National

Anthem Blue Cross sent this to me in an email, I thought I'd shareit.

David O'Brien
Farmers Insurance
www.farmersagent.com/dobrien
www.dob-ins.com
909-337-5030
---------------------------

"AS you know, Congress has been working on health care reform, and we have worked to encourage elected leaders in both parties to pursue responsible, sustainable reform that lowers costs and increases access. As this national debate reaches its final stages, Congress needs to hear from individuals who are concerned about the consequences of well-intended, but flawed, reforms.

The proposal released by House leadership last week will have a significant, negative impact on the cost and nature of coverage for health care consumers. We believe it will cause more problems than it will solve. Likewise, the bills approved by the Senate Finance and HELP Committees are also deeply flawed and will exacerbate the cost of health care and health insurance.

A recent industry analysis of the potential financial impact of the legislation on consumers is worrying. While some individual and small-group customers would see lower premiums, the overwhelming majority of those customers will face significantly higher health care costs under the legislation. Additionally, Congress is now poised to create a government-run health plan that will further increase the cost for those individuals who do not want to receive their health insurance via the government.

While we continue to support health care reform, we cannot support efforts that fail to address the cost and quality issues in our health care delivery system and undermine the bipartisan consensus for responsible and sustainable reform.

That is why we are asking you to get involved in the Health Action Network, which provides a fast and easy way for you to take action in the health care reform debate and to ask others to participate as well.

Getting involved is easy. There are several opportunities to make your voice heard, and you know how important it is that as many people as possible engage on this important issue.

If you have not already done so, go to http://www.healthactionnetwork.com/ and sign up to be a part of our grassroots campaign.

Write a letter. Once you register at http://www.healthactionnetwork.com/, you will have the opportunity to send an e-mail to your elected officials.

Make a toll-free phone call to share your views with your federal lawmakers. By calling the Health Action Network advocacy hotline, you can be connected immediately to their offices.

Join the more than 8,600 fans on the Health Action Network's Facebook page if you have not already become a fan. You can use Facebook to share information about the Health Action Network with your friends, neighbors, and family members.

Alert your network of friends and family through our website and our Facebook page about the need to contact Congress in the coming days.

Please help us show strong support for workable health care reform that lowers costs and is sustainable for future generations."

I have Anthem Blue Cross, pay $506 a month for $5k deductible, just for myself. Is that considered 'workable'? I often wonder what kind of formula is used to set health insurance rates. I know there are some cheaper HMO plans, but with a few months before I have to deal with Medicare, there isn't much advantage in changing.

Hmmm this from the company that refused to insure my mountain home when I bought it even though I had been their customer for 15 years with no claims.

Thanks for their advice which I will not be following.

They care only about enriching themselves.

My husband and I are 57. We had a Blue Shield Plan that was a $1500 deductible + a $500 deductible on Meds before we would get the discounted rates. Our son has had type 1 diabetes since the age of 5. We tried to keep this insurance because we knew my son would not be accepted on any plan if we didn't keep it. The price for the premiums went up to $2200 per month for the 3 of us and our business went down 75% of what it used to be. We could no longer afford this so we went to the $2000 deductible plan and the premiums are almost $1600 per month. We still pay a lot of money out of pocket. I don't mind the doctor co-pays so much, but the almost $500 for pump supplies every 2-3 months and the first $500 in January that we have to spend just on my son's insulin and test strips is awful. In February we have always met the deductible for meds then each prescription is $35 which isn't too bad. The $500 we pay for pump supplies goes toward our $2000 deductible. I could probably have my son go on Medi Cal, (he is 18) but if he makes any money he won't qualify and then he could not get another insurance policy. Thank goodness he has never been hospitalized for his diabetes. I couldn't imagine paying those extra costs. Something really needs to change and like some people might not trust government, but I don't trust the health insurance companies to watch out for our best interests.

Wouldn't it be great if the news media (radio, tv and the printed word) had to start each interview with a politician, regarding healthcare reform, with the question "How much money have you taken from the Pharma.Healthcare Lobbys"? I think we would see an excellant example of "bipartisianship". Democrats and Republicans might not work well togather but they all work well with the same lobbyist.

I believe you are correct. Lawmakers on both sides are getting money and I don't understand how they can deal honestly with health care when they are taking insurance companies' money.

Insurance companies are in the premium collecting business, NOT the claims paying business.

TE - the criteria for MediCal is assets, not income. You can have a house and a car and personal property that are not counted as assets. If all other assets are under $2000, you can qualify. If he has an income that exceeds the limits, they will pro-rate the coverage.

