Healthcare Legislation Quote of the Day

Monday, August 31, 2009

“Great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities.”
– Thomas Jefferson, 1808

So where is Mr. Jefferson now that we need him?

If you’re interested, here are some recent posts on the issue of healthcare reform legislation…

“A Bits and Pieces Approach to Healthcare Legislation”
(#1: Pre-Existing Conditions)

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #2: Overcharging the Uninsured”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #3: Buying Prescription Drugs from Canadian Suppliers”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #4: Coverage for Illegal Aliens”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #5: Coverage for People Who Can’t Afford It”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #6: Standardization of Forms”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #7: Making Cigarettes Illegal”

“Obamination: The Fallacy of the Public Option”

-wf


Site Meter

Saul’s Laws:* #5. Integrity

Sunday, August 30, 2009
*See the Preface to the “Saul’s Laws” page at the WordFeeder.

“Never let being afraid stop you from doing the right thing.”

This was another one of Saul’s original laws. His words exactly. Told to a little kid, they left an indelible impression.

I’ve always wondered what was going on in his life at the time that prompted this unsolicited advice offered to his six year old son, working with his father in their basement shop one Saturday morning.

-wf


Site Meter

“Bits and Pieces” Healthcare Legislation #7: Making Cigarettes Illegal

Sunday, August 30, 2009

This is the seventh installment in my “Bits and Pieces” series which is intended to encourage Congress to approach the objective of healthcare reform one issue at a time, rather than overwhelming itself and the American public in a ridiculous attempt to devise a single piece of all-encompassing legislation. Like this last sentence, it’s too complex, too much to do in a single breath.

This seventh topic isn’t part of the Obama Administration’s agenda for healthcare reform, but it should be. It’s certainly consistent with the spirit of healthcare reform, with the notion that it’s better to spend money keeping people healthy than wait and have to spend even more helping them get better – or worse, treating the likes of heart disease, lung cancer and emphysema.

Simply put, I want President Obama to endorse, and Congress to legislate the end of tobacco products, especially cigarettes, which extensive scientific research and the Surgeon General have long ago confirmed to be bad for our health.

It is a ridiculous contradiction we can no longer afford to accept that the same government that mandates the printing of serious health warnings on tobacco products would allow those products to be produced, sold and consumed. Why not do the same for hard drugs, legalize them as long as the manufacturers include an appropriate warning, or do the same for cribs and automobiles whose design defects might imperil our children or passengers? “It’s okay if it’s dangerous, as long as we warn people before they buy it,” is not supposed to be our government’s approach to protecting public health, the power and influence of any industry notwithstanding.

Smoking in public is already banned by many jurisdictions around the country. It’s high time we made it official.

We need to ask ourselves this simple question: Is it reasonable to ask all the American people to spend substantial amounts of their money to allow a minority to enjoy its addiction to smoking? Sound harsh? You bet, but who among us can rationalize continued tolerance for the adverse effects of smoking?

Medical insurance underwriters should be required to cover programs to help people stop smoking, and we need to do as much as we can, but no more than we should, to help the tobacco producers, related companies and the local economies dependent upon the sale of tobacco products transition to alternative, more healthy pursuits. But the sale and use of tobacco products has got to stop.

If you’re interested, here are some related posts…

“A Bits and Pieces Approach to Healthcare Legislation”
(#1: Pre-Existing Conditions)

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #2: Overcharging the Uninsured”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #3: Buying Prescription Drugs from Canadian Suppliers”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #4: Coverage for Illegal Aliens”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #5: Coverage for People Who Can’t Afford It”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #6: Standardization of Forms”

“Obamination: The Fallacy of the Public Option”

-wf

For additional reading… “$2.03 Trillion: How much are we willing to pay because some Americans need to smoke?” published on the Wordfeeder, December 8, 2009.


Site Meter

Corporate Culture

Short Fiction for Guests of the WordFeeder
Sunday, August 30, 2009

It was a case of “unauthorized schtupping” which was what it said, in more professional terms, on the papers when Jeremy’s wife of just three years sued him for divorce. As for the more common description, those were the words of the division’s President, Howie Rackman, who thought he was funny, but wasn’t. Only three years from retirement, Rackman’s sensitivities and terminology were those of a very different time.

