Amendments to National Health Care Legislation

April 7, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

The health care legislation was signed into law in late March 2010. Subsequently, there is lot of disappointment to the effects of law and the insurance industry obligations that appear to contain many loopholes resembling the status quo.

Hence, upon reviewing the major components of the bill per the statements from the President’s letter, along with the data made available by Congress and the Congressional Budget Office,

It’s clear that amendments are necessary to protect ‘average Americans’ interests from the health industry behemoths.

Statements from the President’s letter:

“Now we need to begin the process of implementing these historic changes.

To ensure a successful, stable transition, many of these changes will phase into full effect over the next several years.”

1. “But for millions of Americans, many of the benefits of reform will begin this year – some will even take effect this week.”

Recommendation: Although, it’s claimed that the uninsured with pre-existing conditions would be covered beginning this week, the data should be provided for public knowledge.

The insurance companies willing to offer coverage to the uninsured population with pre-existing conditions including the information on the eligibility, the premium costs and the federal funding source is essential to confirm the benefit.

2. “Uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions can join a special high-risk pool to get the coverage they need, starting in just 90 days.”

Recommendation: “High-risk” pool coverage starts effective immediately and not in three months’ time.

Insurance industry must note that this is a health issue and not a decision about any recreational activity or a vacation.

For some it could be a life threatening illness requiring urgent medical intervention.

Moreover, in the absence of specifics from the insurance industry – on coverage costs, limits and treatment level, the patients could be inhibited from seeking the comprehensive coverage they might need for their health problem.

3. “And Americans with insurance will be protected from seeing their insurance revoked when they get sick, or facing restrictive annual limits on the care they receive.”

Recommendation: This legislative law applies to the ‘currently insured,’ who are pre-screened and selected as the ‘low risk’ subscribers.

However, the law must be extended to the uninsured regardless of medical history.

4. “We passed this reform for 5th-grader Marcelas Owens, whose mother died because she didn’t get the health care she needed after she got sick, lost her job and her health insurance. Marcelas’ message to Congress was simple: “Finish health care reform. No other kid should lose their mom because they don’t have health care.”

We passed this reform for Natoma Canfield, who wrote to tell me that she could no longer afford her health insurance policy. Since losing her health insurance coverage in January, Natoma has been diagnosed with Leukemia and is fighting for her life.

Recommendation: In order to protect victims of such tragic situations, the Medicaid and Medicare (if age qualified) expansion is vital as suggested below.

5. We passed this reform for Ryan Smith, a small business owner with five employees. Ryan was doing his part to provide health insurance to his employees, but cannot keep up with rising health care costs.

Small businesses will receive significant tax cuts, this year, to help them afford health coverage for all their employees.

Recommendation: The public option is the reliable option for Small business and self-employed individuals struggling to compete in the dire economy.

Because, it’s being facilitated through tax cuts (federal funding) to enable their private coverage,

The public option is the ideal choice that would produce savings for this demography and the government.

6. “Early retirees will receive help to reduce premium costs.”

Recommendation: Again, the burden is shifted from the insurance industry to the taxpayers via federal help.

Instead, the Medicare threshold should be lowered from 65 to 55 in the amendment that would adequately address the issue.

7. Young people will be allowed coverage under their parents’ plan until the age of 26.

Recommendation: It should be at no additional costs to the subscribers.

8. Children will be protected against discrimination on the basis of medical history.

Recommendation: It’s verified to be true for the ‘insured’ but not the uninsured.

It was also revealed that the law is interpreted by the insurance industry as a discretionary action. Otherwise, a non-committal response and even coverage denial to this piece of legislation.

Therefore, imposing penalties for failure to comply will make the law effective.

9. We’re also making investments to train primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.

Recommendation: It’s a step in the positive direction.

To make the investment worthwhile, it’s imperative to utilize the health care services for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, VA patients as well as the ‘Public Option’ subscribers rather than the private industry solely benefiting from it.

10. “State-level consumer assistance programs to help patients understand and defend their new rights” –

Recommendation: This could create variation in practice allowing the insurance and the health care industry to circumvent the respective state laws as seen in the environmental matter on carbon emissions, leading the environmental agency to adopt a standard law across the country.

That’s why, the independent and non-profit ‘National Consumer Health Rights Agency,’ would be ideal to deliver the service.

“In Marcela, Ryan, Natoma, my mom and so many other Americans, we are reminded of what this fight was about. It wasn’t about politics. It was about doing the right thing, and taking care of the hardworking people that make our country great.”

It would be beneficial to the suffering population upon incorporating the above recommendations and the amendments listed below.
————————————————————————————————–
By Padmini Arhant

Amendments to the National Health Care Legislation

Since the health care legislation is already passed, the applicable changes should be rapid without any legislative rigmarole.