It is certainly worth applying.

MCH used to have, and may still have, a representative to handle the application process.

Lawmakers on both sides are getting money and I don't understand how they can deal honestly with health care when they are taking insurance companies' money.

THEY CAN"T.

That is why we are screwed.

My older son applied for MediCal and he doesn't have assets but his income didn't qualify to just be on it. There was some kind of sliding scale and he said he would have had to pay almost $1000 per month. I believe my younger son would qualify but my point was if he didn't qualify in the future for MediCal he wouldn't be able to get private insurance again.

Notice the concern over "industry analysis" regarding increased costs and less access? This self serving nonsense is exactly what they have been feeding to those carrying their water in congress. They tipped their hand when the announced that the insurance industry would collectively increase their rates even higher than forecast if they didn't get what they have paid our congressional leaders to engineer.

The insurance industry has gamed the legislative process and will get millions of new customers as a result. The bonus will be if they get those new insureds with no cost containment component in the final bill. That is what all the drama is about now. Will Congress pass legislation for the people or a guaranteed subsidy for the insurance industry?

Ron, you forgot to add Bush in the rant, just saying.

There is always two sides to every story...I noticed this article on www.CNN.com...AARP is endorsing the house's plan.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/05/health.care/index....

Again, I'm posting because it was of interest to me.

Based on the Harvard study that found 44,000 people a year die because they have no insurance. Grayson was able to estimate how many people per district the was, and read out the numbers of the dead in Republican districts.

Our district (Jerry Lewis) was 144. Ken Calvert's was 150, and Mary Bono's was 181.

You can see them here. Inland Empire districts begin at about minute 7:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfNVWINLfKs&feature=pl...

How can we come up with good policies, and solutions if both sides distort the facts? There are Americans that need health insurance, and there are people who suffer without it.
In 2002, the Institute of Medicine estimated that lack of health insurance caused about 18,000 deaths every year.
So this "Harvard" study interviews 9000 at a single point in time and asks them if they have health insurance. And if they die sometime later (up to a decade) than it is linked to the lack of health insurance at the one point of their life? With no follow up between the time of their death and the interview to verify insurance status, medical care, or the cause of death?
This health care legislation, if passed, will not get rolling until 2013. By this studies estimate that would be another 132,000 dead? Who's responsible for that? Will there be a gap solution between now and then that will be offered to the uninsured?
Grayson is a wing nut, who should come with a warning label tattooed to his head.
We need solutions that will get the uninsured covered, and bring DOWN the cost of health insurance coverage for everyone.

'Junk science' expert sounds alarm on insurance study

By Amanda Carpenter on Sept. 17, 2009 into The Back Story

Steve Milloy’s "junk science" detector started running high when he got hold of a new study in the American Journal of Public Health claiming nearly 45,000 Americans die from a lack of health insurance.

According to the study, titled "Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults," working-age Americans without insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts. It also includes a chart showing how many people have died state by state, supposedly because of lack of insurance. For example, researchers say 4,675 Texas have died because they didn’t have insurance during their study period.

Mr. Milloy, founder and publisher of Junkscience.com and co-founder and portfolio manger for the Free Enterprise Fund, said the study was created to boost President Obama’s health care agenda. Mr. Milloy reminded that Mr. Obama recently told Congress people would die if they didn’t have insurance.

"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing," Mr. Obama said in his Sept. 9 address. "Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true."

Mr. Milloy believes the study will give Mr. Obama more specific numbers to use in order to ramp up public support for his plan.

"They are trying to create these factoids that they can beat opponents over the head with," Mr. Milloy said. "They interviewed 9,000 people between 1988 and 1994 and asked, 'Do you have health insurance?' and if you die at some point in the future, they assume your death was caused by the fact you didn’t have insurance during that time you were interviewed."

"That kind of stuff is classic junk science," Mr. Milloy added.

John C. Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, agreed that the study was flawed. “The subjects were interviewed only once and the study tries to link their insurance status at that time to mortality a decade later. Yet over the period, the authors have no idea whether subjects were insured or uninsured, what kind of medical care they received, or even cause of death,” he said in a statement.

NPCA noted that a “more careful study” completed by the Congressional Budget Office found that low-income people without insurance had a 3 percent higher chance of death, but found no difference among higher income earners.

One of the study’s co-authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, is a strong proponent of a single-payer system. In addition to working as associate professor of medicine at Harvard University, Dr. Himmelstein is also founder and spokesman for Physicians for a National Health Program.