“Schtupping,” from the Yiddish “schtupn” meaning to push (in) or press. Rackman, who wasn’t Jewish, but who had secretly always wanted to be, thought it was funny to mock Jeremy’s ethnicity, laughing out loud when he did, shaking his head from side to side as he marveled at the wit only he appreciated. (He also wanted to be Italian, but only if he could have the accent he was certain women found irresistible.) At least he was an equal opportunity jerk, having no qualms about offending anyone regardless of their origins or type – and women, women in particular whom he considered inferior, little more than interesting toys for the men in their lives and his company. “Somebody has to do all this clerical shit,” he often remarked around the conference table after one of the young female assistants who worked with senior management would leave to get coffee, make copies or do “God know what.” It was no accident that they were all young and attractive. That was, after all, the primary reason they were hired.

Jeremy Levitz, the senior Assistant Manager in the division, just three years out of Wharton with his MBA, never fit in and couldn’t get the promotions his work deserved. The market was soft, so he couldn’t leave. What he wanted was to manage one of the new offices they were opening – get the hell out of corporate, spend the next three years building that office his way and then move back to headquarters after Rackman retired.

Jeremy was good enough for management to take credit for his work, but not good enough to be one of them. Their nominal excuse was his lack of experience. The real reason was that they didn’t want the competition and couldn’t overwork and otherwise exploit one of their own, and that meant denying Jeremy membership in their exclusive club of over-paid, under-performing senior division executives.

And then there was Ruth. 30. Unquestionably the hottest “shiksa” in the office. (Rackman liked to use these terms like they were his own. “Ever wonder to yourself,” Jeremy once asked his wife, “where politically incorrect expressions go to die? Now you know.”) As close to being “one of the boys” as a woman could be, she’d earned every dollar she’d made putting up with their crap, never letting them get to her, keeping her distance – never once having had so much as dinner with one of them. Rackman and his posse didn’t respect her, not really, so much as they feared having to deal with her. She made them nervous for the wrong and inappropriate reasons.

She and Jeremy were the ones who made the division happen. Everyone in their division knew it. More to the point, so did corporate management two floors up. They tolerated Rackman as a legacy, for his work with the founder building the company decades ago, but would clean house as soon he left. In the meantime, although neither Ruth nor Jeremy knew it, the two of them were bullet proof. Picking on them, dumping on them was as far as corporate would allow Rackman to go, although being fired might have been a godsend. For the two of them, the next three years under his supervision would seem like ten.

“I need the re-analysis of our southeastern region on my desk Monday morning.” Rackman’s tone was matter-of-fact, barely breaking his stride on his way past Jeremy’s office. Leaving early for the weekend, he wouldn’t be missed. “I’ll need 10 binders, and write me a presentation, big type, you know how I like it, including notes indicating when I point to what. That always impresses them. …Use Ruth for whatever you need,” he added, raising his eyebrows as if those instructions had sexual implications. (Ruth had wondered out loud to Jeremy once, after a particularly slimy exchange with Rackman, whether or not he had a clue how truly unattractive he was? It was a rhetorical observation.) “See you,” and he was off without bothering to ask if there might be any questions, utter a “Thanks” or wait for Jeremy to nod his acceptance. Just a “Whoa. Hold the elevator,” in which everyone was begging the doors to shut more quickly, and he was gone.

“Asshole,” Jeremy mumbled under his breath, rolling his chair to look out at the cityscape and ponder his frustration. He’d been hoping to spend some quality time with Evelyn this weekend, but clearly that wasn’t going to happen. He’d be lucky to get out of his office. Maybe, he thought to himself, eyeing a young women moving wistfully through her office in the building across the street, maybe Evelyn would bring over some carryout that evening and they could get to know the leather on his couch together. Just then, the woman across the street stopped, and turned to face him. Smiling, she waved and let him lip read the word, “Hey.” He smiled and waived back at her the way they often did, both of them slightly embarrassed by their long-distance relationship as she walked away and out of her office. Seeing her like that, the girl with short blond hair he’d never met, was often the highlight of his day.

Turning back to his desk, Jeremy reached for his phone, thinking he’d better call Evelyn, just before it “buzzzz”d at him. Pressing the intercom button, he said the usual, “This is Jeremy. What do you need?”

“Hey. It’s Irene,” the receptionist on that floor. “There’s a messenger here with some papers he says he has to give to you, personally. Can you come out, or should I walk him back.”

