Jan 1, 2008 - Corp-Care Cranks Up the Pressure

The headlines are awash with Corp-Care's increasingly hostile determination to force Bay-Staters into 'health' insurance plans, but note the vagueness in the passages excerpted from the Sunday Republican via MassLive.com:

The state's new health-care law requires all residents 18 and older to have health insurance on Jan. 1 if it is affordable to them. If people violate this law, they could lose their personal exemptions when they file income taxes this year, a penalty that amounts to about $219 for a single filer, said a spokesman for the state Department of Revenue.

New tax forms contain work sheets and tables to help people determine the health insurance premiums they should be able to afford. People will not be fined if there is no affordable plan available to them.

Taxpayers without affordable health insurance can maintain their personal exemptions through an appeals process. Taxpayers would need to claim that a hardship in 2007 prevented them from purchasing health insurance and they may need to defend themselves at a hearing by a state agency.

Who's doing the deciding as to how affordable something is for us lemmings corralled into this pen of corporate welfare? And those new tax forms? Known as the 1099-HC, it spans 3 pages. Be a refusenik, and you'll have to wade through it in its entirety. This, along with the barely mentioned appeals process means you can bet your ass your life will become a lot more complicated - and expensive.

Additionally, 'hardship' is defined in drastic terms: homelessness, having utilities shut off, being hounded by collection agencies or bankruptcy; all those things that would indicate you have not enough recoverable assets for the greedy-ass system to come after. Which leads us to the bottom line of what this dubiously monikered 'reform' is REALLY about: MILKING THE WORKING CLASS.

As of this posting, some figures are making it into print: up to (yeah, right!) $ 1824 for the year for a couple without 'health' insurance. That privilege falls to our hypothetical couple lucky enough to be pullin' down such a sizable fortune as $ 41,076 per year.

A Boston.com check yields a page full of articles:
http://search.boston.com/local/Search.do?s.sm.query=penalties+for+uninsured&s.tab=

For specificity on the quirky fine structure, the following article is instructive:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/12/31/penalties_for_not_obtaining_health_care_in_2008?mode=PF

Nagging questions remain. For just one little example, why is a 'couple' - when filing jointly as a 'couple' - then treated as two separate individuals for the purpose of assessing their participation - or fine for not participating in, Corp-Care? I'd say there's some explaining to do.

Moreover, no matter who the refusenik is, she/he will still lack 'health' insurance while paying these something-for-nothing fines to Corp-Care!

None of us are fooled. Corp-Care, Profit-Care - whatever you want to call it - now has a legal cudgel to harass us into participation in its extraction game. NO amount of money will ever satisfy the Medical/Industrial Complex. 'ENOUGH' isn't a word in their vocabulary!
Happy New Year? Better guess again - if you're on the radar screen of Bay State Corp-Care.

Back after a long absence....

Greetings from the Bay State
where to be uninsured is not so great!
But they have some answers, yes, of late;
they'll force us to participate
but not with us commiserate,
so I scribble to you in turgid prose
in health care's mud we dangle our toes
it's safe to say 'that's how it goes':
we'll soon be drowned by HMO's!

A mere five days from this post-Christmas post will see the beginning of force-fed 'health' insurance in our fair Bay State. Kinks remain to be worked out, of course, not the least of which is the role of our highly efficient tax collecting domain known as DOR. What will happen once this arm of our government, at the behest of the Commonwealth 'Connector' - then morphs into the Commonwealth COLLECTOR? Will all hell break loose among the targeted masses who refused to purchase piss-poor and overpriced policies?
Or will the Chapter 58 debacle go down in flames of public outrage?

Both scenarios are doubtful, of course - they'll push it along by force, because, well, THEY CAN.

Rumor has it that the feds want this thing so badly, they're willing to keep pumping money into it - even if it becomes like our other infamous boondoggle (recently 'completed') THE BIG DIG.


A must-see video which is instructive within the context of how Massachusetts got to this point, and the industry players who made it happen:


http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/patientrevolt/

Big Pharma Slam - First of Many

All I Want for Christmas is Auntie OFF LIPITOR©

Chemical Christmas at the Elder-care Industrial Complex

Warmest of now-defunct Season’s Greetings to all, including, but not limited to, the following:
Festive Kwanzaa! Merry Christmas! Happy Hanukkah! And of course, others I failed to mention!!

