Laughing at Healthcare Climate Change Denial
Published October 15, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
Today, we are joining over 7,700 blogs addressing climate change as part of Blog Action Day 2009. Now, I could go straight to addressing green practices in healthcare. But that would be too obvious. Instead, let’s focus on grassroots (hey, grass is green.) Besides being at the top of Obama’s agenda, what climate change and healthcare reform have in common is that grassroots movements got them – and keep them – in the public eye. They can be convenient punching bags, yes, but they are unable to be ignored.
It’s easy to dismiss the subtle signs of climate change until you’ve been hit by a typhoon, seen your crops die from drought, or witnessed polar bears drown as the ice melts beneath them. Similarly, it’s easy to deny the healthcare crisis until you’ve been dropped by your insurer and are unable to buy coverage. Or maybe you’ve been maimed and bankrupted by our over-priced, Swiss cheese, variable quality system-less healthcare mess. The good news is that the public is warming (pun intended) to reform. For healthcare, we can call that positive healthcare reform climate change.
But as our over 47,000 Change.org Healthcare members know, the media is in denial. Thanks to Change.org member Martin Bring for bringing a fun Daily Show clip to my attention addressing just that (caution: bleeps ahead.) When a spoof news show offers the best coverage of healthcare reform issues, while CNN continually has to “Leave it there” when news threatens to become balanced, we have a problem. Apparently it has Tea Party blinders on.
Hospital Facility Fees Pick Your Pocket
Published October 14, 2009 @ 12:00PM PT
Imagine you board a flight on new carrier Post-Pay Airlines, where you pay a to-be-determined amount for your flight after you take it. Since it’s a “choose your own seating” model, you wander back and randomly select aisle seat 20C. Another passenger claims 20D across the aisle. When you arrive at your destination and deplane, a cashier hands you both a bill. Yours includes charges for the flight and the seat, $700 total, while 20D is charged $250 for the flight only. What?!
It turns out that the airline owns seat 20C, while an airplane mechanic owns 20D. Post-Pay claims it has to adhere to more stringent standards than the mechanic, though neither you nor your row-mate could tell the difference in seat quality. What’s more, the seats weren’t even labeled differently – there was no sign disclosing a surcharge. And unlike typical airline fees for baggage, food, drinks, and itinerary changes, sitting in the seat isn’t optional – it’s required to take the flight.
Insurance Money Influence in the Senate
Published October 14, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
Well, the drama is over for the moment. AHIP had its hissy fit. The Senate Finance Committee bill was rubber-stamped (14-9), as expected. An uncertain forecast for Snowe did indeed produce some precipitation, though future chances of Olympia Snowe’s vote on the final Senate healthcare bill are slim. And in a final touch of irony, the only major health reform bill NOT to include a public option will now be merged with one originally called “Medicare For All.” But what’s most interesting is the numbers.
No, I don’t mean the contrived numbers AHIP commissioned PriceWaterhouseCoopers to churn out. Even PWC has backed away from its report, coming clean on the reform aspects it was asked to omit from analysis (it has a reputation to uphold, after all.) That left AHIP standing by itself, looking more than a bit foolish. I’m referring to numbers behind a Senate show of solidarity on October 8, 2009, made available by the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets OpenData.
Big Insurance Promotes a Public Option
Published October 13, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
Big Insurance just made the most convincing argument yet for a public insurance option. In a memo explaining a highly questionable study that AHIP commissioned from PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Karen Ignani explicitly promised that private insurance prices would rise dramatically under proposed healthcare reforms (I didn’t think they would confirm my wallet-stealing point so quickly.) Now we have it straight from the horse’s mouth – thanks, AHIP!
Actually, private insurance prices have already risen dramatically with NO healthcare reform. We can rest assured they will continue to rise. But it’s nice to have a scapegoat, isn’t it? Obviously the point of this study is to disrupt the passage of Max Baucus’ bill. AHIP isn’t satisfied with the millions of new enrollees it will reap, or the no-strings-attached government handouts (otherwise known as subsidies) to pay for those enrollees’ inflated premiums. Nope, they want more for all their lobbying millions.
First, they want a stronger individual mandate to lock in the maximum number of captive customers. Second, they want the excise tax on high-cost plans to go away. Third, they assume reflexive higher provider private insurance reimbursement rates due to Medicare cuts (though a Milliman, Inc. study already debunked the myth of cost-shifting.) Fourth, they promise to pass any industry taxes straight on to consumers – yep, we told you that was a lame idea. Is there any better combined argument for a public option to remove the private insurance choke-hold on our outlandish healthcare costs?
New Healthcare Versus Old Healthcare: Mirror Images?