“Thanks. Here I come.”

It was to the right, just down the open hallway formed by the offices along the perimeter and waist-height carrels in the middle of the floor. Turning the corner past the upholstered furniture in the small lobby, instead of the usual bicycle messenger smelling like he had just been on fire, there was a young man, in his early twenties wearing a suit. Hearing someone coming, he was quick to break off his vain attempt to score points with Irene. It wasn’t that she was so pretty, as it was the effect of her strawberry blonde hair that seemed to have a life of its own.

“Mr. Stein? Jeremy Stein?”

“Yes?”

“This is for you,” he said, taking a 9 x 12 white envelope out of the zippered portfolio he’d been holding against his chest. “And, if you would,” he paused for a moment, looking down to fill in the time on his clipboard form, “Please sign here, in the blank next to your name.” Jeremy scribbled his usual “JStein,” no period after the “J,” looking apprehensively at the return address for one of their city’s boutique law firms, well known for representing women in divorce, workplace and other litigation. “Thank you, Mr. Stein.”

“Yeh,” Jeremy mumbled, putting off opening the envelope until he was back in his office, knowing that Irene would be staring after him wanting to ask what was going on, but being nice enough to understand that it was none of her business.

It was a Friday afternoon, after a long week during which Jeremy had been noticeably upset by some rough calls with his wife, Evelyn, his end of the arguments having been overheard through his office walls even though he’d been trying to keep it down. Apparently she’d had it with the endless late night sessions at the office working with Ruth, often going until 1 or 2 AM, not to mention the weekends.

He was surprised, having been more or less oblivious to his marriage during the past year, but then he wasn’t. They were divorce papers alright, accusing him of adultery, naming Ruth Smythe the subject of his indiscretions. Ruth would deny the accusations vehemently, but no one would believe her – not even her friends among the other women in the office who had seen the two of them working together, heard the occasional laughter, seen them touch or brush up against each other when no one was supposed to be looking. It might have appeared innocent enough at the time, but now it made perfectly good sense.

By Monday afternoon, everyone knew. At first, and to everyone’s surprise, management wasn’t annoyed at their intra-office affair. Far from it, they were impressed that Jeremy had nailed, repeatedly, the hottest girl in the office – and at the office, no less. For Rackman and his yes-men, it was enough to make them tear-up. “Way to go, Jeremy. Good work.” They didn’t say it out loud, but you could read it on their faces and in the way they had started treating Jeremy. Make him one the boys, his sexual conquests rub off on them. The fact was, they still didn’t like him. All this new found comradery was more about minimizing Ruth. Respecting Jeremy had nothing to do with it.

And so they were feeling pretty good about themselves, living vicariously through Jeremy, until Ruth showed up with her attorney – a striking, if severe looking woman – who sat down in Rackman’s office, door shut, and explained, in no uncertain terms, how her client was going to sue his company’s ass off for sexual harassment and discrimination. Proof? What proof did she have? Sexual harassment and discrimination are always so hard to prove.

Ruth’s attorney wasn’t about to concede any ground. “Mr. Rackman, you don’t honestly think a jury is going believe anything you have to say? You don’t have a single woman in any management position, not here or in any of your offices. With a couple of exceptions in the mail room, the entire clerical staff is female, young and attractive. No one over 40, no one overweight – and every one of them underpaid according to agency and government industry surveys.”

“This is extortion. This sex stuff was between Levitz and your client. Strictly personal business. What’s the company got to do with it?”

“You’re not really paying attention, are you Mr. Rackman? In the past 4 years, different men on your management team – including you – have asked my client out to dinner – a dinner “date” mind you, with no business purpose – on seven documented occasions, all of which invitations she declined. During the same period, she’s received nothing more than routine, minimal increases in salary, despite very substantial expansion of her responsibilities and three “Superior Performance Memoranda” for work which came to the attention of senior corporate management…”

You’d think Rackman wouldn’t have talked to them without his own counsel in the room, but that would have included corporate in the conversation. Turns out a significant portion of his retirement income is subject to Board approval. The kind of mess Ruth’s attorney was threatening wouldn’t be good for him.

“…And now, when she’s required to work under an Assistant Manager with less experience than she has, but who she has to please and, by inference, please you to keep her job, this happens!” The attorney held up her copy of the divorce papers. “’Use Ruth for whatever you want’? Are you kidding? That’s the way you talk about a female professional, raised eyebrows and a condescending smirk on your face, in earshot of the staff she supervises? Do you really want to take us on?”