He testified before Congress earlier this year in favor of a single-payer system, saying, "Our 16,000 physician members support nonprofit, single-payer national health insurance because of overwhelming evidence that lesser reforms will fail." His health care advocacy work was not disclosed in a press release for this study.

Rather, remarks attributed to Dr. Himmelstein contained another shocking statistic. "The Institute of Medicine, using older studies, estimated that one American dies every 30 minutes from lack of health insurance," Dr. Himmelstein said. "Even this grim figure is an underestimate -- now one dies every 12 minutes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/se...

Leave it to the Washington Times to publish an article by the man who never met a corporate cause he didn't love - big tobacco, big oil, big polluters, and now big insurance.

Steve Milloy makes his living attacking real scientists who publish in peer reviewed journals. The Harvard study sited by Grayson was conducted by the Harvard medical school and published by a peer reviewed journal. It is not junk science. The junk science is the slap-dash "critique" put forward by the guy that all dirty corporations call upon to try to cast doubt on real science. Global warming? Doesn't exist. Health problems from that drug or those implants or that cigarette? Must be all in your mind. Maybe it's all those nanny state liberals.

Steve Milloy is a fraud and a corporate whore. Pure and simple.

However, the study’s authors concede that the research was conducted “at a single point in time” and that they did not validate their subjects’ insurance status. It also pointed to other limitations such as how much value individuals place on their health and on healthy behaviors.

http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2009...

The scientists that authored and co-authored this study seem to have a political agenda as well.

I just want the truth, thats it....Then I could make up my mind. Neither side seems capable of providing this.

You can read the actual study here:

http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortali...

Which includes a discussion of the limitations mentioned as well as several other points which show their study may be biased toward underestimating the number who die due to lack of insurance.

Steve Milloy has done his job - distort the findings of the study by highlighting some of the acknowledged limitations while ignoring the factors in its favor and ignoring the entire peer review process.

See Thank You For Smoking for a good insight into what Milloy's job is.

And your response - no one is telling the truth - just shows that Milloy is good at what he does.

Nick Naylor: I speak on behalf of cigarettes.
Child: My mommy says that cigarettes kill.
Nick Naylor: Now, is your mommy a doctor?
Child: No.
Nick Naylor: A scientific researcher of some kind?
Child: No.
Nick Naylor: Now, she doesn't exactly sound like a credible expert now, does she?
Child: [sinks back into her chair]

Nick: Okay, let's say that you're defending chocolate and I'm defending vanilla. Now, if I were to say to you, "Vanilla's the best flavor ice cream", you'd say …?
Joey: "No, chocolate is."
Nick: Exactly. But you can't win that argument. So, I'll ask you: So you think chocolate is the end-all and be-all of ice cream, do you?
Joey: It's the best ice cream; I wouldn't order any other.
Nick: Oh. So it's all chocolate for you, is it?
Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate. And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty.
Joey: But that's not what we're talking about.
Nick: Ah, but that's what I'm talking about.
Joey: But … you didn't prove that vanilla's the best.
Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong, I'm right.
Joey: But you still didn't convince me.
Nick: Because I'm not after you. I'm after them."

He said/she said. It will costs trillions, insurance rates will go up. An on and on.

The facts - there are uninsured people in this country. They can die because of lack of medical care. You only have to look at the people who line up for hours for those medical care offerings around the country.

Why all the lies and bull from every side.

Loosen up the income/asset requirements to qualify for Medicaid (Medi-Cal. Cost based on ability, say 10% of your salary. Not the greatest of care, but better than none.

The system is already in place and is used by the poor. It leaves out the working poor and uninsured workers.

Let the insurance companies continue the way they are going. If you are happy with your coverage, keep it. Eventually some insuracne companies will really start to compete and provide total insurance. They sure seem to want Medicare supplemental insurance business judging by the constant commercials. I'm sure they lose money on it though. (NOT!).

Insurance companies are always telling us how much money they lose, yet even their manipulated balance sheets show otherwise. Remember Prop 203, limiting auto insurance costs and mandating refunds? They kept telling us how much they were losing until a report was leaked that they had made 5 Billion in profits. (BTW, I never got a refund)

How do they make money on life insurance when ALL of their clients die?

If the insurance companies were losing money, wouldn't you think they would have closed up shop by now?

I agree with you Oldguy, to expand the programs we already have in place. Of course, we would have to make them sound.
But, the very first step should be to get those 12 million uninsured and who eligible for Medicaid and Childrens Health Insurance Program enrolled.