Ted Kennedy thinks we need to address health care reform. Bully for him. This is how he’s going about gaining the support he needs to get it done:
"Health savings accounts may work for a few young people that are very, very, healthy," Kennedy said. "We are finding every day more and more families are losing their health care, and the prescription-drug program is a disaster."
"More than 2,000 people every single day are uninsured. If the president is going to follow the fiasco we had on Social Security, we are going to have more gimmicks."
Now, people may very well have forgotten that Kennedy has some room to criticize. He helped push through a bill that made some changes in health care provision in 1996. At the time it was called the Kennedy Kassebaum Bill (PL 104-191), nowadays, it’s simply called HIPAA.
Now, do understand my opinions on HIPAA:
- The privacy standards of HIPAA are 93 pages.
- The Civil Rights addendum are 44 pages.
- The Health and Human Rights summary is 25 pages.
- To figure out if HIPAA applies to you,
To determine if a natural person, business, or government agency is a covered entity, go to the tool(s) that apply to the person, business, or agency, and answer the questions until you receive an answer. If you are uncertain about which tool(s) applies, answer the questions on all of the tools. Many terms used in the tools are defined terms or have a special meaning. The definitions or special meanings will appear as footnotes on the relevant questions’ pages to assist you.
Covered Entity Charts
This guidance on how to determine whether an entity is a covered entity under the Administrative Simplification provisions of HIPAA is also available in a Covered Entity Flowchart (PDF, 61.4KB).
- It accomplishes nothing. It redefined existing COBRA laws and made them stricter. What it did NOT do is require the private insurance carrier they had to keep the existing rate. In other words, if you were fired, and very sick, your premium would be prohibitively expensive. But, the insurance carrier could not drop you. They just waited for you to run out of money and drop it. That’s all.
- It was such a cumbersome and unpopular mess that they made it retroactive until AFTER the next president took office. As such, liberals did everything they could to say it was Bush’s fault.
It wasn’t Bush’s animal. It was Ted Kennedy’s. Now, he wants you to believe HIPAA is what should be done to the entire health industry. And, more than anything else, Ted Kennedy once again expects you to forget about what he’s done in the past and simply trust him in the future. When he owns up to his own fiascos, then maybe people like me won’t be so harsh on the ones he’s proposing now.
- Technorati Ted Kennedy, HIPAA, Kennedy Kassebaum Bill, health care reform, social security
31
Jan
Yesterday Senator Bill Frist made the motion for cloture on the Alito confirmation. At which time, Ted Kennedy, went ballistic:
KENNEDY: …All you have to do, Mr. President, is look back into the history. Look back into the history of the judiciary. Look back to the history of the 5th Circuit, that were (sic) making the decisions in the 1950s. Look at the record of Judge Wisdom. Judge Tuttle. Judge Johnson of Alabama. The courage that they demonstrated that said that at last we are going to break down the walls of discrimination in this country, that have gripped this nation for 200 years. Our founding fathers failed the test when they wrote slavery into the Constitution! (He’s screaming.)
Abraham Lincoln pointed the way and we passed the 13th, 14th, 15th amendment and had a civil war. But we didn’t resolve this issue. It was only ’til we had the courage of those members of what branch of government? Not the US Congress. Not the US Senate. Not the executive. The Judiciary! The 5th Circuit! (Screaming again.)
We’re talking now about the Supreme Court. But they are the ones who changed this country inevitably with what we call the march to progress. The march towards knocking down the walls of discrimination that permitted us to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act and public accomodations so people who’s skin was not white who could go into restaurants and hotels. Public accomodations. The ’65 act for voting. Voting rights. The ’68 act. The public accomodations. The 1973 act that said that women are going to treated equally. The Americans with Disabilities Act that said that the disabled are going to be part of the American family.
All of that is part of the march for progress.
And my friends, the one organization, the one institution that protects it is THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES!!! (Screaming at the top of his lungs.)
Too much blood has been shed in those battles. Too much sweat. Too many tears. To. Put. At. Risk. That. March. For. Progress.
(Banging podium. Voice cracking.)
