In the article published last Thursday in the Fairfield Minuteman,”Dodd Says Health Care Plan Will Benefit the State,” Senator Dodd highlights three points from the recently passed bill:  (1) the state’s ability to move people from SAGA to Medicaid more quickly, (2) a year of higher payments for Connecticut hospitals and (3) a possible $100M grant for a new U. of CT hospital. Really? In an $871 billion bill that’s the benefit?! Dodd ignores the key provisions. For instance, the bill adds $398 billion in new taxes on insurers (read: policyholders), medicare device and pharmaceutical companies (patients), and upper income taxpayers; the bill guts 25% of Connecticut seniors’ Medicare Advantage plans; and the bill taxes corporations that provide retiree drug coverage. The list of new taxes goes on and on, so far in fact they even tax tanning salons!

The original premise of health care reform was to reduce the spiraling costs of health care and reduce the number of uninsured. Unfortunately the senate bill does nothing to address cost increases, but instead accelerates the insolvency of Medicare and Medicaid, while creating a massive regulatory and tax behemoth that no senator fully understands nor can explain to his constituency.

If Senator Dodd loses his upcoming reelection it will not be because he was the Senate Banking Chairman during the catastrophic Wall Street and banking failure. Or for his sweetheart mortgages obtained from Countrywide mortgage. Or for his stonewalling on his ten acre Ireland “cottage.” Dodd will lose because he cannot coherently explain the $871 billion health care bill that he called the “most important” of his senate career.

There has been a lot of recent discussion about insurance companies’ sudden entrance into the health care debate. The Washington Post referred to the health insurers as Obama’s “top foe” last week, mainly as a response to actions taken by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), industry trade group, including an advertising campaign opposing health care reform and a controversial PricewaterhouseCoopers report commissioned by AHIP analyzing the recent Senate Finance Committee proposal.

Many others have criticized AHIP’s actions, claiming that AHIP is scared and attempting to block health insurance reform as a last ditch resort. Well, of course. The health insurance industry is reacting because the public option will put them out of business. Although they are not saints, the health insurers simply pay claims and charge premiums. In the end they make a 3% profit out of doing so. They also subsidize Medicaid and, to a lesser extent, Medicare-by paying doctors, hospitals, and more. The payment difference is not by choice-rather, free (and oligopolistic) market forces at work.

The idea that a public option will make health care more affordable can only happen in 2 ways: (1) pay doctors, hospitals, and others less. This may be a good idea, but there are consequences of monopolistic, heavy handed pricing tactics; (2) we can have taxpayers subsidize the public option.

The idea that the public option will save on administrative costs is not realistic. What does Medicare do for administrative costs? It contracts with Blue Cross and other insurance companies! If you still don’t believe it, go visit any major health insurer headquarters in CT (Anthem, Aetna, Cigna…). The places are half empty, having massively reduced costs over the last 5 years. “Profiteering” may be considered bad, but these insurers are very lean.

We don’t like HMOs, because they are too restrictive. We don’t like limited benefits so we pile on mandated benefits each year. We don’t like high deductibles, but we do like high tech cures. There is no ceiling and our solution? A public option? If our appetites are insatiable, NO option can solve the problem.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus

The recent proposed legislation by the Senate Finance committee, written by Senator Max Baucus, is a reasonable effort to bring subsidized health insurance to the uninsured. It also attempts to: (1) reduce administrative costs in the private health insurance market by eliminating rating and regulatory authority of state departments of insurance, (2) standardize plans across states, thereby standardizing mandated benefits, and (3) introduce health exchanges to reduce distribution costs. Unfortunately, the Baucus bill does not take on the core problem of increasing medical costs that is ultimately the cause of America’s growing uninsured population.

Congress needs a bolder bill rather than more subsidies, more income taxes, more premium taxes, more grants, or more pilot projects. The fundamental cause of rising medical costs is the fact that our medical services, technology, biotech, and pharmaceutical industries continue to mass produce huge advances in medicine and create unsustainable medical trends in the US. This medical trend also subsidizes our international counterparts with state-run programs.

And where’s the insurance industry? These are the companies with armies of actuaries and underwriters that constantly dig through medical trends, unit costs of medical expenses, premiums, claims, renewals, technology, etc. It is admirable that they have taken a low key approach while being absolutely bashed by politicians of all colors and stripes, but at some point if they want the private insurance industry to survive, they need to develop and communicate some recommendations on how the country can control medical costs.

At the end of the day, to keep our health care system solid, we will need to do a combination of four things:

1. Increase taxes,
2. Increase cost-sharing for both private and public beneficiaries,
3. Limit medical benefits, or
4. Govern and limit access to new medicines, technologies, and procedures.

Baucus’ bill recommends the first option but punts on points two, three, and four.

On Wednesday June 17 the Senate Health, Labor and Pensions Committee began the public drafting of legislation that will overhaul the national health care system. This process will be a top priority for both sides of the Capitol for at least the next six weeks, if not longer. Democrat Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut took lead over the health committee proceedings earlier in June when his close friend Senator Edward M. Kennedy became to ill due to his battle against brain cancer.

In his opening statement, Senator Dodd described how the bills will have a huge affect on all Americans and that all Americans should be entitled to enjoy good health. Senior Republican Senator Michael E. Enzi of Wyoming used his opening statement to criticize Democrats by saying their legislation efforts are a “wasted opportunity” since the committee should be trying to produce legislation that would reflect a broad consensus. Enzi also said that Democrats are rushing health care reforms along too quickly to do a good job.

Some of the main issues being discussed by the Senate concerning the reform are cost, the new public insurance plan which would compete with the private market and whether employers must provide health care for their employees.