“What do want?”

“Surprisingly little. You’ve got two new regional offices opening up in Savannah and Phoenix for which you’re advertising for managers. Levitz gets Savannah. My client wants Phoenix. Three year, no cut contracts, with standard executive level benefits, increases and bonuses. Promotions effective the first of next month.”

Rackman was quiet, doing his best to avoid the stare of the women sitting on the other side of his desk. And then he looked up, leaning back in his chair. “What the fuck. Your client can have Phoenix. Too damn hot, if you ask me, but why do you care what happens to Levitz?”

“My client feels that he’s basically an okay guy, who shouldn’t lose his job over something that’s really your fault. His marriage is over. It’ll be enough to have him reassigned to a startup office. You’ll just have to learn to live without the two of them.”

No reaction. (Unbelievably, Rackman was too busy staring at the attorney’s legs, her skirt a full three inches above her knee.)

“Besides, what do you care? Just agree and all this goes away.”

“You’re right,” he said, getting back to the issue at hand, “I don’t care. Consider it done.”

“We’ll expect both contracts in my inbox by COB Friday. My e-mail address is on my card. “

His pursed lips and inability to look them in the face were the only response they were going to get. Picking up the card the lawyer had given him when they first came into his office, he tapped the edge of it on his desk and waited for the sound of them pushing back their chairs to get up and leave.

Two weeks later…

“Hey, Ruth!” Jeremy realized it was her before he answered, calling from her new Phoenix area code cell phone number. “Are you having as much fun as I am?”

“More! How’s Evelyn? Are you settled in yet?”

“Yeah, we’re fine. What’s not to like. The city’s great. We virtually live on the ocean, and her parents and sister are less than an hour away.”

“Not to mention the money!!” He could have almost heard her laughing without the cell phones. “Absolutely the best idea Evelyn ever had!”

“Hi, honey. It’s Ruth.” Evelyn, holding the carryout they ordered, had just poked her head, to be funny, around the corner of the open door to his office. Jeremy would be working late tonight and they thought they’d unwrap his new chairs and leather couch together.”

“Here,” she reached for his phone, “give it to me.” “Hey, Ruthie! Thanks for your help with all this.”

“Are you kidding? I just wish I’d thought of it – or had a cousin who’s a women’s rights attorney.”

“Consider it a team effort. Rackman’s been screwing you and Jeremy all this time. The least we could do is return the favor.”

-wf

What to read more? Just click here and pick a title you like.

Copyright as of the title date or earlier, by me.
(I write the WordFeeder blog.)  All rights reserved.
Email WordFeeder@verizon.net for additional information.

Saul’s Laws:* #4. Binary Decision Making

Saturday, August 29, 2009
*See the Preface to the “Saul’s Laws” page at the WordFeeder.

Some of Saul’s Laws are technical, like this one.

We are a people with way too many choices. Making the routine decisions of our lives has become too time-consuming and the source of petty, but sometimes major stress we really don’t need. Whether you’re trying to pick out a color to repaint your bedroom, choose the perfect new cell phone or figure out which one of the girls in your dorm you should ask out first, we’ve all had the problem of picking “the one” out of many.

Whenever possible, reduce all decisions to choices between just two alternatives. This is Saul’s Law of Binary Decision Making. It’s a simple trick. Try it. It works. What the law forces you to do is organize your thinking. Rather than seeing all the options in front of you as a single blob that’s starting to make your head hurt, Binary Decision Making steps you through the process of quickly reducing your options to the point of choosing between or among the last two or three.

Whenever you need to choose from among a number of things, start by discarding the one you like least, or that you know you like less than at least one of the others, and then work your way up to the two or three you like most, eliminating the least attractive alternatives as you go

If you’re facing three alternatives, and are having trouble deciding among them, pair them off. Look for a pair with one alternative you prefer over the other and eliminate that one, the one you like less. Then work on the two that are left.

The first couple of times you do this, it may seem time consuming. Be patient. It’s an illusion that will go away with experience. Not only will complicated, multiple choice decisions be less stressful, the results will more accurately represent your preferences because you’re not rushing your decision or avoiding having to think it through by just picking something to get it over with.

Go ahead. Two at a time. You’ll thank me in the morning.