1. Effects of law commencing in 90 days, 6 months and within a year must begin tomorrow and no later than April 12, 2010 to accommodate all different health situations experienced by those who are ill at present.

2. The contentious settings in 2014 and 2019 for full effects should be brought forward to June 2010.

3. Simultaneously, the tax laws scheduled for 2013 and 2018 should be modified to be effective immediately.

Accepting the uninsured patients as new subscribers should not be a daunting task given the resources and the established system that are currently in place.

In addition, the federal funding for private insurance coverage should be diverted to ‘public option,’ program, CHIP, Medicaid and Medicare expansion notwithstanding the VA patient care.

4. Introduction of public option to induce real competition is the hallmark of the amendment.

5. Lowering the Medicare eligibility threshold from 65 to 55 as agreed by most legislators in Congress during the health care debate.

6. Medicaid expansion to the unemployed and senior citizens falling short on prescription drug expenses despite the $250 rebate upon them reaching the coverage gap.

NB: The votes are available in the House and the Senate to pass these rules via ‘the reconciliation process,’ if the bipartisanship remains impossible.

7. Revive the deal with the health care service and Big Pharma on the estimated $500 billion dollar savings that was initially committed by the industries.

8. Jan 1, 2011 – Enactment calls for ‘marketplace’ insurers to invest premium dollars on medical services by 80 percent for individuals and small plans, whereas the large groups by 85 percent respectively.

Recommendation: Monitoring is essential to ensure such practice among the insurers.

The law would be redundant without oversight.

Independent and non-profit ‘National Consumer Health Rights Agency,’ is appropriate for it would prevent breach of the investment criteria.

9. Anti-trust laws passed by Congress should be extended for a longer period i.e. until 2020.

10. Mandatory insurance should be based on affordability and individuals without sufficient financial means automatically qualify for federal medical program via public option at a lower competitive cost and not higher than the private sector as determined earlier to boost the private insurance sales, during the health care legislative process.

Alternatively, the Medicaid program should be accessible for these individuals and families experiencing sudden change in status due to loss of family income generating an insurance lapse in premium payments.

These changes will provide for all Americans.

The health care reform would be meaningful with the all of the above recommendations and amendments.

Those who contribute to these enactments need not be concerned about their re-election for they will be guaranteed a victory in November, 2010.

The legislators from both sides of the aisle could make this happen by showing their willingness to prioritize their constituent’s physical health over the special interests’ financial gains.

Ultimately, the power lies in the citizen’s vote regardless of corporate campaign financing.

‘Change’ is made possible by the people in a democracy and not the profit seekers.

If there is will, there is a way.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant


P.S: Comprehensive analysis on National Health Care Legislation was previously published on March 29, 2010 under “Health,” Category on this website.

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Health | Leave a Comment 

Response to President’s Statements on National Health Care Legislation

April 6, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

With respect to the content from President Barack Obama’s letter, the explanation is not necessarily accepted as ‘satisfactory.’

Hence, the White House must provide reasons to the legitimate questions raised in the analysis on National Health Care legislation and more to be submitted shortly.

Democracy thrives when the voice of the people are heard especially, with the legislative matter that affects millions of lives.

Avoiding the subject only arouses suspicion and creates confusion among the vast majority yet to be convinced on the ethical aspect of the legislation.

Since the Presidency was sworn in on transparency and accountability premise, it’s important to exemplify the pledge through action in the critical moment of public frustration.

Therefore, I request the authorities not to evade the issue any longer and be forthright in their response to the press and the public on the “insurance industry” favored health care reform.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Health | Leave a Comment 

President’s Statements on Health Care Legislation

April 5, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

Hon. President Barack Obama

Dear Mr. President,

Thank you for your letter on the health care legislation.

I deeply appreciate your kind remarks and present the main content of your letter for public reference.

“We succeeded where seven presidents did not.

We mobilized and organized. We helped secure the dream of our nation’s founding.

Our success marks a new season for our country – one in which mothers, fathers, sons and daughters no longer live in fear of a system that works better for the insurance industry than it does for ordinary people.

What we have done here is remarkable. It is historic. And many believed this day would never come.

With all the punditry, with all of the lobbying, with all of the game-playing that too often passes for governing, it’s been easy, at times, to doubt our ability to finish the job on health insurance reform.

We would not fall prey to fear. We would not settle for an easy way out. We would not stop until we passed this reform.

We passed this reform for 5th-grader Marcelas Owens, whose mother died because she didn’t get the health care she needed after she got sick, lost her job and her health insurance. Marcelas’ message to Congress was simple: “Finish health care reform. No other kid should lose their mom because they don’t have health care.”