California has recently outlawed the sale of children’s sippy cups and baby bottles containing the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA which is often used to harden plastics. This move is in response to the many other bills which have gone through state legislatures in the past year. Minnesota, Connecticut and the city of Chicago outlawed the sale of baby food containers made with the chemical amidst concerns that it poses a health hazard for children and adults. 55 bills in 20 states aim to limit the use or sale of baby food jars and cans of formula containing BPA. Additionally, Canada banned baby bottles made with BPA because of uncertainty as to the potential effects of low levels of BPA exposure over an extended period of time. The chemical industry and baby food manufacturers have been caught off guard in the last two years by the overwhelming push to ban the use of the plastic ingredient. They’ve mounted a defense of over a dozen lobbyists from groups like the American Chemical Council, Enfamil, and Similac. The concern of these groups is that when California does something, it tends to spread across the nation. With the FDA agreeing to reconsider the safety of BPA this summer, chemical and baby food industry representatives worry a federal ban could be on the horizon. Lobbyists for these interests argue the amount of BPA in consumer goods is so miniscule it shouldn’t pose any health risk to children or adults, and that there’s no scientific basis for such an assessment. They say that the amount of the chemical found in most Americans is 1000 times below what European regulators have established are safe levels for BPA. Studies connecting BPA concentrations with medical problems in adults have indeed proven too inconclusive to act on, but compelling evidence does exist. For example, a study by the Harvard School of Public Health concluded BPA from clear polycarbonate water bottles (Nalgenes) leaches from the plastic into the water and into the human body. The reason that concerns about BPA are so elevated for baby bottles and baby food containers is because BPA leaches from these vessels into food and milk generating significant exposures to young children who cannot metabolize the harmful chemical as well as adults. These assessments were the result of studies initiated after a 2007 study by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences which found BPA caused reproductive abnormalities in mice. For this reason, the American Academy of Pediatrics has sounded the alarm: “The AAP is deeply concerned…that the current scientific evidence is largely insufficient to draw accurate conclusions about the safety of exposure to BPA, particularly with respect to vulnerable populations including pregnant women, infants, and children.”

Senator Edward Kennedy’s new long-term care insurance program proposal will help healthy young adults and disabled senior citizens. The bill will provide assistance to disabled people so they can continue to live in their homes, all at an affordable monthly premium. The bill would also extend children’s coverage under their parents’ health insurance until age 26.

The bill would also allow U.S. citizens to buy long term care health insurance for as low as $65 a month from the government. The legislation would also revamp our current health care system with new government rules for insurance companies including guaranteed coverage for people with preexisting conditions to other rules that could limit profits.

The plan is designed to help disabled persons pay for services that would allow them to stay in their homes and not have to move into a nursing home. The disabled people begin paying premiums while they are still working in order to use the services when they are retired. For students and young workers, premiums could be as low as $5 a month.

Unfortunately the costs for the long term care plan would exceed $1 trillion over the next 10 years it is enacted. Though they do not yet know how to cover the costs, one way includes a tax on employer-sponsored health benefits.

“On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord,” Barack Obama said today after taking the oath of office as the nation’s 44^th president.

Over 2 million people came to DC to see the swearing in of this country’s first African American president. It is a day that will go down in history. His speech captured many peoples’ hearts and helped us to believe that change for our country is coming. He acknowledged all of the real challenges we face today including the state of our economy that calls for action to create new jobs, and to lay a new foundation for growth.  He then goes on to speak about the restoration of science that needs to take place as well as raising health care’s quality and lower its cost.

Health care is a huge priority for Obama and his cabinet. He has a three part plan for reforming our nation’s health care system.

The first part is to give all Americans access to affordable health coverage. This new health plan would be a public health insurance plan similar to that of federal employees. Regardless of any citizen’s health status, it would be available to everyone at an affordable premium.  In addition to a public health plan, there would be a service (National Health Insurance Exchange) that would help Americans find private health insurance plans. Also, there would be an individual mandate for children.

The second part to Obama’s health care system is the implementation of reforms to help lower health costs and improve health care quality. Obama wants to provide federal funding assistance to business with high-risk employees. He also believes that health care spending can be reduced by improving health care quality in cases such as preventing medical errors, implementing disease management programs, reforming medical malpractice, and promoting health information technology.

The third part is to promote health and wellness. Obama supports increasing federal spending for efforts to address childhood obesity, education for healthcare professionals, and individual and community incentives to help Americans make healthful choices.

With a new president sworn into office today, we should expect a positive change for our country.

“Reform is urgently needed,” Kennedy said, “and Tom Daschle is just the person for the job.”

With the inauguration of president-elect Barack Obama nearing, many are concerned about his new health care policy. Tom Daschle, Secretary of Health and Human Services, backs Obama’s call for a new public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, and WellPoint.

Tom Daschle was welcomed with open arms at his confirmation hearing on Thursday. Both parties expressed much admiration to Daschle and are willing to do whatever it takes with him to help our country out of the health care rut it is in.

So what does he want to do when he gets into office? He wants wider insurance coverage, higher quality care, lower costs, more preventive care, more money for community health centers, greater use of information technology, an emphasis on keeping people well, a stronger Food and Drug Administration, and speedier approval of low-cost generic drugs according to the confirmation meeting yesterday.

Other issues he would like to address while in office are reducing the influence of politics at federal science agencies. He would also like to increase Medicare payments to family doctors and other primary care physicians and place more emphasis on the prevention of disease, rather than the treatment of it.

The United States have more of a chance of insuring everyone since Democrats have total control of the government. Because of the recession, the number of uninsured has grown which means that the total cost of insuring everyone will grow as well. Tom Daschle has been a huge part of the U.S. government for over 30 years. He knows what needs to be done and now as Secretary of Health and Human services, it is more likely to get done.