-wf


Site Meter

Saul’s First Three Laws of Business and Life*

Friday, August 28, 2009
*See the Preface to the “Saul’s Laws” page at the WordFeeder.

Humor. Integrity. Character. These were things my father (and mother) taught me by example. The subject of these posts are laws about which he was very specific. Some of them, like these first, seemed to be about business, but I suspected then even as a little kid, and am sure now, were meant to be about life in general.

Newton had his three laws of motion. Well, these were Saul’s first three laws of business:

1. Compromise. Everything is negotiable, although some things are more negotiable than others.

2. Focus. Never sell more than one thing at a time.

3. Truth. Never sell anything you don’t believe in, and it wasn’t just business he was talking about. (He also taught me how to draw a straight line along the edge of a board without using a ruler or square.)

My father, by the way, wasn’t a career salesman. He was, nonetheless, the most effective salesman I’ve ever met – second only to me. But then I don’t count, given that everything I know about sales, I learned from him. No, I’m not a professional salesman either. It’s just that we’re all selling, all the time, and I suspect that’s why these were the first laws he taught me.

-wf


Site Meter

“Bits and Pieces” Healthcare Legislation #6: Standardization of Forms

Saturday, August 22, 2009

“Yes.” I mean, “Of course.” It’s obvious that there would be significantly greater efficiency were the government to mandate that medical insurance forms and the terms they use to document illness and facilitate payment be standardized. Likewise for medical records. If ever there was a “no brainer” in the march toward healthcare reform, this is it.

And yet, it remains undone. Why? Because it’s exactly like my friend and her kitchen. She won’t replace her refrigerator, even though it’s safer keeping perishables over one of her air conditioning vents, because she’s waiting until she can redo her entire kitchen all at once. One of the burners on her stove died months ago. Rather than replace it, the burner that is, she’s limping by with the remaining three until she can remodel the whole room. Oh, the floors in her condo, except for the bathroom, are hardwood, so she can’t refinish the kitchen without doing the floors in the whole place. You get the point. It’s all or nothing – and she can’t do it all, so it’s nothing.

Unfortunately, while that approach may be tolerable in my friend’s condo, when it comes to healthcare reform, failure to act, even on bits and pieces of the problem, is inexcusably expensive and, in fact, actually hurtful to the well being of our people. So what are the President and Congress waiting for? They’re waiting because they’ve got their heads so far up their tushes, blinded as they are by the glory of comprehensive, all encompassing healthcare reform legislation, that they’ve lost track of why we need this legislation in the first place. (If I have to spell it out for you, then you’re part of the problem.)

Breaking down the process of healthcare reform legislation into separate laws related to specific issues is the better way to do this. Problems, the solutions for which are easier to resolve, will get done, even while the President and Congress continue their debate on more esoteric, more politically charged legislation. In the meantime, we’ll be making progress. They’ll be less of the “You give me this, I’ll give you that” process that makes it so hard to form a majority consensus in both houses in support of complex legislation.

President Obama should take the leadership, should show the maturity and common sense intelligence to stop the current mess, and encourage individual issue legislation, “bits and pieces,” one problem at a time. But he’s not going to do that, because he doesn’t get it, because he’s forever campaigning and winning for him is more important that the fundamentals of what the legislation is intended to accomplish. The Democrats in Congress are, for the most part, useless. That leaves the Republicans to whom I offer two trite, but nonetheless applicable words of advice: Carpe diem, preferably in time to make it count for the 2010 elections.

If you’re interested, here are some related posts…

“A Bits and Pieces Approach to Healthcare Legislation”
(#1: Pre-Existing Conditions)

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #2: Overcharging the Uninsured”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #3: Buying Prescription Drugs from Canadian Suppliers”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #4: Coverage for Illegal Aliens”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #5: Coverage for People Who Can’t Afford It”

“Obamination: The Fallacy of the Public Option”

-wf


Site Meter

“Bits and Pieces” Healthcare Legislation #5: Coverage for People Who Can’t Afford It

Saturday, August 22, 2009

If you’ve been following this series, as legions of you have, you know that I’ve been arguing that the President and Congress should give up trying to craft a single, all encompassing piece of healthcare reform legislation in favor of writing new law on each of the major healthcare reform issues, separately. (If you want to know why I suggest this segmented approach, you need to take a look at “A Bits and Pieces Approach to Healthcare Legislation”, published August 19.) Regrettably, the President and Congress don’t read my stuff on a regular basis, so no luck so far.