We passed this reform for Ryan Smith, a small business owner with five employees. Ryan was doing his part to provide health insurance to his employees, but cannot keep up with rising health care costs.

We passed this reform for Natoma Canfield, who wrote to tell me that she could no longer afford her health insurance policy. Since losing her health insurance coverage in January, Natoma has been diagnosed with Leukemia and is fighting for her life.

And we passed this reform for my mother, who argued with insurance companies even as she battled cancer in her final days.

In Marcela, Ryan, Natoma, my mom and so many other Americans, we are reminded of what this fight was about. It wasn’t about politics. It was about doing the right thing, and taking care of the hardworking people that make our country great.

Now we need to begin the process of implementing these historic changes.

To ensure a successful, stable transition, many of these changes will phase into full effect over the next several years.

But for millions of Americans, many of the benefits of reform will begin this year – some will even take effect this week.

Small businesses will receive significant tax cuts, this year, to help them afford health coverage for all their employees. Seniors are going to receive a rebate to reduce drug costs not yet covered under Medicare. Young people will be allowed coverage under their parents’ plan until the age of 26. Early retirees will receive help to reduce premium costs, and children will be protected against discrimination on the basis of medical history.

But we’re not stopping there.

Uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions can join a special high-risk pool to get the coverage they need, starting in just 90 days. And Americans with insurance will be protected from seeing their insurance revoked when they get sick, or facing restrictive annual limits on the care they receive.

We’re also making investments to train primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals, and we’re creating state-level consumer assistance programs to help patients understand and defend our new rights. These changes will benefit all Americans.

We did it…And America is better for it.”

Sincerely,

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Health | Leave a Comment 

National Health Care Legislation

March 29, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

Last week, President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress achieved a historic victory in passing the health care legislation.

The legislative components and the effective period are presented below:

According to the New York Times report March 22, 2010

By Robert Pear and David M. Herszenhorn – Thank you.

Source: Speaker of the House, Congressional Budget Office, Kaiser Family Foundation, MCCLATCHY – TRIBUNE

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL LEGISLATION, WHICH WILL:

1. 90 days after enactment: Provide immediate access to high-risk pools for people with no insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

2. 6 months after enactment:

Bar insurers from:

Denying people coverage when they get sick

Denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions

Imposing lifetime caps on coverage

Require insurers to:

Allow young people to stay on their parents’ policies until they turn 26

3. Within a year: Provide a $250 rebate to Medicare prescription drug beneficiaries who reach the coverage gap called the “doughnut hole”

4. Jan 1, 2011: Require individual and small group market plans to spend 80 percent of premium dollars on medical services; large group plans would have to spend at least 85 percent

5. 2013: Increase the Medicare payroll tax on dividend, interest and other unearned income for singles earning more than $200,000 and joint filers making more than $250,000

6. 2014: Provide subsidies for families earning up to 400 percent of poverty level ($88,200 a year for a family of four)

Require most employers to provide coverage or face penalties

Require most people to obtain coverage or face penalties

7. 2018: Impose 40 percent excise tax on high-end insurance policies

8. 2019: Expand health insurance coverage to 32 million people

———————————————————————————————–
Late deals added to bill’s revisions – By Alan Fram Associated Press – March 22, 2010 – Thank you.

The latest changes to the bill include:

Tax-exempt insurers would have to pay a new fee levied on insurers on only half their premiums.

An Aug.1, 2010, deadline on new doctor-owned hospitals to apply to the government for eligibility to serve – and get paid for Medicare patients would be extended to Dec. 31.

A new 2.9 percent excise tax on medical devices would be lowered to 2.3 percent.

But it will be broadened to apply to some lower-cost devices it hadn’t initially covered, though hearing aids, contact lenses and other items would be excluded.
————————————————————————————————–
Review and Analysis – By Padmini Arhant

There have been numerous questions by the anxious uninsured and they are being presented in this analysis.

Congressional Report dissection:

Clarification from the legislators would be helpful in understanding the criteria in the following categories:

1. 90 days after enactment: Provide immediate access to high-risk pools for people with no insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

From the concerned individuals – the uninsured with pre-existing conditions but are unsure of their acceptance in the high-risk pool due to variations in the health issue.

A. Who are the qualifiers under the ‘high-risk’ pool in the ‘insurers’ language?

B. Should the insured expect escalation in premium costs due to their ‘pre-existing’ diagnosis as compared to the healthy individuals?

C. If there is a difference in coverage costs; by what percentage will it affect them?

As per the Associated Press report, March 24, 2010 –

D. “But a provision to protect children in poor health has a gap. Insurers would still be able to deny new coverage to kids with health problems until 2014.”

Is it possible for these kids to access care under ‘high-risk’ pool, which is expected to be effective in three months from now, i.e. June 2010?