Published October 12, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
This weekend I was in the Bay Area for a trail race, but I got to experience more than the scenic views from the Oakland hills. The bonus was a personal evaluation of Berkeley’s emergency care (yes, only a healthcare consultant could possibly see it that way.) It earned a “C”, meaning it was average US healthcare: not really good, not terrible, and anxiety-producing for all the wrong reasons. So what would change under proposed healthcare reform?
First, some background. For two days before the race I had vague abdominal discomfort, but chalked it up to female cyclical issues. A few hours into the race I was no longer able to breathe, much less move, without severe, stabbing abdominal pain. I was bloated, nauseated, lightheaded, and clammy. Later I learned it was a large ovarian cyst, extremely inflamed by the constant pressure of my hydration pack belt. It left me unable to ingest anything so I became dehydrated, which made existing kidney stones symptomatic. My race was over, but the fun had just begun.
School Nutrition Takes Two Steps Forward, One Flight Back
Published October 11, 2009 @ 09:00AM PT
Parents, rejoice. A news flash this week brought happy tidings on the school front of the childhood obesity battle. But if you blinked, you missed it. The other tidbit that came out, well, hopefully your kids missed it.
First, the CDC reported that significantly fewer high schools and middle schools are selling sugary and salty snacks to students. Comparing schools in 34 states between 2006-2008, the median proportion selling soda and other sugary drinks dropped by almost half, from 62% to 37%; candy and salty snacks dropped by a third, from 54% to 36%.
The best news is that the fattest states made the most progress. For example, Missippi soda-sellling schools dropped over two-thirds, from 78% to 25%. Of course, the study didn't tell us whether kids were just going down the street to the 7-11, Circle K or Qwik-e Mart.
Then comes the surprising news that military pilots fly better on fat. No, the Healthy Choices folks aren't at it again (besides, they claimed Froot Loops were better than donuts.) The military funded this study. They enlisted University of North Dakota researchers to track 45 student pilots and determine how the foods they ate affected their flying proficiency. In challenging maneouvers, turns out the high-fat buttered lobster trumped both high-carb pizza and high-protein chicken breast salad. Though all the students loved brownie day best (presumably the ones who got frosted ones performed better than those who got the small plain ones.)
Fortunately this was only a preliminary study, so schools shouldn't start stocking up on bakery items and downhome cooking staples. And the researchers were very clear that it wasn't aimed at weight control. They also didn't monitor the exact diet composition, and UCLA physiology professor Fernando Gomez-Pinilla reminds us that saturated fats have typically been found to reduce cognitive performance.
But the UND camp did theorize that perhaps because the pilots were young, they were able to absorb a lot of fatty acids for brain development. That's some instantaneous brain development! Meanwhile, if you're boarding a flight bound for rough weather, you might ask your pilot if s/he had biscuits and gravy before entering the cockpit.
Photo wwarby // CC BY 2.0
Democrats Borrow the Tea Party Approach
Published October 08, 2009 @ 10:59AM PT
Rachel Maddow just announced an amazing three-part Democratic strategy to ensure healthcare reform, and it’s an attention-getter (see the first 4:50 of the video clip.) We’re all fairly familiar with part three, using the reconciliation process to pass a bill with just 51 votes, instead of 60. But it’s the first two steps that borrow from the Tea Party approach.
It’s power broker time, ramping up techniques to dramatically increase political pressure for healthcare reform. That pressure is specifically aimed at 6 key Democratic senators who must allow a vote. What's the first step? Massive free health clinics in Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, and Montana. Hoping to shame senators Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincon, Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, doctors and nurses will donate their time to provide free care to thousands of the senators’ constituents who can’t afford it, making for a dramatic and heart-wrenching third-world spectacle. Houston’s recent clinic drew 1,500 people seeking treatment.
Second, if seeing thousands of their constituents in need of care doesn’t shame them, two major (and nameless) power brokers are encouraging a Senate strategy to revoke Democratic chairmanships if they block healthcare reform. Specifically, committee chairmen and sub-committee chairman who allow Republicans to force a 60-vote requirement, regardless of whether these chairmen ultimately vote in favor of the bill, will have their leadership positions revoked. Yep, that would be busting a Lieutenant Colonel down to Private in a very public demotion. It’s head-cracking time!
Last but not least, they will invoke the reconciliation rules. Just like the Republicans did to pass the $1.3 trillion and $350 billion Bush tax cuts. Apparently Republican Senator James Inhoff can’t remember that period in history, so it must have been in some other country. Maybe Canada?
- 60,586
-
Categories
Writers
Gillian Hubble
Timothy Foley
About Health Care
-
Grants Assistant
The Colorado Health Foundation -
Development Consultant
Asian Human Services -
Program Assistant
National Alliance for Caregiving -
Office Manager/Administrative Assistant
Ohlhoff Recovery Programs -
Director of Fund Raising
Southern California Hospice Foundation -
View More Jobs
Post a Job »
-
-
Busted Foundation
-
234 Supporters
-
-
-
Families USA
-
39 Supporters
-