I address this missive mainly to my fellow ‘Boomers’ who may have an
elderly relative languishing in this or that ‘retirement’ home. Should
this be the case, one should go out of one’s way to go visit them and
offer some T.L.C., because, after all, the biggest factor in the
unsatisfactoriness of their existence at this point is loneliness.


Yes, despite being surrounded by others of their ilk and having
multifarious venues of entertainment foisted on them (sorry to say this
could mean a constantly blaring television), the one thing they’re
missing is family.


And that’s hardly surprising: anyone who has ever visited one of
these pricey ‘retreats’ (or should we say 'repositories') can attest to the deep sadness that
seems to hang in the air despite all attempts at provoking cheer, and that stands double this time of year.

But there is another, subtle, yet huge sinister side to our elder-care industrial complex, aside from superficial difficulties — such as inability to finding and retaining willing and
able help — and apart from its high cost, which in and of itself will
gladly hasten evaporation of your elder’s savings during their tenure.
I refer specifically to one of the prime tentacles of our overarching healthcare industrial complex, and that is without a doubt, Big Pharma, in this case handily enabled by its foot soldiers: primary care physicians who tend to feed off the elderly. But don’t expect this elephant in the room to be pegged, let alone rightly rebuked by Consumer Reports or (much less likely) AARP.


And don't anticipate the trend to slow considerably once boomers fall into the same trap; it seems, by and large, that we're skittering down the same overdrugged slope of over-reliance on chemical medicine that the elderly are, unless, of course, we wake up, en masse and reverse course.


But don’t get me wrong with respect to the medical profession: we should respect doctors; after all, they took that famed oath — “Primum no Nocere” ( “First do no Harm”) prior to entering practice.
And the field is definitely populated with good-hearted people. Yet when we consider the abundance
of medical research that is primarily funded by the pharmaceutical industry, we can’t help being extremely suspicious when a loved one is being obviously and odiously over-medicated.

I feel my aunt has entered that realm at the ripe age of 87.

It is interesting — and quite frankly infuriating — that not long after she entered that retirement home — replete with minuscule $2300.00 per month cubicle — her medications went from two to five; now six.

And these aren’t exactly baby aspirin. They’re powerful (and powerfully
priced), highly questionable pharmaceuticals, one ACE inhibitor
(angiotensin converting enzyme). and two statins, (a class of
medications targeting ‘bad’ cholesterol.) Additionally, she somehow
magically developed a thyroid condition, for which Thyroxine is added
to her pill collection.

But the biggest offender for her, and the clear winner for Wall
Street is by far Lipitor©, which for my Auntie, runs on the order of
$300.00 a month.

Well, surprise of surprises!! This particular statin is the largest selling product being aggressively marketed to the elderly in America, and by far one of the best selling elixirs of all
time. But old folks have, in many cases, been sold a bill of goods on cholesterol-lowering medications, and numerous peer-reviewed studies point to the fact that women and the elderly do not respond as well to this atorvastatin class of statins.

I strongly suspect that the retirement-home paradigm shares a high and unacceptable level of complicity in the pharmaceutical hammering of seniors. Each time we visit, it seems
there’s a delivery car from the friendly local pharmacy parked in the sterile parking lot, delivering profitable products to a passive group of otherwise discerning individuals who are, sad to say, sitting ducks. Free delivery, eh? Sign me right up! You might hear them say.

But if I had my say, she'd be right outta there.

Dr. Zigmoid Whupsteen
Zigsteen@yahoo.com

Health Insurance Industry Exports its Wares


Has anyone else out there read the Asia Times lately? Check it out online. And when you do, you'll be interested - or maybe outraged - that the first place your gullible eyes go is a slick glossy banner ad, top-right.

My, oh my - don't those 'insurers' smell the money over there!!

So what a foul insult it was to this reader to see pompous WellPoint's ad in the Asia Times!

Just think - India, Burma, Thailand and China can all have the same priced-for-the-wealthy, dysfunctional and inefficient 'health'care systems in due time. Yes, it'll take some doing for 'insurers' to rig, complicate, then fully hijack whatever systems are in place.
But all the politicians (preferably corruptible ones) have to do is let the biggest healthcare middlemen get a toe in the door.

Too bad - it's already happened.

Uninsured Resistance League

Uninsured Resistance League

Giving Thanks to Right-Wing Think-Tanks

October 30th’s Boston Globe featured a curious article entitled:

“Study: Mass.’s High Costs Erode Workforce”.

Oh, really? Tell us something new!

