members it has today. (Conrad says a co-op needs at least 500,000 members to have market clout; private WellPoint insures more than 30 million.) Nor does Group Health have a stellar record of holding down costs; since 2000, its annual premium increases for individuals have averaged 12.3%, less than many private insurers but still about four times the rate of inflation.

As you can see, the insurance industry is not high on the co-op idea….go figure….and now the other side of the coin…this is from a document circulated by the Finance Committee:

* There are no free rides in co-ops. Every person would have to pay dues, whether they have the money on their own or they get a government subsidy (which would have to be worked out). Costs are not spread among paying and non-paying members.

* The feds could pay the start-up costs for a co-op, but could not pay to sustain it.

* Co-ops could be different sizes — local, regional, or national. NYC might have several, while parts of North and South Dakota could team up to offer one.

* Every state would be required to have at least one co-op option.

The one co-op that is most cited is the Puget Sound Co-op and it looks like this:

The cost for a mid-30s single, self-employed woman runs from $78 per month for a catastrophic plan to $277 per month for full coverage, with big swings in deductibles and cost sharing. A family of four, with no employer support, would pay $244 per month to $862 per month.  How does that compare with your current coverage?  I do not see this as the answer to helping all those uninsured people we have today…but then few listen to me…..

AS I have said on a couple of occasions, I watch and listen to the health debate very carefully.  I try to debunk any BS and give analysis on the parts that I think the people need to know.  I realize that it is a pretty dry subject for most people and they had prefer that their fav cable news give them their talking points…but it is NEVER that simple.  I have said that I believe that the co-op will be part of the final plan and that Obama will claim victory on the public option, even though it is far from a victory on the public option.


Why Target Seniors?

Death panels…..pulling the plug……socialized health…..long lines….remove doctor…..withhold services…..Obama is a Nazi…….Why are all these made up downside being aired and who believes them?  BTW…none of this is true…but it is out there and it is believed by some.

That is an easy one to answer…they are aimed at seniors.  Why the elderly?

That group is most resistant to change.  The last election showed that only about 8% of seniors voted for Obama and his promise of change.  But that is not the only reason that the elderly are the most outraged by the proposed new health care bill.

Look at any of the townhalls, the most passionate speakers are elderly.  And their questions and speeches are the talking points of the GOP and other conservatives.  The very people that already have a government run health system….so why the outrage?

But why, if all I say is correct, are the seniors buying into the manure spread about the proposed health care system?

Here are some of the tactics that are being used:

1–seniors are easily scared into a position.

2–Seniors do not like change…as I previously said.

3–because that they are easily freighten then they can be more easily be manipulated.

4–seniors are not too tech savvy and they do very little fact checking.

5–they trust their Rep because he would not lie to them.

6–the “rational Ignorance effect” (learn about RIE–visit my page here on the subject)

7–seniors have an opinion already shaped and will not change that view no matter what is said or by whom.

8–the elderly receives their news from one network and usually one that reinforces their world view.

All in all…if you want to defeat an issue in Washington then start with the seniors….they can be manipulate and confused to follow the leader of the opposition.

This post will no doubt piss off any seniors who read this….for that I apologize…but if they would take a good look at the world around them they would see just how bad they are manipulated.

Glenn Beck Said What?

Ever since the days of Mr. Beck on CNN..I have not been very impressed with his reporting or his commentaries.  Since arriving at FOX his commentaries have taken a particularly negative and false in nature.  He has been using some particularly oiffensive titles for people since the Obama win ion November.

Nielsen Business Media is reporting:

Some of the nation’s biggest advertisers are distancing themselves from Fox News host Glenn Beck after he called President Obama a racist during a July 28 broadcast.Geico has pulled its ads from Fox News Channel’s “The Glenn Beck Program.” Lawyers.com, which is owned by LexisNexis, also has vowed not to advertise during the program, according to Color of Change, an African-American online political organization that has been urging advertisers to stop supporting the show.

Additionally, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance and SC Johnson all said their ad placements during the broadcast were made in error and that they would correct the mistake.

The controversy stems from Beck’s comment that President Obama is a “racist” with “a deep-seated hatred for white people.”

I find this situation a bit interesting, that sponsors would bail on Beck when other commentators on FOX have been just as offensive if not more so than Beck.  I am sure that these advertisers are just pulling cash for Beck but the rest of the FOX line-up will retain their support.

That brings up a question:  Is it the content or Beck himself that these sponsors resent?  Or is it pressure from the outside that brought about the bail?  If so, then these sponsors are caving to pressure and not to the words of the person.  And if that is the case then they have no problem with his accusations, just the threat of a boycott or such.

Here We Go Again…….

I recall in the 80’s the uptick of the right wing militias; the standoffs with survivalists, and the violence in the Northwest.  I was thankful that the “fad” died out somewhat, but as usual, I was mistaken, they did not die out, thewy just went on silent running.

Some months ago, the DHS issued a report that stated their could possibly be a rise in the right wing extremosm and the Right immediately ju,per onto the report as unfair to vets and others.  It seems that the report had said that there was a possiblity that returning war vets could be singled out for recruitment.

Guess what?  The report was accurate about the right wing extremism it is on the rise and membership is climbing.  As reported by the AP:

Militia groups with gripes against the government are regrouping across the country and could grow rapidly, according to an organization that tracks such trends.The stress of a poor economy and a liberal administration led by a black president are among the causes for the recent rise, the report from the Southern Poverty Law Center says. Conspiracy theories about a secret Mexican plan to reclaim the Southwest are also growing amid the public debate about illegal immigration.

It’s reminiscent of what was seen in the 1990s — right-wing militias, people ideologically against paying taxes and so-called “sovereign citizens” are popping up in large numbers, according to the report to be released Wednesday. The SPLC is a nonprofit civil rights group that, among other activities, investigates hate groups.

While anti-government sentiment has been on the rise over the last two years, there aren’t as many threats and violent acts at this point as there were in the 1990s, according to the report. That movement bore the likes of Timothy McVeigh, who in 1995 blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City and killed 168 people.

The militia movement of the 1990s gained traction with growing concerns about gun control, environmental laws and anything perceived as liberal government meddling.

The spark for that movement came in 1992 with an FBI standoff with white separatist Randall Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Weaver’s wife and son were killed by an FBI sniper. And in 1993, a 52-day standoff between federal agents and the Branch Davidian cult in Waco, Texas, resulted in nearly 80 deaths. These events rallied more people who became convinced that the government would murder its own citizens to promote its liberal agenda.

Now officials are seeing a new generation of activists, according to the report. The law center spotlights Edward Koernke, a Michigan man who hosts an Internet radio show about militias. His father, Mark, was a major figure in the 1990s militia movement and served six years in prison for charges including assaulting police.

A series of domestic terrorism incidents over the past year have not been directly tied to organized militias, but the rhetoric behind some of the crimes are similar with that of the militia movement. For instance, the man charged with the April killings of three Pittsburgh police officers posted some of his views online. Richard Andrew Poplawski wrote that U.S. troops could be used against American citizens, and he thinks a gun ban could be coming.

The FBI’s assistant director for counterterrorism, Michael Heimbach, said that law enforcement officials need to identify people who go beyond hateful rhetoric and decide to commit violent acts and crimes. Heimbach said one of the bigger challenges is identifying the lone-wolf offenders.

Here we go again……deja vu all over again…….