And that is what we are doing (voice quavering) with this nominee. HE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE before this Judiciary Committee that he was committed to the continued march for progress…
Kennedy was complaining that Alito failed to convince Kennedy that he was not a racist. That’s a pretty tall order. However, the problem Kennedy had from the get-go was Kennedy failed to prove Alito was. There was no reason to suspect he was in the first place. Therefore Kennedy was complaining about his own perceived prejudice against Alito. It apparently didn’t wash. Everyone saw through this as a purely conservative/liberal ideological debate. Discounting the person who pushed the filibuster, and discounting the person complaining, the Democrats fairly split on supporting Kennedy/Kerry. And quite frankly, those that chose to end this sad display will probably come out looking a lot better than those supporting it. I predicted this would be ugly, and it was. Going down 72-25 looks bad. Given the fact he took front and center lead on this entire issue, it looks even worse for Kennedy. To me, this is the perfect display of what is wrong with the Democrat party right now, the far-left in charge doesn’t seem to care what the rest of the party wants. But, that’s the part that represents the most votes.
Expose the Left, formerly Politicalteen, has the video. It’s kind of scary when you think about it. Thanks to In The Bullpen and Michelle Maulkin for providing transcripts.
- Technorati Ted Kennedy, Sam Alito
30
Jan
From AP:
Exxon Mobil Corp. posted record profits for any U.S. company on Monday $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter and $36.13 billion for the year as the worlds biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from high oil and gas prices and demand for refined products. The results exceeded Wall Street expectations.
The companys earnings amounted to $1.71 per share for the October-December quarter, up 27 percent from $8.42 billion, or $1.30 per share, in the year ago quarter. The result topped the then-record quarterly profit of $9.92 billion Exxon posted in the third quarter of 2005.
Exxons profit for the year was also the largest annual reported net income in U.S. history, according to Howard Silverblatt, a stock market analyst for Standard & Poors. He said the previous high was Exxons $25.3 billion profit in 2004.
I’d like to know why the price of gas continues to soar while Exxon’s reaping in BILLIONS. Everyone’s quick to blame the Saudis, but I see an obvious problem right there in the headline and the Saudis don’t own Exxon. I haven’t bought Exxon gas or products since I bitched about this very same thing almost to the day last year. Instead of whining about Alito, Kennedy et al could do the public a very real service and bitch about Exxon. Someone needs to hold Exxon’s feet to the fire. And, I know it’s not going be Bush. Maybe Cindy Sheehan will? ( Nah, she won’t have an issue once Bush is gone. ) I don’t know. But this is becoming surreal. On the day Exxon announced their record breaking profits, the price of gas here went up another 10 cents. Coincedence? I think it’s confidence.
I think the days of free-market oil need to be looked at a lot closer. It’s too critical of a need for it to be unregulated at this time. And, it’s obvious the market can’t do it for them.
- Technorati Exxon
30
Jan
Apparently Cindy Sheehan is talking about running for the Senate. This wouldn’t be so precious, but she’d be running against Diane Feinstein. This makes it extra special. Ms. Sheehan announced her intentions to run IF Ms. Feinstein did not filibuster the Alito confirmation:
“I’m appalled that Diane Feinstein wouldn’t recognize how dangerous Alito’s nomination is to upholding the values of our constitution and restricting the usurpation of presidential powers, for which I’ve already paid the ultimate price,” Sheehan said in the statement.
Feinstein immediately caved in to Ms. Sheehan’s demands:
Feinstein had said she would vote against Alito, but would not be part of the filibuster against his nomination. But Friday, Feinstein said she would support the filibuster.
Ms. Sheehan even picked up her first strong endorsement this weekend. Making her announcement in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez was quick to endorse her campaign:
I don’t know if anyone told him that she was running against Diane Feinstein and not Bush. It doesn’t matter tho, because Cindy has also picked up the endorsement of an odd variety of bloggers including Michelle Maulkin: “I wholeheartedly endorse the Cindy Sheehan for Senate campaign.”
But, before I get too excited or tore up about all this, I’m seeing things in a slightly different light than most apparently. Think about this for a second, Feinstein is not going to filibuster, and then, because of a threat from someone in Venezuela she “has” to? Takes all the ugliness off of Feinstein and dumps it on Sheehan. And, second and most importantly, Sheehan is the only person who could make Feinstein look moderate. I think this is a Feinstein plot. Next thing you know Sheehan will be declaring her intent to run in New York.
- Technorati Cindy Sheehan, Diane Feinstein, Hugo Chavez, Michelle Maulkin, 2006 Senate Races
30
Jan
OK, here’s the headline:
One of the things they cite is that cutting financial aid would lead to the collapse of the Palestinian Authority. Well, that’d be a shame IF they continue to encourage the violence in Palestine. You see, The US, especially Rice, are in a bit of a jam. We took out Saddam Hussein, and justified it to the rest of the world because the guy was attacking his neighbors. Although the WMD debate hijacked the issue, those of us supporting taking him out pre-2002 were more concerned about the destabilizing effect Hussein was having on the region. Now, the problem Hamas has is they have condoned destroying Israel, supported terrorist attacks, and done every single thing Saddam Hussein did. I mean, a lot of people should be putting pressure on Bush for being a hypocrite for allowing them to stay in power. The debate should not be about giving them more money, the debate should be removing them from power. They should be glad the only thing people are discussing is cutting their aid.
