What's Up Next? NAT Gas Bill?

NAT (New Alternative Transportation) Act bills have been introduced into both the House and the Senate which would promote the manufacture, fueling and use of vehicles fueled by natural gas. Both bills are currently in committee and have not yet reached either floor for debate and passage. So far, only Reid has signed on as a co-sponsor, no other NV elected official has signed on to either bill as a co-sponsor ... so ... it's time to write to Ensign, Heller, Berkeley, and Titus.

I support the need to migrate to Natural Gas and away from foreign oil imports. If you think about it, we import way too much foreign oil. It truly represents a national security risk that we, as a nation, need to remedy ... NOW! During September alone, we spent $573,000 a minute on oil imports. If we want health care reform, spending that much on imported crude simply has to stop!

While I support a number of provisions in either bill that would provide excise taxes and incentives that promote fuel availability and delivery infrastructure requirements, I have a problem with the grants. If we truly are a capitalist nation, I find it curious why we have to essentially bribe the auto industry with "grants" (just another name for bailout money) to get them to manufacture engines and vehicles fueled by natural gas. Don't they already have that engine? It seems to me that they just couldn't get most folks (other than local-only businesses and city buses) to buy natural gas vehicles. That was because there just wasn't an infrastructure out there from which to refuel other than their own facility. So, the auto industry pretty much shelved that idea a few years back other than for that "local-only" niche market. Now, they'll take the grant money, pull it off the shelf and re-introduce what they've already designed and previously introduced ... but which didn't catch on because there was no infrastructure from which people could refuel.

---

Summary of H.R. 1835:
New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2009 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) allow an excise tax credit through 2027 for alternative fuels and fuel mixtures involving compressed or liquefied natural gas; (2) allow an income tax credit through 2027 for alternative fuel motor vehicles powered by compressed or liquefied natural gas; (3) modify the tax credit percentage for alternative fuel vehicles fueled by natural gas or liquefied natural gas; (4) allow a new tax credit for the production of vehicles fueled by natural gas or liquefied natural gas; and (5) extend through 2027 the tax credit for alternative fuel vehicle refueling property expenditures for refueling property relating to compressed or liquefied natural gas and allow an increased credit for such property. Requires 50% of all new vehicles purchased or placed in service by the U.S. government by December 31, 2014, to be capable of operating on compressed or liquefied natural gas. Authorizes the Secretary of Energy to make grants to manufacturers of light and heavy duty natural gas vehicles for the development of engines that reduce emissions, improve performance and efficiency, and lower cost.

---

Summary of S. 1408:
New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow: (1) an excise tax credit through 2019 for alternative fuels and fuel mixtures involving compressed or liquefied natural gas; (2) a modified income tax credit through 2019 for alternative fuel motor vehicles powered by compressed or liquefied natural gas; (3) an offset against the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for tax credits for alternative fuel motor vehicles and refueling property and provide for the transferability of such credits; (4) a tax credit through 2019 for investment in natural gas vehicle project bonds; (5) expensing of property used to manufacture vehicles fueled by compressed or liquefied natural gas; and (6) a tax credit through 2019 for alternative fuel vehicle refueling property relating to compressed or liquefied natural gas. Requires federal agencies to purchase dedicated alternative fuel vehicles for their fleets unless such agencies can show that alternative fuel is unavailable or purchasing such vehicles would be impractical. Authorizes the Secretary of Energy to make grants to manufacturers of light and heavy duty natural gas vehicles for the development of engines that reduce emissions, improve performance and efficiency, and lower cost. Expresses the sense of the Senate that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should streamline the certification process for natural gas vehicle retrofit kits.

---

Health Care Reform As It Is ... Is Broke

For some time now, I've been watching the debate, writing my Congressional representatives, and reading extensively. Maybe I'm becoming more pessimistic as I age, but I've come to the conclusion that no matter what health care reform proposal ultimately gets passed, it just isn't going to yield the results that the American Public is hoping for. You see, whatever proposal gets passed is going to be hobbled by the systemic problems that are currently present and that they've failed to address.

