Oh No She Din't!

(That's not a typo - it's yours truly trying to be "hip")

Maybe she just can't help it, but HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious just doesn't quite "get" why those of us who oppose the train-wreck that is ObamaCare© might take some slight umbrage at this:

"So, we have a lot of reeducation to do" [emphasis added]

For those historically-challenged readers, here's why it's so offensive, and telling:

"The re-education camp remained the predominant device of social "control" in the late 1980s. It was used to incarcerate members of certain social classes in order to coerce them to accept and conform to the new social norms."

Looks like Kathy let the ol' mask slip.

BlogRoll Update

I've been meaning to add Andrew Garland's entertaining and enlightening blog for some time, and am pleased as punch to have finally done so. You'll see the Easy Opinions link about 5 spots down from the top (look for the "NEW!" tag), and I heartily recommend clicking through.

You'll be glad you did.

HHS Promotes Healthcare.gov

HHS is proud of their site for all things related to health insurance. Healthcare.gov has been up almost 2 months and it seems to have everything you want to know about health insurance options.

Seems to have, but looks can be deceiving . . .

The folks at Information Week say that there have been over 1 million visitors since July 1, 2010 and 32,000 have provided feedback on how to improve the site.

The site also has yellow boxes where visitors can give feedback and make suggestions. So far, pricing inquiries top the list of requests

Pricing?

You give consumers the ability to view plans and rates side by side (as if that doesn't already exist on literally thousands of sites including my own) but fail to give them rates?

What's up with that?

"Our interpretation of that is that they want to know more about the affordability of the plan, so on HealthCare.gov on October 1, you'll see not just some guidance around what your premium estimate could be, but also very importantly your deductible, your out-of-pocket maximum, and other dimensions that are really important for consumers to understand their ability to afford health insurance coverage"

Why do folks in Washington seem so proud of something that already exists?

As the website evolves, HHS is also planning to include more information, including the percentage of claims each insurer denies.

Since the site includes not only carrier information but also on SCHIP, PCIP and Medicare I wonder if it will post claim denial stats on the number one offender, which is . . . Medicare.

Once again, Washington has no clue. Just more stupid government tricks.

Wolverines jump in the pool [UPDATED]

[Please scroll down for update]

"Michigan is set to launch a subsidized insurance pool for people who haven't been able to get coverage because of a pre-existing health condition, but it's not clear if the program will be big enough to handle everyone who wants to buy in."

Really?

"[B]ig enough to handle everyone who wants to buy in[?]"

One supposes that they honestly believe that they'll attract more than, say, New Jersey, but I'm not convinced. In order to be eligible, ObamaCare© requires that one be uninsured for at least six months, and (of course) be "uninsurable." In the event, the Grand Opening is tomorrow (August 31st), and officials estimate that there are some 3,500 Michiganders [ed: Michiganders?] who may qualify. As with Pennsylvania, coverage doesn't begin immediately; the earliest available effective date is October 1st.

Michigan has been given some $140 million as seed money for their version of the ObamaPool©, which tracks with Pennsylvania's $160 and Ohio's $150 million. They're also counting on folks ponying up anywhere from $200 to $700 a month in premiums (which are age- but not sex-rated). And of course it's a typical, generic co-pay plan (aka Phantom Insurance), which will increase utilization and, hence, costs. How much different (read: better) such plans would work if they were built on an HSA high deductible chassis. But we can't have that pesky personal responsibility component, can we?

There is, however, some good news: this plan, unlike some others, does not count a current pregnancy as a qualifying pre-existing condition (I confirmed this with the folks running the program). That should help delay the inevitable financial melt-down.

On the other hand, though, is this world-class non-sequitor:

"Plan administrators say the coverage will be more comprehensive and in many cases less expensive than typical Michigan policies for individuals."

Hunh?! More coverage at lower rates? Guess who pays for that?

But it gets better (or worse, depending on one's perspective):

"Many of those who will be in the plan aren't able to get commercial coverage at any price because they're so expensive to insure."

Let's see if I follow this: "more" coverage at "lower prices" for folks who can't get health insurance in the open (competitive) market because they're too "expensive" to insure.

Only in Lansing (or DC) could someone say that with a straight face.

[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]

[UPDATE]: While we've had our issues with Best's insurance ratings services in the past, they're still the "go-to" folks when trying ascertain a carrier's financial outlook. And based on Best's analysis, one has to wonder what the rocket surgeons in Lansing were smoking when they awarded this little plum:

"[Physicians Health Plan of Mid-Michigan]

Financial Strength Ratings
Rating: NR-5 (Not Formally Followed)
Outlook: Not Applicable
Action: Affirmed
Effective Date: May 21, 2010"

A rating of "NR-5" means that this carrier isn't even on Best's radar. Does this mean that the company's on the rocks? Of course not, but it does give one pause: after all, a carrier's financial ability is only as good as its underlying strength.

Or apparent lack of thereof.

Gift Ideas...

And then you can give her a colonoscopy for Christmas...

Maxine on Healthcare

[Welcome, Investor Village readers!]

From the mailbag:

[IMAGE OF "MAXINE" REMOVED AT

REQUEST OF TM HOLDER]

Let me get this straight. We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't,

written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,

to be signed by a president who also smokes,

with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,

and financed by a country that's broke.

Now, honestly just ask yourself, what could possibly go wrong?

[Hat Tip: FoIB Laurel L]

Health Plan for Christians is Insurance

In spite of protestations that Medi-Share is not insurance, the Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

A Christians-only health care plan provides a "contract for insurance" and doesn't qualify for exemption from state regulations as a religious publication, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a decision that potentially opens the plan to stricter regulations by the state.