Therefore, specifics are required in this respect.
————————————————————————————————–

2. 6 months after enactment – October 2010,

The legislative component reverses the status quo for those who are currently insured and,

A. Have difficulties on coverage during their illness including children with pre-existing conditions.

B. Parents are permitted to keep their adult offspring until age 26, on their policy.

C. It prohibits the insurers from limiting coverage and policy cancellation when the patients require treatment.

Unequivocally, it’s a crucial piece of legislation.

However, it could have been made effective immediately rather than a six months delay, due to the nature of the problem.

As it’s well known that in health situations, the cost and cure factor is dependent upon early intervention.
————————————————————————————————–

3. Within a year i.e. in 2010 the legislation involves $250 rebate to Medicare prescription drug beneficiaries upon them reaching the ‘doughnut hole’ or the coverage gap –

Any financial relief to senior citizens and others dealing with enormous health care costs is a welcome change.

———————————————————————————————-

4. Jan 1, 2011 – Enactment calls for ‘marketplace’ insurers to invest premium dollars on medical services by 80 percent for individuals and small plans, whereas the large groups by 85 percent respectively.

Monitoring is essential to ensure such practice among the insurers.

In the absence of oversight, the law would be redundant.

That’s why the independent and non-profit ‘National Consumer Health Rights Agency,’ would be ideal to deliver the service.

————————————————————————————————-

5. 2013: Increase the Medicare payroll tax on dividend, interest and other unearned income for singles earning more than $200,000 and joint filers making more than $250,000

This was the proposal from the House of Representatives to generate revenue for the health care overhaul.

It appears to be preset to meet with the ‘PAYGO’ budgetary requirement to pay for expenditures with funds for the program in progress.

A prudent fiscal policy that is necessary to address the national deficit and approved by the Congressional Budget Office. It’s an important feature of this legislation.

The Republican opposition projected the negative implication of this particular rule on Medicare recipients quoting that ‘the Medicare quality would be affected.’ They need to explain their position.

————————————————————————————————

6. 2014: Provide subsidies for families earning up to 400 percent of poverty level ($88,200 a year for a family of four)

Require most employers to provide coverage or face penalties

Require most people to obtain coverage or face penalties

7. 2018: Impose 40 percent excise tax on high-end insurance policies

8. 2019: Expand health insurance coverage to 32 million people

In reference to Points 6, 7 and 8:

Perhaps, the funds from the Medicare payroll tax mentioned above are allocated for the subsidies and Medicaid beneficiaries.

Similarly, the 40 percent excise taxes on high-end insurance policies set up to eventually expand health insurance coverage to the targeted 32 million uninsured in 2019.

Again, the same reason stated under 2 C of the analysis, applies to these rules of law.

The people who can’t afford health insurance are most vulnerable to health problems that ultimately become the tax payer responsibility as experienced up until now.

Hence, the law being effective in 2014, four years away from the signed legislation and the reality of the 32 million people being covered in 2019 is a legitimate cause for disappointment among the uninsured.

The authorities owe a plausible explanation to the suffering population regarding the distant period setting for the effectiveness of the law, especially 2014 and 2019.

What is happening to this segment between now and then?

Are there provisions for tax credits to the middle class families and Medicaid expansion to cover the interim premium costs by the uninsured and the unaffordable groups in the society?

If so, how is it being paid for?

Since the revenue from Medicare payroll tax and the excise tax are scheduled in 2013 and 2018, to fund the federal subsidies to lower income families in 2014 and the 32 million uninsured in 2019 respectively,

The health insurance reform cannot be truly evaluated until after 2014.

Besides, the health insurance legislation based on ‘private for profit’ strategy is subject to market rates in 2014 and beyond.

Meanwhile, the legislation tackles the problems faced by the “insured” groups in the society that are significant and guaranteed to save lives.

According to the media reports, the House and the Senate leaders confirmed the available votes to implement a ‘Public Option’ in the health care legislation through reconciliation process within the year.

Indicating that – “We have the votes and we need the will to move forward.”

It’s the best hope for the average citizen in the health insurance reform, considering the anticipated changes becoming law not until 2014 and 2019.

Having passed the legislation, the lawmakers can amend the bill to accommodate the genuine requests from the average citizens for whom the reform was initiated.

It’s a matter of honoring the people’s will in a democracy.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Health | Leave a Comment 

Successful passage of Health Care Reform

March 22, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

Congratulations! To President Barack Obama, the Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Senate majority leader Harry Reid and the Congress members responsible for the successful legislation of the health care reform.

The debate had consumed more than a year and came to fruition last night. With any legislation, the views are expected to be conciliatory and contradictory.