If you don't know care where you're going ... then any road will get you there. Most folks who design training programs for a living know that adage well. Training designers, instead of using "forward" thinking that could allow all kinds of unnecessary information to become integrated in the program, use "backward" thinking instead. In other words, they start their design with the end in mind. They ask what would successful performance look like and they work backwards from that specific point so they can figure out exactly what a worker needs to learn to enable successful performance. Congress hasn't done that in designing health care reform legislation that would truly make a difference in health care across our nation. Not one plan, in either house, was designed with the end in mind. They're all just mixed bags of various initiatives that probably, in the long run, won't make a bit of difference in ordinary citizens' lives.

Systemic problems are being totally overlooked ... or worse ... being protected.

• U.S. Patent Office. The Patent Office grants patents to drug companies and research firms on things like human genes that cause or contribute to cancer, which gives those companies/firms exclusive rights (monopolies) to research and provide treatments. "In the United States, gene patents are now being used to halt research, prevent medical testing and keep vital information from you and your doctors. Gene patents slow the pace of medical advance on deadly diseases. And, they raise costs exorbitantly: A test for breast cancer that could be done for $1,000 now costs $3,000. Why? Because the holder of the gene patent can charge whatever they want, and they do." [NYT] Just try doing a Google search on: patent gene and read through a few of the articles that come up.


• Existing Premium Rates and Fee/Service Schedules. If you've really listened to the debate and understand a small bit of what's going on in the industry today, you know that those of us who actually have insurance end up paying higher premiums and service fees to doctors and hospitals. That's because factored into those rates/fees are monies that help doctors/hospitals provide services for the uninsured. While a number of the bills now before Congress mandate that we all have to have insurance (a serious gift to the insurance industry), I see nothing in any of the bills that addresses the inflation in service fees and premium rates once everybody is insured. "The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured..." [USAToday]. I don't know about you, but I seriously doubt if many of us will see reduced charges from our doctors, hospitals, clinics, pharmacies and insurance companies should any of the current bills become law. What we'll most likely see is today's costs as the baseline for future rate and premium increases ... in other words, maintenance of today's overpriced status quo.


• Medical Liability Tort and Insurance Reform. Doctors pay malpractice premiums that can run up to $250,000 a year for specialties such as neurology or obstetrics. Doctors also police their own, frequently allowing doctors who shouldn't be practicing to continue opening their doors to new patients. And ... especially in the big cities, people are becoming more litigious ... and worse, juries are becoming excessively generous in dubious cases. Opponents of reform claim that tort reform would yield only 1-2% savings, but for a $Trillion industry, that's 1-2 $Billion in savings to consumers.


• Need for Corporate Lobbying Reform. The health sector spent $150 million on campaign contributions in the 2008 election cycle, more than the $123.7 million it spent in 2003 and 2004. It spent $365.1 million on lobbying in the first three quarters of 2008. Those are dollars we spent for health care that instead are going to campaign coffers of our elected officials. Personally, I don't get to deduct any contributions I make to elect a Congressman or Senator, therefore, lobbying expenses should NOT be deductible for corporations. Allowing lobbying efforts and contributions as an allowable expense of doing business does two things: (1) it corrupts the political process in the direction of those with big pockets, and (2) the views and desires of ordinary citizens are ignored in favor of the desires of those with lobbyist dollars.

If health care reform passes without a viable public option, it won't represent health care reform, but instead, an early Christmas present to the health care industry.

Related Links:

• Who owns your genes? ... The New York Times
• Genetics and Patenting ... The Human Genome Project
• Gene Patent: For Mankind's Good, or For Profit? ... About.com
• Health Care Costs ... The National Coalition on Health Care
• Study: Insured pay 'hidden tax' for uninsured health care ... USA Today

HR 2918 Passed, Increases Funding for Congress

I am rapidly losing faith in our elected officials! What is wrong with them? In the same week, they vote down a public option for health care reform and they pass a bill that would bestow an increase in funding for both houses of Congress of $99 million. I'm outraged!