However, as is noted in the same article:
We in Hamas are ready to meet and have an open dialogue with the Quartet," he told a news conference in Gaza City. "We assure you that all the money will be spent under your supervision."
That might get them somewhere. Rather than coming across as terrorist thugs, civilized discussion would encourage the people that have what they want to be a little more receptive to debate. However, no sooner than that quote was made, so was this one:
A senior Hamas official in Lebanon, however, brushed aside warnings that Western aid to the Palestinians could dry up. "Cutting off funds now will be a punishment of the Palestinian people, not of Hamas," said Mohammed Nazzal, member of Hamas’ decision-making political bureau, which is based in Syria.
"If the European Union countries and the American administration see this as a means that could lead to a change in Hamas’ strategic position then they are dreaming and are mistaken. Hamas will never accept that," he said in an interview with Al-Arabiya TV.
Well, the problem here is the people of Palestine elected Hamas. I’m not sure the American administration sees this as a means to lead to a change in Hamas’ strategic position, we’ve just got an issue with supporting terrorist organizations in the 21st century. Sure, the people would suffer, but IMO, if they see how the world responds to Hamas, they might not be quite as convinced Hamas is doing what’s right for them and choose a path of peace and civility as soon as they can. The world made its offer to help Hamas with strings attached. Those strings will ALWAYS be attached. It’s OUR money and we have the right to expect something in return for it. If the Palestinian people choose not to accept those strings, then they are choosing their own destiny to suffer, we’re not doing it to them.
I was uncomfortable supporting aid to Palestine in the first place. I’m sure a lot of Americans were as well. Give me some evidence that it has led to some good and I’ll be less reticent. Electing terrorists to run their government is not what I had in mind.
- Technorati Hamas
This has got to be the ultimate in political pandering:
Italian Prime Minister
Silvio Berlusconi is famous for his ambitious promises, but he is unlikely to be called to task if he breaks his latest pledge: not to have sex before the April 9 general election.At a party rally in Sardinia on Saturday, the media tycoon received the blessing of television preacher Massimiliano Pusceddu, who thanked him for opposing gay marriage and defending family values.
Thank you dear Father Massimiliano, Ill try not to let you down and I promise you two and a half months of complete sexual abstinence until April 9, Berlusconi replied, in comments reported on Sunday by the daily Il Giornale.
Now, the guy has a history of sexual innuendo, so I can see the basis for this act. However, I think I would have just promised to tone it down. Some things are just more important than politics. The question I’m left with is who is going to verify his promise?
I received this from the Alliance for Health Reform. It explains the state of health care in the US quite well and I will be referencing a lot of what is in it in future posts regarding my opinions on
health care reform:
FAST FACTS
-
The number of Americans who lacked health insurance for the entire year rose to 45.8 million in 2004, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, up from 45 million in 2003. The percentage of the total population under age 65 lacking health coverage grew to 17.8 percent in 2004, from 17.6 percent the year before.[i]
The number of Americans with insurance also grew in 2004, to 245.3 million. That was up 2 million from 2003.[ii]
-
The percentage of the population with employer-sponsored coverage declined steadily between 2000 and 2004. The percentage with public coverage, meanwhile, has steadily increased.[iii]
-
The premiums employers and workers pay for health insurance rose an average of 9.2 percent in 2005, according to the annual survey by the Hospital Research and Educational Trust and the Kaiser Family Foundation. That was down from 2004s increase of 11.2 percent, but still marked the sixth straight year in which premiums grew at more than double the pace of prices overall or workers earnings.[iv]
-
The average premium for family coverage by a preferred provider organization, the most popular type of health plan, rose to $11,090 in 2005, up from $10,217 in 2004.[v]
Several reports issued in 2005 suggest that both the number of uninsured and rising costs of care remain serious dilemmas. The U.S. Census Bureau reported in August that an estimated 45.8 million people in the U.S. lacked health coverage for all of 2004, up 859,000 from a year earlier. This marked the fourth consecutive year of increases.[vi]
In September, the Health Research and Educational Trust and the Kaiser Family Foundation announced that for the sixth year in a row, health care premiums in 2005 grew more than twice as fast as prices overall or workers earnings.[vii] Perhaps as a result, the share of small employers offering health coverage to their employees dropped from 63 percent in 2004 to 59 percent in 2005. This was despite the fact that the average rate of premium increases slowed from 2004.