I take the opportunity to wish our President Barack Obama and the legislators continued victory in all their present and future endeavors.

This website will remain committed to the humanitarian cause without being affiliated to any particular political faction in order to maintain objectivity and keep democracy alive.

My contribution is focused primarily on peace and environmental goals for humanity i.e. ‘Save the Planet,’ and ‘Peace on Earth.’

I look forward to the inevitable peace, progress and prosperity through coherence among the global community.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Health | Leave a Comment 

Response to Presidential Communiqué – View on Health Care

March 19, 2010

From: Padmini Arhant

Hon. President Barack Obama

Dear Mr. President,

Thank you for the ‘beautiful’ artwork of the North Portico of the White House by the talented artist Dan Kessler.

It is an honor to serve our nation and your Presidency. I appreciate your kind remarks in this regard.

I commend you for the recent success in the bipartisan legislation of the jobs bill. I’m confident that this bill would have a positive impact on the economy, particularly in improving the unemployment situation.

According to the reports, the legislative measures would save and create approximately 200,000 jobs that are considered ‘meager’ by the opposition. Nevertheless, the number is significant for it eases the burden on the families struggling to make ends meet.

Every single job saved in the dire economy is a blessing in disguise for the American workforce.

I hope to witness similar rigorous actions to expedite the economic recovery.

In the economic front, the stimulus package passed last year was beneficial in stabilizing the economy and the global financial market from the brink of collapse. There is no doubt that the crisis is far from over.

The stock market performance in the past few months has been impressive, boosting the investor confidence that has shifted from the housing market.

Unfortunately, the residential and the commercial markets are still lagging behind with not much appreciation in the home values nationwide. Obviously, the sector needs attention to keep the families in their homes.

Liquidity freeze is a matter of great concern. The banks are still on the fence, despite the toxic assets removal from the balance sheets through taxpayer bailout.

The executives’ extravagant bonuses continues while the average Americans are being subject to credit crunch and huge financial charges in spite of the legislation introducing a cap on credit card interest rates and transaction fees.

A tough financial reform comprising fees and taxes on bonuses and stock options per your proposal with an independent consumer protection agency is the only effective strategy to protect the financial market from potential crisis.

Unequivocally, the Federal Reserve or the Treasury department should not be the oversight for the consumer protection agency due to the inevitable conflict of interest as seen until now.

Therefore, it’s essential to set up a non-partisan, independent consumer protection agency to defend consumer rights and offer advisory services, especially on the mortgage products.

I concur with you on the fact that your Presidency inherited the worst problems.

However, there was tremendous political capital that could have been utilized in transforming the system in Washington and across the globe.

I understand that the entire year was consumed with two important issues – the economic stimulus package and the health care bill.

There are three years left in the first term of your Presidency and lot could be achieved between now and the end of the term.

It’s never too late to revise the policies to benefit the people at home and around the world.

I’m always there to extend my support to your Presidency that addresses the people’s plight against the special interests. I genuinely care about our national and international challenges.

It’s my duty as a humanitarian and your good friend to be honest about the negative consequences of any action endangering life, not barring yours and the national reputation.

The warnings were issued to safeguard your administration and our country’s image.

We might disagree on the elements of core issues but we both share a common goal and that is to make this world a better place for all.

Besides, the evolutionary process can neither be stalled nor differed and humanity is due for a revolutionary change with a golden era on the horizon to those who are willing to adapt to the ‘common good’ philosophy.

‘Change’ is natural. Nothing is meant to stay permanent in any shape or form on earth.

Truth and Justice cannot remain suppressed forever.

It’s time to liberate those who are oppressed, persecuted and deprived of freedom.

Further, the population suffering from poverty, hunger and disease must be relieved with a renewed life.

Nations who have invaded and occupied lands should return power to the indigenous people.

It’s important to practice non-violence and initiate peace dialogue with one another to resolve conflicts.

Likewise, the leaderships across the globe are expected to conform to the developments that have begun and make positive contribution with a paradigm shift in the governance by allowing democracy to prevail through free and fair elections.

Corporations must allow the people to govern the nation rather than the other way around.

It’s in their best interest to limit the engagement to corporate management and focus on the economy, job creation and sustenance.

The corporate investments in recruiting lobbyists to win political favors could be directed towards R&D and for company growth to benefit the economy.

Right now, the world affairs are run by the following organizations:

Wars and the military base – It’s absorbing enormous taxpayers’ spending and unaudited with no oversight. It’s exclusively under the military industrial complex.

Political system is ruled by the powerful corporations in the finance, health care and insurance, communications, along with the energy industry.

Thus, the corporations control the economy, environment and the media with the exception of the public funded cable networks.