At a time when their constituents have seen job losses, home foreclosures, real estate values plummet, outrageous increases in health insurance premiums, loss and/or denials of coverage and the values of their 401k savings accounts plummet, Congress has the audacity to increase allocation of funding for themselves. At the very least, in times such as these, the prudent action to take should have been to hold their spending flat ... if not find ways to reduce spending below that allocated for 2009. But no ... they garnered even more money for themselves and others in the legislative branch of government.

I'm sure they'll pat themselves on their backs and call it a success that they cut millions of dollars from the proposed budget ... but the fact of the matter is ... HR2918 represents a significant increase. It racked in at $155 million dollars (5.8%) above the 2009 budget. It increases Senate funding by 3.5% to $926 million and increases funding to the House by 5.2% to $1.37 billion. I doubt that very many of their constituent's households were able to garner such a generous increases in income, yet these guys are going along, business as usual, continually borrowing ever more money to sustain their status quo.

Uh ... Hello Congress ... have you looked at the National Debt figures lately? You're bankrupting our nation ... something I consider a serious National Security threat!

References:
Democratic Perspective on HR 2918
Republican Perspective on HR2918


If CON is the opposite of PRO, why is CONgress the opposite of PROgress?

The Banks, as I See Them

I must be getting old, for I long for a simpler time when banks were local organizations who actually provided good customer service to valued customers within their communities ... when your true credit worthiness was assessed by that local bank, and when the mortgage loans they made stayed in their portfolio of accounts. Something horrible has happened over the years as apathetic American citizens weren't watching, as lobbyists got their way with Congress and as the big corporate banks swallowed up our local banks, supplanting them with corporate drones whose only mantra is bottom-line profit and greed.

We retired in 2006, moved and built our retirement home in Northern Nevada expecting that our Columbus, OH home would sell in a reasonable period of time. That, however, hasn't been the case. We've now been trying to sell our previous home without results for almost 4 years. Had we sold it during the year before retirement, we'd be in great shape, but we waited until we were a couple of months from retirement. Looking back, that was a mistake.

Act I of our saga began almost immediately after our home hit the market. Dominion Homes, a mega-builder in Columbus, OH flooded the market with the first of the foreclosures. Needless to say, everybody who was looking scooped up some newer homes at bargain basement prices and we weren't able to find a buyer. In year 2, the city, in its infinite wisdom, decided to rip out the street on which our home sits. There was this big gaping hole all the way up and down the street. And, while all the new water, sewer, gas and storm lines are great for resale, it did nothing to help us find a buyer because there was no way to get a moving van to the house if someone decided to buy it. Then, in year 3, the economy boarded a rocket ship and blasted off to some distant galaxy! In all that time, we've continually dropped the price, we've had NO offers, and we've watched housing values plummet ... and I firmly believe the banks are at the root of that decline.

Back to my earlier point, banks no longer hold home loans in their portfolio of accounts. This may be an oversimplification, but ... they sell off those loans which are then packaged with other loans and then sold off again (you know ... all those junk loans they talked about in the news throughout last year). So, when a homeowner gets financially distressed and finds it difficult to make payments, the bank that made the loan is no longer in a position to be able to refinance that loan by adjusting the term or rates. It's no longer their loan and it's practically impossible to separate it from the other loans in whatever package it got sold in.