Addressing the dual problems of rising health costs and the increase in the number of uninsured requires an understanding of the differences among those who are uninsured, and of the multiple factors driving increased health care spending.
The Uninsured in 2004
The uninsured are not a homogeneous group. They come from all age groups and ethnicities, and live in all parts of the country. They are uninsured for different reasons and for different lengths of time.
The number of Americans with health insurance increased by more than two million in 2004, to 245.3 million. But the number without insurance also rose — by 859,000 — to 45.8 million, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.[viii] As a result, the percentage of Americans under age 65 who lack health insurance rose slightly from 17.6 percent to 17.8 percent. [ix]
Coverage through work — The increase in the number of uninsured was largely the result of a decline in the percentage of Americans with job-based coverage. That figure fell from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004.[x] The number of uninsured increased among both full-time workers (from 20.6 million to 21.1 million) and part-time workers (from 5.9 million to 6.3 million). Likewise, the percentage of both groups who were uninsured increased from 17.5 to 17.8 among full-time workers and from 23.8 to 25.0 among part-time workers.[xi],[xii]
Among those working for the largest firms (1000 or more workers), the percent uninsured increased from 11.0 in 2003 to 11.6 in 2004 a higher rate of increase than for any other firm size.[xiii] Nonetheless, workers at the smallest firms (fewer than 25 employees) still were almost three times as likely to be uninsured in 2004 (31.1 percent) as workers at larger companies.[xiv]
Kids coverage — In 2004, 8.3 million children lacked coverage, a decrease from 8.4 million a year earlier. The percentage of children uninsured dropped to 11.2, down from 11.4 percent in 2003.[xv] A decline in employment-based coverage among children was offset by an increase in enrollment in public programs, notably Medicaid and the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Medicaid and SCHIP covered 455,000 more children in 2004 than in 2003.[xvi]
Race/ethnicity — Among racial and ethnic groups, Hispanics were the most likely to lack coverage. Almost a third of Hispanics (32.7 percent) were uninsured in 2004, a rate that was unchanged from 2003; nonetheless, the number of uninsured Hispanics rose from 13.2 million to 13.7 million.[xvii] (Note that if the overall population is also growing, rates can remain unchanged even as the number of uninsured increases.) The number of uninsured blacks increased from 2003 to 2004, while the number of uninsured Asians shrank. Both the number and the rate of uninsured non-Hispanic whites increased, from 21.6 million to 22 million, and from 11.1 percent to 11.3 percent. [xviii]
State variations – Though the Census Bureaus state-by-state estimates of the uninsured are not as reliable as the national estimate, its three-year averages show that the chances of being uninsured are related to where one lives, with rates particularly high in the Southwest.[xix] For the 2002 2004 period, Texas (25.1 percent) and New Mexico (21.4 percent) had the highest percentages of uninsured residents. Minnesota (8.5 percent) had the lowest.[xx]
Health Premiums in 2005
While the Census numbers covered calendar year 2004, the annual survey of employers conducted by the Health Research and Educational Trust (HRET) and the Kaiser Family Foundation found that in 2005 average premiums for employer-provided coverage rose 9.2 percent. [xxi] Mercer Human Resources Consulting put the average increase at 6.1 percent.[xxii] Those growth rates marked the second or third straight year of slowing premium increases, depending on the study. Even with the slowdown, however, the growth in premiums continued to far outpace the growth in prices overall (3.5 percent) or workers earnings (2.7 percent).[xxiii]
Growth in health care premiums and overall health care costs is straining the budgets of businesses and their workers. The average annual premium for a family in a preferred provider organization or PPO, the most popular type of health plan, was $11,090 in 2005. Of this amount, employers paid an average of $8,449 or $162 per week. [xxiv]
Rising costs have resulted in fewer employers offering coverage 60 percent of all firms in 2005 compared with 69 percent in 2000. Some 73 percent of firms not offering coverage cite high premiums as a very important reason for not including health insurance as an employee benefit. Also mentioned are that the firm is too small (52 percent), employees are covered elsewhere (33 percent) and that its possible to obtain good employees without offering a health plan (22 percent).[xxv]
For those with employer-sponsored coverage, the percentage of premiums workers are required to pay has remained relatively constant.[xxvi] But as premiums have risen, so have workers costs. Between 2000 and 2005, the average monthly premium paid by a worker to cover only him or herself rose 82 percent, from $28 to $51, while the workers dollar contribution toward the average premium for family coverage went up 67 percent, from $135 to $226.[xxvii]
Moreover, covered employees are paying more for health care, not only because their premium contributions are rising, but also because they are facing higher cost-sharing requirements. For instance, in 2005, the average annual deductible for single workers in a PPO was $323 up 58 percent from 2001.[xxviii]
Some 15.2 percent of uninsured workers were eligible for health coverage but declined to take it in 2002. About two-thirds said they declined because of the cost, down from seven out of 10 in 1997. Fewer than 10 percent said they declined because they didnt need or want coverage.[xxix]
Outlook for the future
As noted, the rate of increase in premiums has slowed over the past few years.[xxx],[xxxi] There are indications that this was due to slower growth in underlying health care costs. [xxxii] However, at least two studies predict a steeper rate of premium growth for 2006. An October 2005 study by Hewitt Associates projects a 9.9 percent increase in premiums, up from 9.2 percent in 2005.[xxxiii] Mercer Human Resources Consulting predicts a 6.7 percent rise, up from 6.1 percent.[xxxiv]
Utilization review/disease management — In an attempt to keep costs under control, many employers are using utilization review and disease management programs. The Kaiser/HRET study found that about eight in 10 covered workers are in a health plan that uses case management for high-cost claims. Three-fourths of covered workers must obtain approval from a health plan before receiving inpatient services and more than half (55 percent) must get prior certification for outpatient surgery.
