It’s windy and on the Olmsted GOP web site.

Under all three proposed bills, millions of Americans would not be able to keep their current coverage.

All three bills contain an individual mandate, a legal requirement that every American obtain adequate health insurance coverage.

As with the individual mandate, employer-provided policies must meet the government’s designated minimum benefit requirements.

Since the rules for HSAs require that they be accompanied by a high deductible plan, the result would be to end HSAs.

Under one scenario, 89.5 million workers would be forced into the government plan.

Under the House bill, physician income would decline by $13.4 billion in the first year alone, a decline of 6.3 percent or almost $20,000 per physician.

Despite promises being made today, taxes will eventually have to be raised for the middle class.

Using the 75-year actuarial period that the government applies to other entitlement programs … the net present value of the program’s unfunded liabilities would exceed $9.2 trillion.

National health care systems in other countries use comparative effectiveness research as the basis for rationing. [This is supported by real world experience.]

In the long run, the only way to spend less on health care is to consume less health care.

While the bills contain no direct provisions for rationing care, they nonetheless
set the stage for government rationing and interference with how doctors practice medicine.

Under all the current versions of health reform, Americans will end up paying more and getting less.

The United Kingdom in the late 1990′s established the National Institute for Health and Clinical Experience (NICE). It was pitched as a body that would ensure that the government-run National Health System used “best practices” in Medicine. What NICE has become in practice is a rationing board. [emphasis added] NICE has become the sole gatekeeper that reduces spending by limiting treatments that NHS will provide for 61 million UK citizens.

In 2007, the board restricted access to two drugs for macular degeneration, a cause of blindness. The drug Macugen was blocked outright. The other, Lucentis, was limited to a particular category of individuals with the disease, restricting it to about one in five sufferers. Even then, the drug was only approved for use in one eye,  meaning those lucky enough to get it would still go blind in the other. As Andrew Dillon, the chief executive of NICE, explained at the time: “When treatments are  very expensive, we have to use them where they give the most benefit to patients.”

– adapted (by MoSEPS) from Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2009 “Of NICE and Men” page A14.

Calgary ophthalmologists say waiting times for cataract surgeries in the city have skyrocketed since the cash-strapped Alberta superboard slashed the number of the  procedures it purchased this year. One major clinic  said the number of cataract patients on its waiting list doubled to 2,290 from

1,124 six months ago. A second facility said delays were growing so long it had to cancel all mild and moderate cataract cases and is now concentrating only on nearly blind patients. The growing wait times follow Alberta Health Services’ decision to buy about 2,000 fewer local cataract surgeries in 2008-09 compared to the previous year in an effort to cut costs.

In Calgary, the public health system does not perform cataract operations, instead contracting out the procedure to surgeons at private clinics. In recent years, the former Calgary Health Region paid for additional cataract surgeries at the private clinics–beyond the surgeons’ regular quota –in a bid to cut waiting lists. But  the practice required the health authority, which has since been replaced by the superboard, to spend over its budget. This year, in the face of a $500 million deficit and a smaller than usual increase in its operating budget, Alberta Health Services said it would stick to its budget for cataract surgeries. The superboard estimates it bought about 8,500 of the procedures in 2008-09 — a significant drop from 10,340 the year before. The decision to buy fewer cataract surgeries is not the only cost-cutting measure at the superboard.  In addition, there are new tight restrictions on hiring health workers as well as foot surgeries.

– adapted (by MoSEPS) from Calgary Herald, May 20, 2009, “Wait times soar for cataract  surgery in Calgary.”

The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets

“Tort reform is not a big part of the health care cost problem.”
Results in Texas after tort reform indicate a 35% reduction in practice insurance rates and an influx of physicians. See this WSJ article.

“That’s right.”
A response to Mayo Clinic’s health policy leader Dr. Doug Wood that, “Value based reimbursement is what health care reform should look like.”
It’s not in H.R.3200.

“Charles Krauthammer may be right: paying for preventive care will not save money.”
It’s in H.R.3200 Sec.122 and 1305 and elsewhere. Krauthammer’s article is at the Washington Post and an other is here.

“The Congressional Budget Office says the Cap and Trade bill – Walz voted for – will cost about $175 per year per family.”
Congressman Walz wanted us to believe that fact or discard what the CBO is saying about H.R.3200 (below). The problem is, the CBO’s statement about Cap and Trade was only referring to the administrative costs to RUN the program, not the economic impacts DUE TO the program. Even President Obama has admitted that, “under my cap and trade plan, energy costs will necessarily skyrocket.” Do you know anybody who buys energy or things that rely on energy to get to where they’re purchased or used? That’s right: everybody and just about everything. Their prices are going to go up. For everybody. But it’s not a tax increase. Uh uh. Just a government program. The WSJ covered the CBO report and YouTube has a video of the President’s statement.

“The only bill I will support must be deficit neutral.”
Our congressman wants us to believe the CBO on Cap and Trade (see above). Here’s an excerpt from the CBO’s report on H.R.3200, page 2:

“…enacting H.R.3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period. That estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill’s insurance coverage provisions of $1,042 billion…”

“In sections 1047-1052, if we base the public option on Medicaid, it’s no good.”

“We want choice and portability.”
Free markets give us choice. We don’t need a public option for health insurance any more than for car insurance or fast food. Health insurance is made artificially more expensive by state mandates. Minnesota has more health insurance mandates than any other state. Portability could be assisted by encouraging insurance purchases by individuals instead of as employer-supplied benefits. Then, coverage is not affected by job changes.

“I think [tax equivalence for businesses and individuals paying for health insurance] is important”
It’s not in H.R.3200.

“On June 15 there was no Republican plan.”
On June 15, there was no Democratic plan. The Democrat’s H.R.3200 was not introduced until July 14. There is no Democratic health care plan introduced in the Senate. The Republican’s Patient’s Choice Act was introduced in the Senate, S.1099, and in the House, H.R.2520, on May 20. As of this writing, S.1099 remains buried by Democrat Max Baucus’ Finance Committee and H.R.2520 by Democrat Charles Rangel’s Ways and Means Committee. Is Tim Walz misleading his constituents or “just” uninformed?