Because the banks no longer hold their own loans, it allows them to spawn bad practices. Greed and the almighty bottom-line profit motive set in. Since they aren't holding the loans, riskier policies and practices supplanted tried and true practices. No longer did people have to have 20% down ... 100% was financed using a regular home loan for the purchase (75-80%) and a home equity loan (20-25%) for the down payment. And, if that wasn't insane enough, because the housing market had done so well over time, the Banks decided to promote interest-only loans, with a balloon payment down the road. People (some of whom would probably have had trouble financing a stick of bubble gum) started buying homes with literally nothing down using interest-only loans, figuring they'd make interest payments for a couple of years, then sell, take their profit to use as a regular down payment and then buy another home. But, the housing market collapsed before they could do that.

So now, we have even more foreclosures out there and the Banks are now serving up Act II. Since the Banks can't or won't (that's not exactly clear) renegotiate loan terms by adjusting the rates or length (term) of the loans, they're foreclosing on massive numbers of loans and putting people on the streets. Then, to make matters worse they're doing really stupid things that are causing housing market values to plummet even further.

A case in point is my competition for the sale of our 2500 sqft ranch-style home. In 2005, it would have probably sold for somewhere close to $400K. It's now listed below tax appraisal price and below $300K ... and still no offers. A bank foreclosure of a 8000 sqft home that was purchased around 2 years ago for just under $900K (2 stories, full basement, in-ground swimming pool on acreage). Now, if you know anything about mortgage loans, you know the owners didn't manage to pay down the mortgage by any serious amount in the first couple of years. Rumor has it the remaining mortgage is just under 600K ... but get this ... it's listed in the MLS for $300K! So let's see if I got this right. They foreclosed on the homeowner instead of renegotiating a change in interest rate or term of the loan and forced them out on the street so they could list the house for a price that would yield a $200-300K loss? How can I compete in this market against that? It just infuriates me!

I'm really beginning to despise the guys at the top at those banks, who make million-dollar salaries and who are destroying the housing market and ordinary American families in their pursuit of the almighty dollar to line their personal pockets.

Loan Shark Rates on Credit Cards

Some time ago, while Congress was considering legislation to help credit card holders, I wrote my representatives asking them to make sure the legislation addressed limits on what I consider to be "loan shark" rates charged by credit card companies. Unfortunately, no such provisions were included in the bill signed into law by the President (Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009).

This last week, I got the required notice from Citi, who is the backer of my Sears card, announcing rate hikes and informing me how I could opt out (which basically means, if you want to opt out, they cancel your card). Even though I have an excellent credit rating, the notice said,

"We are increasing your variable APR for regular Sears and External purchases. Your regular Sears and regular External purchases Annual Percentage rate will equal the U.S. Prime Rate plus 21.99%. As of July 1, 2009, this APR is 25.24%. This APR equals a daily periodic rate of 0.06692%.

We are increasing your variable APR for cash access. Your cash access Annual percentage rate will equal the U.S. Prime Rate plus 23.90%. As of July 1, 2009, this APR is 27.15%. This APR equals a daily periodic rate of 0.0744%.

We are increasing the transaction fee for cash access ... You make a cash access transaction if you use a cash access convenience check; get money through an automated teller machine (ATM); or get money through home banking or a financial institution. You also make a cash access transaction if you make a wire transfer, buy a money order, traveler's check, lottery ticket, casino chip or similar item; or engage in a similar transaction. For each cash access transaction we add a transaction fee finance charge of 5% of the amount of the cash access transaction, but not less than $5.

We are increasing the Transaction Fee for Balance Transfers ... You make a balance transfer if you use a balance transfer convenience check or contact us to transfer a balance. For each balance transfer, we add a transaction fee finance charge of 5% of the amount of the balance transfer but not less than $10."

Good grief … you’d think it was enough that they are going to charge 27.15% interest without having to also charge an additional 5% transaction fee up front. What’s wrong with them? I called their customer service number and immediately cancelled the credit card, which incidentally had a ZERO balance.

So ... what was achieved by the "CARD" legislation is that they now speak clear English in their notice of change in terms, but they continue to increase their loan shark interest rates to obscene levels.