Some 56 percent of covered workers are enrolled in a plan with at least one disease management program. These programs help those with chronic conditions typically, diabetes, asthma, hypertension and high cholesterol manage and control their illnesses more effectively and remain healthier longer.[xxxv]
Consumer-directed plans — A growing number of employers are considering implementation of consumer strategies that make employees more directly responsible for the cost of the care they choose. The Kaiser/HRET survey found that about 20 percent of employers who offer health insurance make available a high-deductible health plan option. Many of these high-deductible plans are coupled with tax preferred accounts in what are sometimes called consumer-directed plans. Relatively few employees are enrolled in such plans 3.5 percent of non-federal covered workers with coverage through their jobs, or about 2.4 million people, this survey found [xxxvi] — but the number is growing.
Retiree coverage — According to the Kaiser/HRET study, 33 percent of firms with 200 or more workers offered retiree health benefits in 2005. This was virtually unchanged from 2004, but was still down substantially from 1988, when 66 percent of large firms offered health coverage to retirees.[xxxvii] In a separate study by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Hewitt Associates, one in eight firms with 1,000 or more employees said they had stopped offering subsidized retiree health benefits in 2005 for future retirees, primarily newly hired workers.[xxxviii]
Public programs — On the public coverage side, while state budgets look better than they have in recent years, rising costs for Medicaid and SCHIP are still outpacing the small increases in state revenues. The Medicaid Commission appointed by Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt reported in September 2005 that total expenditures for Medicaid rose faster than for any other type of health coverage between 1998 and 2003 a 62 percent increase over that period. Spending on private insurance rose 51 percent for the same period and Medicare expenditures were up 36 percent, the commission noted.[xxxix]
Part of the increase in total Medicaid cost is traceable to enrollment growth: Medicaid and SCHIP added 1.9 million people between 2003 and 2004, according to the Census Bureau a 5 percent increase.[xl] This prevented the number of uninsured persons from growing even more than it already did.
Between 2000 and 2004, 4.8 million children were added to the Medicaid and SCHIP rolls an increase of 31.5 percent,[xli] and an indication of how key the public programs are to covering the nations low-income children. The number of children on Medicaid and SCHIP grew by 1.87 million in 2003 alone, and by another 455,000 in 2004.[xlii]
Studies released in October 2005 show a mixed outlook for Medicaid and SCHIP. A survey of state Medicaid directors conducted for the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured found that the number of states implementing new restrictions in eligibility, cuts in benefits or increased out-of-pocket spending for patients decreased in FY2005, but is increasing again for FY2006. The growth in Medicaid spending eased in FY2005 for the third year in a row, to 7.5 percent. Even so, this was substantially above the growth in state tax revenues (4.9 percent).[xliii]
Perhaps ominously, state Medicaid directors said much of the cost growth in the program is caused by factors they cant control, including the growth in health costs generally and declining employer-sponsored coverage.[xliv]
The cost cutting is likely to continue, at both the federal and state levels. The Medicaid Commissions report outlines six ways of reducing expenses by $10+ billion over five years. These include higher out-of-pocket spending by Medicaid beneficiaries and tightening the rules governing the transfer of assets to become Medicaid eligible.[xlv]
The report parallels some of the Medicaid reform recommendations issued by the National Governors Association in August 2005. The governors recommendations also include letting states pool their Medicaid populations to negotiate savings from prescription drug makers, helping individuals buy long-term care insurance and setting premiums for the Medicaid programs.[xlvi]
Many uncertainties remain in 2006. Will the number of uninsured continue to rise, despite an improving economy? How will states constrain costs in public insurance programs? Will consumer-driven health plans become a trend among employers? What is certain is that health care coverage and costs will continue to be lively topics of debate on Capitol Hill and throughout the nation.