Foreign policy is again heavily influenced by the specific lobbyists such as AIPAC, Chinese leadership and others deterring the possibility of peace and liberty to the vulnerable population.

The people have no representation in a democracy and other form of governments.

I present my views and grievances in the health care legislation that is currently taking place.

You have my empathy on the political and economic ramifications of not passing the health care legislation.

At the same time, the alternative in passing the impending bill that is disproportionately beneficial to the industry with more than thirty million mandatory subscribers in the absence of premium caps and robust competition via Universal Medicare or public option has serious repercussions through voter backlash in November hurting the political career of everyone involved.

The opposition will spin it around, no matter what your administration does with any legislation.

I can relate to your predicament of being ‘doomed if you did’ and ‘doomed if you don’t.’

Accordingly, it would be safe to go with the popular choice i.e. “Medicare for all,” since they are the ultimate power in a democracy, before, during and after the elections.

Human nature is to complain when they don’t have something to their satisfaction and that could be eliminated through ‘Universal Medicare.’

Moreover, when everyone is entitled to the same coverage, there is no comparison and the cost is evenly distributed producing savings overall.

The main features of this bill are scheduled to be effective in 2014 and not at the moment.

A vast majority of the population need health care services now and they are not in a position to wait until the future date.

Every individual is mindful of the ‘once in a while opportunity’ to pass this bill.

That being the case, it’s incumbent on the lawmakers to do what is right for the constituents and the nation in the immediate and the long run.

The real victims and the professionals overwhelmingly desire “Medicare for all.”

When you are risking your Presidency to take a giant leap,

Why not do it for the people who entrusted the power in you?

The Corporations might buy elections but the ultimate power rests with the people i.e. the consumers and the taxpayers enduring the pain and agony under the present health care and insurance industry monopoly.

Ironically, the proposed legislation regardless of the highlighted consumer gains is a conspicuous carte blanche to the industry that is primarily responsible for the status quo.

This argument about the position, it’s ‘either my way or the highway,’ projecting a scary scenario of flying over the road block and speeding towards a cliff is applicable to the decision made by the legislators predominantly from the special interests’ pressure on them.

Thereby, confirming the Washington reality with the lobbyists’ firm grip on the political power.

It’s not fair to blame the special interests entirely. If the lawmakers resist the funds from these groups and deliver the service to the public per the constitutional oath, they could be re-elected on their merit without the ‘corporate sponsored’ stigma.

The public funding would flow like a river to the duty bound legislators not having to fear the corporate funded negative attacks during the elections.

If one remains pure and strong, then sky is the limit for them.

It requires will power and determination to attain the targeted goals, not to mention the good deeds or Karma rewarding their selfless act in abundance.

Perhaps, it’s something to think about in the health care legislation by fulfilling the desperate needs of the weak and the dying over the profit-oriented industry.

Hence, as your friend and a well-wisher, I request you to pass the ‘Universal Medicare’ that is already established and a proven success admittedly by the opposition in Congress.

I guarantee every legislator a victory in November upon passing the ‘Universal Medicare.’

As a spiritual seeker, I consider the ideal gift in recognition of my service to humanity is to kindly honor the requests made on behalf of the voiceless and the defenseless in the society.

“Universal Medicare,” is a necessity and not a privilege to the millions deserving national health care.

I’m with you in every decision that would help ‘Save the planet’ and establish ‘Peace on Earth.’

I believe that humanity thrives with peace, progress and prosperity for all as opposed to a selective few.

I always remain your true friend and convey my best wishes to you and your family.

Thank you again.

Sincerely,

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Health | Leave a Comment 

Universal Health Care – The Ideal Remedy

March 4, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

Health care reform has consumed significant time without any consensus on the important national crisis.

The last week bipartisan summit confirmed the status quo.

Now the discussion is held on passing the legislation in different format. Some advocating for piece meal legislation while others believe in the consolidated package approval.

Those who opposed the reform from the beginning remain steadfast in their opposition to saving lives for political and personal interest. The obstinacy speaks volume about their commitment to public service.

The back and forth exchange is counterproductive when an alarming proportion, an estimated 45,000 young and old people are dying every year.

Although, the Senate health care bill without public option is upheld as the ‘adequate’ measure, it continues to be an uphill battle in securing the Senate majority vote.

Despite the public testimonials sharing their harrowing experiences along with the facts on the escalating costs, the universal health care was never an option previously among the ‘Super Majority’ democrats with the exception of few legislators in the House and the Senate.

In 2009, when the democrats were a super majority, they lost a once in a lifetime opportunity to provide the American electorate, the deficit reducing and an affordable health care through universal Medicare.

Not all is lost, since the Democratic members and the administration are forced to consider the reconciliation process – an avenue used by the Republican administration and the members on numerous occasions in the past for the military and the corporate agenda.