I'm lucky that I could cancel my card and refuse anything to do with their loan shark rates, but others across our nation are not so fortunate. At least they can cancel their card and continue to pay off their existing balance at their then-current rate. I wonder how many people will never be able to pay off their balances, or be forced into bankruptcy through the greed of these financial institutions.

The interest charged to lending institutions is and has been, for quite some time, at an all time low. Yet, financial institutions are continuing to rape customers with all-time-high interest rates. When is President Obama going to ask Congress to take action related to placing reasonable limits on interest rates charged by credit card institutions?

Main Stream News Media — Fact-Checking Ads

A while back, I subscribed to news updates from NewsMax.com ... so I could keep up with and try to understand the other side's point of view. I'm afraid, however, that I'm desperately failing at that task. I just don't understand their logic ... if it's even logic at all.

This morning I got an email from NewsMax proclaiming that ABC and NBC won't run a national ad critical of President Obama's healthcare reform plan.

Well, first off, let's get something straight. It's not President Obama's plan. HR 3200 is a healthcare bill proposed in the House of Representatives by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI). The bill has 8 other co-sponsors: Robert Andrews [D-NJ1], Dale Kildee [D-MI5], Carolyn Maloney [D-NY14], George Miller [D-CA7], Frank Pallone [D-NJ6], Charles Rangel [D-NY15], Fortney Stark [D-CA13], and Henry Waxman [D-CA30]. These are the nine Representatives responsible for proposing HR3200. It won't become President Obama's plan until he signs it. And he's not going to be doing that anytime soon because the House hasn't yet brought their final bill to the floor ... and the Senate hasn't even got theirs written yet.

HR3200 is STILL languishing away in committee and hasn't yet been brought to the floor for discussion and a vote, though a series of amendments have been made to it by the Ways & Means, and Labor & Education committees. I'm sure that when it finally comes to the floor, it will likely see additional activity from those Representatives who weren't part of the committees reviewing and amending it before it even got to the floor.

The NewsMax email goes on to say that, "A doctor in the League of American Voters ad asks: How can Obama's plan cover 50 million new patients without any new doctors? It can't." Is this guy a moron, or what? I'd like to know how he managed to graduate from college with a medical degree? Just because people don't have health insurance doesn't mean they don't have a doctor, or that they don't seek medical treatment. Come on, does he really believe that 50 million Americans have never, ever seen a doctor?

And if that didn't scare you into thinking healthcare reform is bad for America, it offered a quote from Bob Adams, the Executive Director of the League of American Voters (not to be confused with the League of Women Voters who actually present factual materials). He claims, "It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors." The email gave me a link to watch the ad, so I did. All I can say is OH PLEASE, give me a break! No facts, just more Party of Nope lies claiming that seniors will see rationed medicare health care, cancer patients will see long delays before treatment, limit will be imposed on distribution of life saving drugs, and that we don't need a healthcare system like they have in England and Canada. Read these words: HR3200 is NOT proposing a single-payer plan like they have in England and Canada! I don't care how many times these guys tell their lies, I'm just not buying it. I actually took the time to read the bill, so I know what's in it and what's not ... and I can spot their lies as they spew forth from their lips.

Surprisingly, FoxNews (prime defender of the Party of Nope) is challenging the veracity of the ad's purported factual claims, as is NBC. Apparently however, you'll be able to see the ad on CBS since they approved it to air, but ABC has labeled it "too partisan" and declined to air the ad. It's about time the main stream News media started doing their jobs. A sportscaster would never allow misinformation to be broadcast ... the same standard should be used by main stream news media.

More Teabagger Lies about HR3200

This morning I got an email from a friend asking me to watch a video and forward it to others so they could be thusly informed about HR3200 being considered in the house. Unfortunately, he didn't do any homework before forwarding it on to others ... and he's become part of the Party of Nope's distribution machine.

Here's a link to Rep. Mike Roger's distorted teabagger statement before Congress about one of the sections within HR3200.