[i] U.S. Census Bureau (2005). Table HI-1. Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Sex, Race and Ethnic Origin: 1987 to 2004. August 30. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt1.html)
[ii] U.S. Census Bureau (2005). Table HI-1. Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Sex, Race and Ethnic Origin: 1987 to 2004. August 30. (www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt1.html)
[iii] U.S. Census Bureau (2005). Table HI-1. Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Sex, Race and Ethnic Origin: 1987 to 2004. August 30. (www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt1.html)
[iv] The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust (2005). Employer Health Benefits: 2005 Summary of Findings. (www.kff.org/insurance/7315/sections/upload/7316.pdf)
[v]The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust.(2005). Employer Health Benefits: 2005 Summary of the Findings. Sept. 14, p.2. (www.kff.org/insurance/7315/sections/upload/7316.pdf)
The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health and Educational Trust (2004). Employer Health Benefits: 2004 Summary of the Findings. Sept. 9, p. 2
(www.kff.org/insurance/7148/upload/2004-Employer-Health-Benefits-Survey-Summary-of-Findings.pdf)
[vi] U.S. Census Bureau (2005). Table HI-1. Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Sex, Race and Ethnic Origin: 1987 to 2004. August 30. (www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt1.html)
[vii] The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust (2005). Employer Health Benefits: 2005 Summary of Findings. (www.kff.org/insurance/7315/sections/upload/7316.pdf)
[viii] U.S. Census Bureau (2005). Table HI-1. Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Sex, Race and Ethnic Origin: 1987 to 2004. August 30. (www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt1.html)
[ix] U.S. Census Bureau (2005), Table HI-6, Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by State — People Under 65: 1987 to 2004. August 30. (www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt6.html) The uninsurance rate is reported for those under age 65, since almost all Americans age 65 and older are covered by Medicare.
[x] U.S. Census Bureau (2005). Table HI-4. Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by State: All People: 1987 to 2004. August 30. (www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt4.html)
[xi] U.S. Census Bureau (2004). Table HI01. Health Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Selected Characteristics: 2003: All Races. (http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032004/health/h01_001.htm)
[xii] U.S. Census Bureau (2005). Table HI01. Health Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Selected Characteristics: 2004: All Races. (http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/health/h01_001.htm)
[xiii] Comparison by Alliance for Health Reform using Census Bureau tables in endnotes 7 and 8.
[xiv] U.S. Census Bureau (2005). Table HI01. Health Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Selected Characteristics: 2004: All Races. (http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/health/h01_001.htm)
[xv] U.S. Census Bureau (2005). Table HI-3. Health Coverage Status and Type of Coverage Children Under 18 by Age: 1987 to 2004. (www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt3.html)
[xvi]U.S. Census Bureau (2005). Table HI-3. Health Coverage Status and Type of Coverage Children Under 18 by Age: 1987 to 2004. (www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt3.html)
[xvii] U.S. Census Bureau (2005). Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004. August Table 7, p. 18. (www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf)
[xviii] U.S. Census Bureau (2005).. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004 August. Table 7, p. 18. (www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf)
[xix] U.S. Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003. August 2004. Page 27. (www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf)
[xx] U.S. Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003. August 2004. Page 27.U.S. Census Bureau (2005). P. 27. (www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf)
[xxi] The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust.(2005). Employer Health Benefits: 2005 Summary of the Findings. Sept. 14, p. 1. (www.kff.org/insurance/7315/sections/upload/7316.pdf)
[xxii] Mercer Human Resources Consulting (2005). Health benefit cost slows for a third year, rising just 6.1% in 2005. November 21. (www.mercerhr.com)
[xxiii] The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust (2005). Employer Health Benefits: 2005 Summary of Findings. Sept. 14, p. 1. (www.kff.org/insurance/7315/sections/upload/7316.pdf)
[xxiv] The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust.(2005). Employer Health Benefits: 2005 Summary of the Findings. Sept. 14, p. 2. (www.kff.org/insurance/7315/sections/upload/7316.pdf)
[xxv] The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Education Trust (2005). Chart: Among Firms Not Offering Health Benefits, Percentage of Firms Who Say the Following Are Very Important Reasons for Not Offering, 2005. (www.kff.org/insurance/7315/sections/upload/ehbs2005slides.pdf)