A split high court found that that the Medi-Share program "fits comfortably within the statutory definition of an insurance contract" because it shifts the risk of payments for medical expenses from the individual to a pool of people paying into the program.

Apparently this ruling applies only to the 300 or so members who reside in the state of Kentucky, but that does not bode well for members in other states.

At issue is how tightly the state can regulate a program that serves nearly 40,000 churchgoers in 49 states by accepting contributions from participants. The program, which generates about $42 million a year, excludes non-Christians because, organizers say, their lifestyles can result in unnecessary medical care.

Participants can't smoke, use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol. They're also not allowed to enroll if they have pre-existing conditions like heart disease, diabetes or cancer.

I have worked with a "competitor" to Medi-Share several years ago in a consulting capacity and can back up their assertion that claims for this type of group are generally lower than for the general population. The same argument can be made for those who are practicing members of the Mormon faith.

If Obamacare is so Great . . .

[Welcome Reason, The Atlantic and AJC readers!]

Then why are there so many health insurance companies retreating from the market, leaving consumers with fewer choices and higher premiums? Since March when Obamacrap was signed in to law we have seen the following changes in the Georgia health insurance market. (Other states have had similar issues, but I am only familiar with Georgia health insurance plans).

All but two health insurance companies have withdrawn from offering maternity benefits.

Only a handful of companies will still write "child only" health insurance plans.

As of this date, it is almost impossible to find a rate for children's health insurance if they are under age 19 and you are looking for coverage to be effective on 9/23/10 or later.

Some companies have either withdrawn from offering major medical business or are dropping hints they will be out of that market in 18 months or less.

Many have already indicated higher premiums for the 4th quarter of 2010 and later, especially on children under age 19.

Companies are starting to push limited benefit plans as "more affordable" alternatives to true major medical insurance.

Several companies have introduced new plans with stripped down benefits in an attempt to make their product look more appealing.

Drug formulary's are changing, so the drug that is covered under your plan now may not be covered in the future.

Doctor and hospital networks are shrinking in an effort to further control costs but also has the effect of limiting access to a wide range of medical providers.

Given all this, why is Obamacare so great for the consumer?

What happened to , "If you like the plan you have now you can keep it"?

Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Changes

If you like your Medicare Plan D (prescription drug coverage), too bad, you will probably have to make a change come next year.

So much for Obama's promise that "if you like your plan you can keep it."

The government is imposing changes to "simplify" your life by giving you fewer choices.

A new analysis by a leading private research firm estimates that more than 3 million beneficiaries will see their current drug plan eliminated as Medicare tries to winnow down duplicative and confusing coverage, in order to offer consumers more meaningful choices. Instead of 40 or more plans in each state, beneficiaries would pick from 30 or so.

While on the surface that seems like a good thing, if one fourth of the Medicare drug plans are eliminated that means someone is going to have to make a change whether they like it or not.

Medicare has already notified insurers they will no longer be able to offer more than one "basic" drug plan in any given location. Several major prescription plans, including CVS-Caremark and AARP, offered two basic options throughout the country this year, Washington said. Eliminating that particular kind of duplication would force 2.75 million beneficiaries to find new coverage

The old saying about "I'm from the government and I am here to help you" is not going to set well with some seniors.

And then there is this . . .

Separately, an AARP report issued Wednesday found that retail prices for brand name drugs widely used by seniors rose by 8.3 percent last year, far outpacing general inflation.

Not so surprising.

Once drug companies figure out someone other than the patient is paying for the medication they feel free to raise prices.

From the mailbag: MassTravelers

"My husband and I are residents of Massachusetts. We will be quitting our jobs and traveling outside the country for several months. I hadn't planned on using COBRA since we will be out of the country and using travel insurance that covers other medically and otherwise. I am concerned about being fined for this. Is there a way to avoid fees if we can prove we are out of the country?"

This is a great question, with ramifications beyond Massachusetts. ObamaCare©'s (evil) mandate will have the same effect, and will of course affect Americans in the other 56 states, as well. It does seem unfair to require someone who's out of the country for an extended period to purchase insurance they probably won't need.

I contacted the Bay State's Department of Insurance, and was told that, if one is uninsured for less than 90 days, then it's not an issue or a problem. If it's more than 90 days (and it appears that this reader will, in fact, be gone longer than 3 months) then the fine is assessed. However: there's an exemption for folks who were uninsured because they were out of the country (such as our reader). These folks would have to file a special appeals form, but I was assured that this is not a big deal and that the fine would be waived.

The email continues:

"Also, when we return what is our best option for becoming insured if we do not become re-employed full time right away?"

I replied that, once they're back stateside, they can go online to the MassCare Connector to find coverage. Of course, the challenge there will be finding a plan that fits the budget and coverage goals, but is apparently the only real option left to Bay Staters in need of individual coverage.

That deals with the MassCare issue, but not the ReaderCare one. As Bob points out:

"Leaving the country with coverage allows you to have benefits around the world. Even if she is not traveling to a Schengen Convention country, at the very least she needs an international travel policy to supplement the back home stuff. If she relies on something like IMG alone she is exposing herself to some serious potential out-of-pocket.

Seems to me like she is willing to roll the dice and assume she won't need the US based coverage while out of country and assumes she can pick back up where she left off when she returns. Romneycare does not have waiting periods but it doesn't mean she won't come back and be able to get immediate coverage."

Something to consider.