It's apparent to me that this guy has an agenda ... and partakes of the Party of Nope's koolaid. He also can't apparently read because he specifically cites "Section 141" as the defective section of the health care bill (HR3200) and claims that it would allow the government to disenroll individuals from their insurance plan as well as disenroll entire companies from plans. Section 141 merely creates a "Health Choices Commissioner" who would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Section 142, however, discusses the duties and authorities of the Commissioner, one of which is determining whether a QHBP (Qualified Health Benefit Plan) being offered by an entity is in conformance with the act. Under Section 142, if and when the Commissioner determines that a QHBP offering entity violates a requirement of the act, the Commissioner can: (1) assess penalties to the entity (similar to what might be assessed under the Social Security Act); (2) suspend enrollment under the plan until the violation is corrected and until it can be assured that the violation is not likely to recur; (3) suspend subsidy payments to "exchange" entities until the violation is corrected and it can be assured that the violation is not likely to recur; and (4) work with state insurance regulators to disqualify entities and terminate plans of those entities who have repeat violations under the act. Nowhere in the wording does it give the Commissioner the authority to disenroll individuals or entire groups of individuals from any plan. 'Suspending enrollment' and 'disenrolling' are two different terms with two different definitions. This guy needs to spend some time reading Websters or just understanding terminology used within industry at large. If he's relying on item (4) which speaks to 'disqualify and terminate plans' ... well geez luiz ... if the insurance carrier is so bad (remember ... these are health care exchanges, not governmental agencies) that the Commissioner has to take it before a State Insurance Regulator ... well I would think those employers and employees would be looking for all the help they could get to be relieved of a fraudulent contract so they could obtain effective health care coverage. Plus, if it is item (4) that he's relying on to make his claim, it would be the State Regulators who have the most impact over the Insurance carrier.

The Health Choices Commissioner is the person who is responsible for administering the Health Insurance Exchange program. I certainly would hope that this person could disqualify shady insurance operations and protect consumers. Would Congressman Mike Rogers prefer to give this commissioner no power to act to protect consumers? With all the windfall the Insurance Companies will get if this bill passes, if anything, the situation will be ripe for fraud on the part of unscrupulous parties within the insurance industry. This is just another "teabagger" lie being perpetrated to stir up the masses who, in all likelihood, won't read the bill for themselves to fact-check his statement.

Here's the full text of Sections 141 and 142:

SEC. 141. HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CHOICES COMMISSIONER.
(a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby established, as an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, a Health Choices Administration (in this division referred to as the ‘‘Administration’’).
(b) COMMISSIONER.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administration shall be headed by a Health Choices Commissioner (in this division referred to as the ‘‘Commissioner’’) who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(2) COMPENSATION; ETC.—The provisions of paragraphs (2), (5), and (7) of subsection (a) (relating to compensation, terms, general powers, rulemaking, and delegation) of section 702 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902) shall apply to the Commissioner and the Administration in the same manner as such provisions apply to the Commisioner of Social Security and the Social Security Administration.