However, it’s incumbent on the democratic members to serve the public interest by adopting the Single Payer system, when considering the simple majority rule.

Why is the Universal Medicare, an ideal remedy?

1. It’s simple and cost effective in every sense.

2. The system already exists for seniors via Medicare and the VA health care for the veterans. Further, Medicaid and COBRA are also federal funded programs.

3. Current Medicare coverage to seniors and the Federal funded VA programs are acknowledged as the phenomenal milestone in the national health care, even by the Republican members in the Congress. They appreciate it because they are entitled to the health care privileges as the members of the United States Congress.

4. Therefore, the Medicare expansion for all would resolve the disputed intricacies in the present health care debate.

5. Standard rules on the health care services would effectively address the excessive health care management costs attributed to the rising national debt.

6. Competition among the health care service providers promotes quality including the desirable choices for the insured in seeking the appropriate treatment.

7. Fraud and malpractice could be curtailed under the blanket rule for the industry.

8. Mandatory insurance for all under federal program would ease the burden on the society – the individuals, small businesses and the Corporations. It’s stipulated in the pending legislation, but in the absence of a federal run program the private insurers gain absolute monopoly leading to the ‘business as usual’ environment.

9. Negotiations with the pharmaceutical industry under universal Medicare would also substantially reduce the drug costs. Thus benefiting all.

10. Universal Medicare is a guaranteed protection for it would be available 24/7 regardless of the citizens’ health conditions.

The people of the United States deserve an efficient, cost saving, choice oriented health care system such as the Medicare for all.

Under ‘not-for-profit’ universal health care, otherwise the single payer system, the consumers would invest their premiums in their health rather than the insurance and the health care industry CEO’s wealth.

America should not agree to anything less than a Universal Medicare and it’s legislatively possible through the legitimate reconciliation method, currently decided by the democratic members for passing the unpopular Senate version of the health care bill.

Finally, Healthy People means Wealthy Nation.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Health | Leave a Comment 

American Democracy at Work

February 5, 2010

Dear Fellow Americans,

The health care legislation is being stalled in Congress by the legislators on the special interests’ payroll.

Despite being well informed on the horrendous economic liability accumulated to our national debt from the abominable health care costs and that an estimated 45,000 Americans are dying every year due to lack of health insurance, these legislators simply don’t care about these facts because they feel secure about their job.

Is American Democracy so weak that you will take a “NO” for everything that concerns your interest from the party of “NO?”

C’mon America, show your power. Call your local representatives in the House and the Senate and demand that you want the health care legislation now.

Remember, the crying baby is the one that gets the mother’s attention.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Health | Leave a Comment 

American Democracy at Work

February 5, 2010

Dear Fellow Americans,

The health care legislation is being stalled in Congress by the legislators on the special interests’ payroll.

Despite being well informed on the horrendous economic liability accumulated to our national debt from the abominable health care costs and that an estimated 45,000 Americans are dying every year due to lack of health insurance, these legislators simply don’t care about these facts because they feel secure about their job.

Is American Democracy so weak that you will take a “NO” for everything that concerns your interest from the party of “NO” aka GOP, The Grand Obstructionist Party and the special interest loyalist on the democratic side?

C’mon America, show your power. Call your local representatives in the House and the Senate and demand that you want the health care legislation now.

Remember, the crying baby is the one that gets the mother’s attention.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Health | Leave a Comment 

Health Care Reform – Medicaid Program Review

January 16, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

The issues that deserve consideration from the individual state standpoint:

Reallocating the Senate offer to Nebraska nationally is a fair approach.

Increasing federal aid in the Medicaid expansion program for 50 states is necessary to deal with the vast uninsured population across the nation.

Since the President and the democratic lawmakers have appropriately incorporated the requirement, it’s constructive to ensure the coverage entirely to avoid rifts between the states.

With regard to the creation of new insurance exchanges under federally regulated marketplaces for consumer choice, it’s important to extend or re-enact the anti-trust laws in addition to the establishment of caps to curb the rising costs especially in the absence of government run insurance program.

The demand and supply determined free market is never inhibited to exercise the freedom to hike the price leading to the status quo.

There is a higher probability in the future, with the demand introduced mandatorily via 30 million and more insured through the proposed legislation. Therefore, it’s vital to close the loopholes presumed to cause the cost factor to rise exponentially.

Upon evaluating California and other states’ grievances in the national health care reform, the following options are viable to resolve the contentious details in the Medicaid program.

In this respect, the State of California is an ideal example with New York State sharing the scenario in terms of the benefits and drawbacks from the current national health care bill.

California is believed to be splitting the costs on Medi-Cal – the state version of Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor and disabled – in equal ratio with the federal government.