Of the five healthcare reform issues I’ve covered, this is the hardest because the costs are potentially so high, because if there is one seminal reason for why we need healthcare reform legislation, this is it.

The first step should be a joint resolution which affirms the right of all Americans to some level of healthcare regardless of their financial means. To be clear, the implication is not the government should provide medical services to anyone. Far from it. I’m adamantly opposed to any government-provided services, including medical insurance. What the government should do instead is subsidize the cost of private sector medical insurance for those who can’t afford it.

In a previous piece on the subject (“Overcharging the Uninsured”) a briefly mentioned that the government might offer a form of guaranty, like mortgage insurance, to underwrite the payment for healthcare services by people who are uninsured. In fact, for what I think are obvious reasons, I’d prefer that everyone be covered by a minimum standard policy. By far and away, making sure that everyone has medical insurance, including the 40 to 50 million Americans who currently don’t, is the most administratively efficient, cost effective and otherwise desirable means of accomplishing universal healthcare.

How much will it cost to provide insurance for the uninsured.? Well, I don’t know. What I do know is that the first thing we need to do is define how and by whom this minimum standard should be derived, and then what this minimum standard should initially cover. This is the proper role of government. Bring together experts from the healthcare and underwriting professions to determine the standard policy we will define as the minimum coverage everyone will have. If the Administration and Congress have already defined this standard policy, my apologies. I’ve obviously missed it. In fact, I think they’re so lost in space in their glorious pursuit of a single piece of comprehensive healthcare legislation, that they’ve missed the most obvious point. You can’t tell how much something is going to cost until you know what it is you’re buying.

What is the minimum policy we want everyone to have? What is the private sector cost of this coverage? How many of our citizens will need how much help subscribing to that coverage? And now, only now will we know how much universal healthcare will cost. Yes, of course, we’ll need to take into account the savings from new government regulations which mediate non-competitive influences that have kept prices above competitive levels. The good news is that breaking down healthcare reform into its core components will make defining and estimating the effects of these adjustments all that much easier when we write the law on this particular issue.

“Check please! …Oh, my God!! Waiter, is that a real number or were you doodling?!” Yes, it’s going to be one hell of a bill. Lots of zeros. Which we’re going to pay for how, exactly?

The good news is that we can start by subtracting the costs we’re already incurring to provide healthcare for the uninsured. How much would we save, in other words, if everyone had adequate coverage? Figure that out, and subtract it from the cost of the program. What’s left we’ll cover either by new taxes and/or by cutting back somewhere else. Personally, I believe in doing whatever it takes, that universal healthcare is that crucial to our society and economy – provided we balance the budget which I’m pretty sure is a concept we’re going to have to explain to President Obama and many Democrats in Congress v e r y s l o w l y. There will be heated debate, but at least that debate will be focused on this specific question rather than confused by the myriad of issues the President and Congress are attempting, in vain, to resolve all at once.

Addressing these five issues I’ve covered, with individual legislation, turns out to have an extra benefit I hadn’t anticipated when I first made the suggestion. That benefit is in all the issues, programs, agencies and government, pardon me for saying so, “crap” that single issue legislation hasn’t covered. We’ve passed 5 laws which have redefined healthcare in America. There’s more we could have done, but major systems need time to transition, something President Obama doesn’t understand. The “bits and pieces” approach allows us time to adjust, to make corrections, to understand implications that we didn’t anticipate. I like the approach almost as much for what it doesn’t try to accomplish as for what it does.

Bit and pieces, ladies and gentlemen, one issue at a time. This notion of comprehensive healthcare legislation is making a mess which may just cause more problems than it solves. President Obama’s notion that some healthcare reform is better than nothing is poor management that smacks of Presidential inexperience and arrogance the American people can’t afford. I understand why the Democrats put up with it, but the Republicans? This is their chance to demonstrate reasoned, intelligent, mature leadership through an alternative approach to the problem. Unfortunately, it’s an opportunity they seem hell bent on wasting.