SEC. 142. DUTIES AND AUTHORITY OF COMMISSIONER.
(a) DUTIES.—The Commissioner is responsible for carrying out the following functions under this division:
(1) QUALIFIED PLAN STANDARDS.—The establishment of qualified health benefits plan standards under this title, including the enforcement of such standards in coordination with State insurance regulators and the Secretaries of Labor and the Treasury.
(2) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The establishment and operation of a Health Insurance Exchange under subtitle A of title II.
(3) INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS.— The administration of individual affordability credits under subtitle C of title II, including determination of eligibility for such credits.
(4) ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS.—Such additional functions as may be specified in this division.
(b) PROMOTING ACCOUNTABILITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall undertake activities in accordance with this subtitle to promote accountability of QHBP offering entities in meeting Federal health insurance requirements, regardless of whether such accountability is with respect to qualified health benefits plans offered through the Health Insurance Exchange or outside of such Exchange.
(2) COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION AND AUDITS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The commissioner shall, in coordination with States, conduct audits of qualified health benefits plan compliance with Federal requirements. Such audits may include random compliance audits and targeted audits in response to complaints or other suspected non-compliance.
(B) RECOUPMENT OF COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH EXAMINATION AND AUDITS.—The Commissioner is authorized to recoup from qualified health benefits plans reimbursement for the costs of such examinations and audit of such QHBP offering entities.
(c) DATA COLLECTION.—The Commissioner shall collect data for purposes of carrying out the Commissioner’s duties, including for purposes of promoting quality and value, protecting consumers, and addressing disparities in health and health
care and may share such data with the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(d) SANCTIONS AUTHORITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case that the Commissioner determines that a QHBP offering entity violates a requirement of this title, the Commissioner may, in coordination with State insurance regulators and the Secretary of Labor, provide, in addition to any other remedies authorized by law, for any of the remedies described in paragraph (2).
(2) REMEDIES.—The remedies described in this paragraph, with respect to a qualified health benefits plan offered by a QHBP offering entity, are—
(A) civil money penalties of not more than the amount that would be applicable under similar circumstances for similar violations under section 1857(g) of the Social Security Act;
(B) suspension of enrollment of individuals under such plan after the date the
Commissioner notifies the entity of a determination under paragraph (1) and until the Commissioner is satisfied that the basis for such determination has been corrected and is not likely to recur;
(C) in the case of an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, suspension of payment to the entity under the Health Insurance Exchange for individuals enrolled in such plan after the date the Commissioner notifies the entity of a determination under paragraph (1) and until the Secretary is satisfied that the basis for such determination has been corrected and is not likely to recur; or
(D) working with State insurance regulators to terminate plans for repeated failure by the offering entity to meet the requirements of this title.
(e) STANDARD DEFINITIONS OF INSURANCE AND MEDICAL TERMS.—The Commissioner shall provide for the development of standards for the definitions of terms used in health insurance coverage, including insurance-related terms.
(f) EFFICIENCY IN ADMINISTRATION.—The Commissioner shall issue regulations for the effective and efficient administration of the Health Insurance Exchange and affordability credits under subtitle C, including, with respect to the determination of eligibility for affordability credits, the use of personnel who are employed in accordance with the requirements of title 5, United States Code, to carry out the duties of the Commissioner or, in the case of sections 208 and 241(b)(2), the use of State personnel who are employed in accordance with standards prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management pursuant to section 208 of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4728).

Health Care Reform Bullies May Be Winning

It looks like the bullies have told a sufficient number of lies for people to believe that a public option would be bad for America, that it would ration health care, that it would be too expensive, and that it would provide substandard quality care ... never mind that we have a number of programs that are currently run by the government — Medicare, VA health care, active military health care, just to name a few. Those governmental health care offerings haven't put the for-profit insurance corporations out of business, and they don't provide substandard care. Plus, medicare, as an example, has created a niche for a number of insurance companies who offer "supplemental" policies that extend coverage levels beyond what is covered through basic Medicare.

It also looks like the Party of Nope, with no real plan of their own, who is spreading one lie after another relative to the reform efforts, one distortion of facts after another, and disrupting one town hall meeting after another where concerned citizens are trying to get answers to their questions, is well on its way to scuttling health care reform for a second time. In his comments at a town hall meeting in Colorado, President Obama appears to be caving to the pressure to not provide a "public health care option" and is now leaning toward a bill that would help establish "not-for-profit health care cooperatives" instead.



Playing down their shift to embracing "not-for-profit cooperatives", Kathleen Sibelius, HHS Secretary has begun stressing that a government-run health care option is "not the essential element" in the health reform effort and that health care cooperatives could effectively compete with private insurers to potentially begin lowering health care costs. That however, remains to be seen. The Party of Nope, with its treasure trove of contributions from the health care industry securely in their pockets still has the opportunity to handicap the co-ops as the debate restarts anew in September.