[xxvi] The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust.(2005). Employer Health Benefits: 2005 Summary of the Findings. Sept. 14, p. 3. (www.kff.org/insurance/7315/sections/upload/7316.pdf)
[xxvii] The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust (2005). Employer Health Benefits: 2005 Annual Survey. Exhibit 6.1. (www.kff.org/insurance/7315/sections/ehbs05-6-1.cfm?RenderForPrint=1)
[xxviii] The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust (2005). Employer Health Benefits: 2005 Annual Survey. Chartpak. Chart #21. (www.kff.org/insurance/7315/sections/upload/7375.pdf)
[xxix] Fronstin, Paul, Employee Benefit Research Institute (2005). Sources of Health Insurance and Characteristics of the Uninsured: Analysis of the March 2005 Current Population Survey. November, p. 15. (www.ebri.org/pdf/EBRI_IB_11-2005.pdf)
[xxx] The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust. (2005). Employer Health Benefits: 2005 Summary of the Findings. Sept. 14, p. 1. (www.kff.org/insurance/7315/sections/upload/7316.pdf)
[xxxi] Mercer Human Resources Consulting (2005). Health benefit cost slows for a third year, rising just 6.1% in 2005. November 21. (www.mercerhr.com)
[xxxii] Strunk, Bradley and Paul Ginsberg. Center for Studying Health System Change. Tracking Health Care Costs: Spending Growth Slowdown Stalls in First Half of 2004. Issue Brief No. 91, December 2004. Page 1.
[xxxiii] Hewitt Associates (2005). U.S. Companies Face Lowest Health Care Cost Increases Since 1999, According to Hewitt Associates. News release. October 10. (http://was4.hewitt.com/hewitt/resource/newsroom/pressrel/2005/10-10-05.htm)
[xxxiv] Mercer Human Resources Consulting (2005). Health benefit cost slows for a third year, rising just 6.1% in 2005. November 21. (www.mercerhr.com)
[xxxv] The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust (2005). Survey Finds Steady Decline in Businesses Offering Health Benefits to Workers Since 2000. News release. Sept. 14. (www.kff.org/insurance/chcm091405nr.cfm)
[xxxvi] The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust (2005). Survey Finds Steady Decline in Businesses Offering Health Benefits to Workers Since 2000. News release. Sept. 14. (www.kff.org/insurance/chcm091405nr.cfm)
[xxxvii] The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust.(2005). Employer Health Benefits: 2005 Summary of the Findings. Sept. 14, p. 6. (www.kff.org/insurance/7315/sections/upload/7316.pdf)
[xxxix] The Medicaid Commission (2005). Report to the Honorable Secretary Michael O. Leavitt, Department of Health of Human Services and The United States Congress. Sept. 1 (www.healthlaw.org)
[xl] U.S. Census Bureau (2005). Table HI-3. Health Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin: 1987 to 2004. August 30. (www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt1.html)
[xli]U.S. Census Bureau (2005). Table HI-3. Health Coverage Status and Type of Coverage Children Under 18 by Age: 1987 to 2004. (www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt3.html)
[xlii] U.S. Census Bureau (2005). Table HI-3. Health Coverage Status and Type of Coverage Children Under 18 by Age: 1987 to 2004. (www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/historic/hihistt3.html)
[xliii] Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured (2005). Medicaid Budgets, Spending and Policy Initiatives in State Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006: Results of a 50-State Survey: Executive summary. (www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/Medicaid-Budgets-Spending-and-Policy-Initiatives-in-State-Fiscal-Years-2005-and-2006-report-executive-summary.pdf)
[xliv] Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured (2005). Immediate State Fiscal Crisis Subsides, But Medicaid Still Faces Long-Term Budgetary Challenges. News release. October 19. (www.kff.org/medicaid/kcmu101905nr.cfm?RenderForPrint=1)
[xlv] The Medicaid Commission (2005). Report to the Honorable Secretary Michael O. Leavitt, Department of Health of Human Services and The United States Congress. Sept. 1 (at www.healthlaw.org)
[xlvi] National Governors Association (2005). Short-Run Medicaid Reform. August 29. (www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0508MEDICAIDREFORM.PDF)
A few days ago, I predicted the Dems would attempt to filibuster Alito, and it would fail badly. Enter John Kerry:
At the beginning of the 4pm hour of CNNs The Situation Room, Congressional correspondent Ed Henry reported that Senator John Kerry (D – MA) is calling for an Alito filibuster. Henry says that the Senior Senator from Massachusetts, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D) is also calling for a filibuster and is asking his colleagues to join the two. However, already three Democrats (Byrd, Nelson (Nebraska), and Johnson) have joined the Republicans in a vote for Alito. The Gang of 14 has already said that they do not plan to filibuster Alito, which means the rest of the 7 Democrats will probably join the vote against a filibuster.