If you’re interested, here are some related posts…

“A Bits and Pieces Approach to Healthcare Legislation”
(#1: Pre-Existing Conditions)

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #2: Overcharging the Uninsured”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #3: Buying Prescription Drugs from Canadian Suppliers”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #4: Coverage for Illegal Aliens”

“Obamination: The Fallacy of the Public Option”

-wf


Site Meter

“Bits and Pieces” Healthcare Legislation #4: Coverage for Illegal Aliens

Friday, August 21, 2009

As the “#4” indicates, this is my fourth piece which promotes the notion that President Obama and Congress should abandon all hope of resolving the problems of healthcare reform within a single, all encompassing piece of incomprehensible legislation. What they should be doing instead is writing new law for the individual issues of this debate, one at a time. This example is about coverage for people who are here illegally. (See the links to related pieces below.)

Well, should we? Should we allow government subsidized resources to be used to provide healthcare services to people who are not legally in this country? No, of course not. The result of doing so would be an overwhelming flow of illegal aliens coming here for medical care. We can’t handle it. We can’t afford it, and the American people aren’t going to allow it.

The one obvious exception will be services for bona fide emergencies. The question then becomes, what do with do with the illegals to which we provide these emergency services after their stay in the hospital is over? It’s obviously something legislation is going to have to address.

Administratively, it’s not complicated. “Illegals,” for the purposes of our new healthcare legislation, are people who can’t present proof of citizenship, other legal status or insurance which is acceptable to the medical services provider.

See how much easier it is dealing with these issues separately? How much simpler and more cogent the debate when the focus is narrowly defined? To be political for a moment, you’d think the Republicans would seize the opportunity, step away from the fray that is comprehensive healthcare legislation and take the lead in this debate, one issue at a time. My guess is, the American people would love them for it.

I can hear them now, at a joint press conference called by Republican leadership in both houses… “We’re not being obstinate. Far from it. We’re doing our job, fighting for the American people. Healthcare, intelligent, affordable, comprehensive healthcare reform is so essential that we are recommending what we to believe to be a smarter approach to developing the legislation the American people deserve. Accordingly, over the next few weeks, Republicans in the House and Senate will be introducing individual pieces of legislation, each addressing a major issue related to healthcare reform which we believe will engender consensus support.” Is this a great country, or what?

If you’re interested, here are some related pieces…

“A Bits and Pieces Approach to Healthcare Legislation”
(#1: Pre-Existing Conditions)

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #2: Overcharging the Uninsured”

“Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #3: Buying Prescription Drugs from Canadian Suppliers”

“Obamination: The Fallacy of the Public Option”

-wf


Site Meter

“Bits and Pieces” Healthcare Legislation #3: Buying Prescription Drugs from Canadian Suppliers

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Earlier today, I published two pieces encouraging President Obama and Congress to abandon their efforts to pass all-encompassing healthcare legislation in favor of writing new law to address individual issues.* This third example is about protecting the right of Americans to purchase confirmed brand name pharmaceuticals from Canada – and other countries, for that matter.

Earlier this month, President Obama made a behind-closed-doors deal with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America which promised to discourage the importing of their products from Canada, among other considerations, in return for their support of his legislation.** That was a mistake by President Obama for several reasons, not the least of which is that it discouraged competition at the expensive of the American people.

That pharmaceutical manufacturers would sell our Canadian friends the same drugs they sell us, but at significantly lower prices because they can get away with charging more here, in the United States, is equally reprehensible. I do not, however, recommend that our government tell the manufacturers what to charge. Setting prices should be left up to the economy. It’s the government’s responsibility to make sure that economy is competitive – and to do so by regulation, not by direct participation.

Here’s a simple legislative solution requiring well less than the Congressional standard 1,000 pages… Other than protecting us against fraudulent representations on the part of foreign suppliers, there should be no restrictions imposed by our government on the buying of brand name pharmaceuticals, and perhaps generics also, from legitimate Canadian suppliers. Pass that law, and the price of prescription drugs charged by American manufacturers will pushed down to where they belong.

You know, if I keep this up, we may just be able to wrap up the entire healthcare reform problem by later this evening. Ironically, I’ve got to get back to work, making sure we do enough business to afford medical insurance for our employees.

*“A Bits and Pieces Approach to Healthcare Legislation” and “Bits and Pieces Healthcare Legislation #2: Overcharging the Uninsured”, both published today, August 19, 2009.

**”The Not So Transparent Presidency of Barack Obama”, published by the WordFeeder, August 11, 2009.

-wf


Site Meter