Frankly, I don't know about you, but I don't think we can rely on the for-profit insurance companies to do those things that are needed to make health care affordable for ordinary Americans. Insurance companies are in the business to make money. After all, you can't pay those million dollar executive salaries with peanuts. That means they're going to do everything they can do to take your money. Then they'll turn around and do everything possible so as not to pay out any claims on that policy.

If anyone is guilty of "rationing" ... it's not the government, it's the insurance companies. They ration health insurance to the healthiest people and use pre-existing condition clauses to preclude having to cover anyone with an existing medical condition. So, if you're older, or if you have some medical condition that might require them to potentially pay out on a claim, forget it! No insurance policy at all ... or if you can get one, it's limited in its scope and it's going to be excruciatingly unaffordable.

If Congress is to do anything meaningful with respect to health care reform, it has to be "outlawing the use of pre-existing condition clauses." They're caving on the public option and it looks like they're caving on and removing the Section 1233 provision. My hope is that the Democratic majority does NOT cave in to the Party of Nope and remove the provision from the final bill that would outlaw pre-existing conditions. Heck, if they give in and drop that, they might as well table the whole darn thing and wait another decade or two to try again. Maybe the third time would finally be the charm.

Health Care Reform: End-of-Life Planning

Much is being written (and misrepresented) about Section 1233 of the Healthcare Reform bill currently in the House bill. This is the section of the bill that modifies the Medicare regulation and provides for medical payments for consultations with your personal doctor related to end-of-life care (living will preparation). Radicals on the far right are characterizing this section of the bill as legislating the creation of death warrants for seniors, thus denyingcare for seniors. That mischaracterization of this section is anything but the truth and is merely a scare tactic to mobilize opposition to the bill.

Over the past few days, I read two quality articles on this subject in the Washington post. The first was an op-Ed by Charles Lane titled, Undue Influence. The second was an article detailing readers responses to the Undue Influence article, titled Views on the Goverment's Role in End-of-Life Planning.

I would encourage you to read both articles. The "Undue Influence" article is written from a skeptic's point of view, questioning whether a doctor might place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign, and questions whether the motivation for this section is monetary, or to really ensure end-of-life wishes of the patient. The "Views" article contains a number of email responses from WP readers who responded to the Undue Influence article with "thoughtful and often eloquent comments." The last "Views" response, from Sara Billings who was a daughter of an ailing father and who is also a healthcare professional, is well worth reading. It accentuates that gray area between feelings and finances, guilt and grief that plays into the hands of those trying to use it to incite fear and enlist people to work against the bill.

Section 1233 of the Healthcare bill does nothing to "limit" healthcare for seniors. If anything, it provides them the opportunity to have an extended consultation, paid for by Medicare, with their personal physicians (and with family members present, if so desired) regarding all types of end-of-life procedures, with discussions of both pros and cons of all types of treatment. It actually would help people (and their relatives) make informed choices. As it stands today, realtives are left to interpret on their own what their relative might have wanted and most of all, what the person's lawyer meant by "extraordinary measures" in their loved one's living will (or DNR—do not rescusitate order) after circumstances have turned awry.




Related Articles —
• The Death Panels are Real [Huffington Post]
• The Real Death Panels: Insurers Deny 22% of Claims [Daily Kos]

Ensign's Latest Weekly Update

Got the "Weekly Update: Monthly Recap" in this morning's email. Notably absent in his recap is the fact that he voted against the nomination of Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor. I wonder why that is? Does he think that if he doesn't say anything in his weekly update that hispanic voters won't notice? I think not.

At least he didn't re-broadcast his hypocracy once again ... he left his "sanctity" comment — “While I believe Judge Sotomayor is an impressive role model for millions of Americans, I take my responsibility as Nevada’s Senator very seriously, and feel I need to protect the sanctity of our Constitution."

Like this guy really understands the true meaning of "sanctity."