Raising the income threshold under the Medicaid program is a sensitive enactment that would enable the uninsured in millions to qualify for the Federal aid, a crucial component in the legislation.

At the same time, it also enhances the revenue prospects for the insurance industry represented by the health care reform opponents, thereby allowing the free market to thrive and yet vilified by the Republican Senate minority remaining steadfast against the legislation regardless, signifying partisan politics.

The republican stance in any legislation thus far, is clearly anti-populace prioritizing self-interest backed by the special interests over national progress. Similarly, the connotation is extended to the moderates and the conservatives on the democratic side weaving lanes for political security.

Given the eternal gridlock hampering progress more prevalent in the Senate than the House, the adjustment would inevitably yield the desirable result, i.e. coverage for the uninsured provided the market maintains the affordability.

Health Care bill has the federal government absorbing 80 percent of the costs of newly eligible enrollees with the entire costs being paid for the first three years upon the legislation becoming effective in 2013 or 2014.

Although, it’s a positive step in dealing with the burgeoning health care crisis, there are anomalies that could be easily addressed to satisfy the different states’ economic conditions.

For instance, in the 80 percent federal subsidy applied only to newly eligible enrollees, California is confronted with a huge number of people who are qualified for Medi-Cal, but they appear to have not enrolled.

The legitimate concern is the cost burden shifting to the state on equal basis when the compulsory health insurance purchase becomes the law.

Further, the news report titled Health Care – Painful costs of reform for state,

Medi-Cal’s broad mandate would mean greater burden under national overhaul

By Mike Zapler, San Jose Mercury News, January 16, 2010

“The legislation would offer more federal relief to states that now offer Medicaid to only the neediest people, such as Texas and Alabama, than to states that have expanded the program over the years to cover more people, such as California and New York.

California, for example, already will cover a family of four earning up to $23,373, while Texas covers a family of four earning up to only $5,733.

Put a different way, federal largesse would be concentrated on those who don’t qualify for Medicaid currently but would under the new national rules – and California has a lot fewer of them than many other states.

“It is beyond unfair,” Kim Belshé, the governor’s secretary of health and human services, said in an interview. “California is being penalized,” she added, “for having done the right things when times were good.”

Federal regulations make it all but impossible for California to scale back Medi-Cal to cover fewer people, so the state is essentially stuck with generous rules adopted during the flush economic times for it can no longer afford, Belshé, said.

John Holahan, a health care expert at the Washington D.C. based Urban Institute, agreed that it’s “inherently unfair” for the federal government to pay different shares of each state’s health care expansion costs and said it’s bound to create a bureaucratic maze.

“For every new enrollee in each state, they’re going to have to check:

Did they qualify under the old rules or the new rules?” Holahan said.”

————————————————————————————————–

Analysis with Solutions: By Padmini Arhant

Even though, the single payer or the public option at the bare minimum would have eliminated these problems, the bill should have provisions allowing the States to adopt the universal plan by preference through state legislature or on a ballot measure.

Nevertheless, in the immediate health care proposal, the practical method is to standardize the eligibility criteria to minimize the cost bearing responsibility at the State level.

Rather than conducting an audit on the qualifying enrollees based on old and new rules that would only escalate the administrative costs, it’s simpler to accept all new enrollees nationwide on federal aid.

Under the existing rule and the pending health care legislation, the state – federal match on health care program is apparently based on the states’ per capita income instead of the poverty rate formula.

Realistically, the poverty rate is an accurate indicator of the uninsured in each state. That being the case, choosing the latter would mitigate the on-going health care costs in the emergency rooms at the County hospitals paid for by the taxpayers.

California’s reimbursement rates to doctors on Medi-Cal program is reportedly the lowest in the country. Accordingly, the Medi-Cal patients are declined by a majority of doctors supposedly struggling to cover the treatment costs.

Moreover, the House version of reform expected to boost Medicaid payments for primary care, whereas, the Senate bill, not surprisingly would not. Again, per the cited article, neither bill would increase reimbursement rates for specialist care.

Such predicaments leave the Medi-Cal patients and the newly insured under Medicaid with insurance coverage,

However, denying them the essential medical service choices.

Hence, the Medi-Cal and Medicaid patient dilemma beckons the network availability with health care providers across the spectrum for meaningful health care access.

Concisely, the micro adjustments on the rules pertaining to the Medicaid program would alleviate the anticipated economic plight for the respective states and pave the way for long-term achievements at the macro proportion in the national health care legislation.

Failure to rectify the inherent inequalities could potentially exacerbate the state deficits inevitably affecting the national GDP.

In this matter, it’s poignant to follow the health care principle:

Prevention is better than cure.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Health | Leave a Comment 

« Previous Page — Next Page »

PadminiArhant.com