Do note that Kerry made these comments AFTER the Gang of 14 bailed and Bob Byrd said he wasn’t in the mood to filibuster Alito either ( he just wants the whole thing over, I wonder why? ).
26
Jan
David Bernstein over at Volokh pens on the Hamas victory in Palestine:
Meanwhile, in my view, the gloves are off. If Hamas doesn’t recognize Israel (and, more important, renounce terrorism) right away, I can’t see any reason why Israel wouldn’t be perfectly within its rights to destroy all PA government buildings, given that they are now the assets of a terrorist group that demands Israel’s destruction. There may be practical reasons (let Hamas implode on its own accord), but Israel has no reason to treat Hamas as a legitimate government. You say they were elected? So if Hamas runs a terrorist state bent on its destruction Israel should refrain from treating it as an enemy because it’s an elected terrorist government bent on Israel’s destruction? Please. By that logic, the U.S. shouldn’t have responded to the Nazis declaration of war.
I know he wants to elaborate more later, but I’ve got some opinions right now. A big part of the problem in Palestine IMO has historically been a power struggle not with Israel, but between fractious terrorist organizations. To sell their cause, they rallied their people behind destroying Israel. The keep their power, they attacked each other. This created basically nothing but total instability and chaos in the entire Palestinian region. If you’re an Israeli leader, who do you deal with? Which problem do you address first? Neither Fatah nor Hamas ruled the entire area. If you dealt with Fatah, Hamas attacked. If you dealt with Hamas, Fatah attacked. Get the picture? IF, and that’s a HUGE IF, Hamas can solidify power, THEN Israel actually has something it can deal with. IF, another HUGE IF, Hamas does not feel military and political pressure from within, they can feel confident in running a "country" and dealing with external issues as opposed to never-ending internal power struggles. IF, the last and most important HUGE IF, Hamas does not feel they need to scare their citizens to death to keep them unified, they’ll have no compelling reason to rally their people with the slogan of "death to Israel". Hamas has been a terrorist organization, but that doesn’t mean they have to continue being one. With the motivation to be one removed, hopefully they’ll remember their roots and realize that terrorism always, and I mean ALWAYS, bites the hand that feeds it.
I’m not willing to condemn the Palestinian people for electing Hamas. I’m also not willing to condemn Hamas in it’s newest form before they’ve had a chance to prove one way or another whether they can restore civility to the region. And, just as I am with Iraq, I’m not willing to put a timeline on it. I’ll judge by their actions with the bias that their history merits.
25
Jan
The Gallup Poll just released these numbers:
Now, I’ve made the observation in the past that polls are pretty irrelevant. That’s only true if you don’t ask the right question. The only question that I think matters in an election is "Who would you most definitely NOT vote for". It’s like this, the two strongest emotions are love and hate. The huge gap between the two are a state of flux. With any person, some days you can take them moreso than others. But, if you love someone, you pretty much always love them. Now, regardless of what anyone tells you, no one LOVES a politician. They may admire them a lot, but, the average voter does not LOVE their candidate. If they do, they’ve got issues. Love your spouse. Love your kids. Admire a politician. That only leaves one pure emotion, hate. Or, something really close to it. Although only a handful of people might truly LOVE a candidate, a LOT of people find it in themselves to hate politicians. So, the only question IMO that means anything six months or a year from now is how do you FEEL about a candidate. That "definitely not vote for" will only get larger. The "definitely vote for" and "consider voting for" will flux with the "no opinion". What you can surmise from the above numbers at this point is that fewer people will feel compelled to vote AGAINST Rice than feel compelled to vote AGAINST Clinton. It has always been my second theory that the least unpopular candidate on election day wins. In this case, it’s Rice in a mandate. 51 to 46 nationwide is a complete blow-out. Add in those that don’t hate either candidate and you’re still talking a minority of the vote. These are big important numbers for Rice and Clinton IMO. I’m surprised Rice’s number is that high, she’s really not done anything I can think of to get people to hate her, other than being associated with Bush. However, a majority MIGHT vote for her. But, more importantly, a majority MOST likely would vote against her opposition.