An outfit by the name of ‘The Pioneer Institute’ (my, what an innocent-sounding name!) performed this supposed study, and came up with some interesting stats.

One was an assertion that “Massachusetts’ high land and housing costs are driving the state’s workforce away."
The ‘study’ then went into other troubles, such as high unemployment insurance being a millstone for businesses in the Bay State.
Hmmm. We’re getting warm here: at least the insurance industry-at-large is being held to account.

But perhaps the ruddy pioneers at this venerable tax-exempt ‘public policy’ think tank could be commissioned for another 'study' slated for anytime after July 7th, 2007, when the delighted health insurance industry’s proposed individual mandate kicks in.

It is very interesting that the Globe piece missed this biggest proverbial gorilla in the bathtub — the health insurance industry, particularly as it stands poised to assert its newly anointed powers granted by our lapdog legislature — to pounce on our wallets in the form of an egregious insurance mandate.
How nice - the most voracious, yet inexplicably invisible - parasite-middleman in a state with the highest healthcare costs in the nation - and some would say - the world!

But rest assured that we, the people should now feel so utterly protected; warm and cozy under the watchful gaze of yet another ‘free market’ right wing think tank that will imbue our Bay State with magical 'free market' solutions to keep all those talented workers bayside!

I encourage all readers to download the Pioneer Institute’s 2-page pdf document entitled “Agenda for Leadership Recommendations” and lo and behold, the one sentence that shows up dead last in the document reads as follows:

“Determine the reform’ s (‘healthcare' reform) impact on and alter incentives to maximize the private insurance market.

Yeah, and voila! Like magic the Bay State’s healthcare woes will be magically solved by the ‘private insurance market’.
I don’t know about you folks, but there’s no quicker way to get my blood boiling.

Everyone who had a hand in ‘healthcare reform’ — industry insiders, our fair legislators, and folks on the newfound Commonwealth Insurance Connector payroll — knows full well how unpopular this massive powergrab is going to be for the target class. So they bury the naked truth on the last page of the ‘study’. Good job!

Look, we’re not stupid. When we see a study by an entity that includes “Public Policy” in its moniker, we’d better head for the hills — of a state that won’t force us to fill the coffers of the health insurance industry.
An industry, by the way, which has a public favor rating at or below that of collection agencies.

Stay well, stay free - and free of insurance premiums, and feel free to comment as well as join the URL.

Workin' Class Benefits News

Workin’ Class Benefits News August, 2006
************************************************************************
Cheers and jeers for Mass insurance mandate:

OUTING THE LATEST CORPORATE POWER GRAB BEFORE IT SINKS US

Scoop by small-biz worker reporter-editor Ziggy Whupsteen


The message was queer: You can't get away with bypassing health insurance anymore.

In a egregious groundbreaking move with far-reaching and onerous implications, Massachusetts adopted a draconian law in April to require state residents to obtain medical insurance by July 1, 2007. Previously, no state had required people to carry medical insurance.

Industry observers, amidst the sound of popping champagne corks, gave 'mixed' views on whether this law should or could serve as a model in other states. Grackle-Marie Burner, president of the Whalin' Institute, suggests caution: "Other states, which are firing up their Xerox machines now, should wait to see how this works out before rushing to follow the Bay State's lead."

Ostensibly 'Universal ' coverage

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) signed the law, but vetoed a provision that would have charged businesses $295 per employee, if they have more than 10 workers and don't offer health 'benefits'. Legislators in the House of Representatives were quick to override that line-item veto about two weeks later. The state Senate is likely to do the same, observers say.

In a stunningly arrogant example of corporate mis-speak with anti-government overtones, Romney declared "Massachusetts is leading the way with forcing health insurance on everyone, without a government takeover and without raising taxes."

Corporate lapdog Romney, who is considering a run for the presidency in 2008, failed to see the irony in such statements, as the nascent 'Insurance Connector' - to be implemented in 2007 - has been rightly pegged as a massive expansion of corporate/government power, eventually requiring infusions of taxpayer cash.

Romney's spokeswoman, Corba Koolayde, says, "The main goal, or rather, facade, was to cover the uninsured in Massachusetts and reduce the cost of health care. We had to call it something. Healthcare reform sounded nice. Besides, a little 'greenwashing' won't hurt."
But then she went on to admit, "Actually, the real, unstated goal of the plan is to place the HMO industry in the cockpit long before this thing takes off. They will decide how - and how far- this health care plane will fly."
About 550,000 Massachusetts residents are uninsured, she underestimated.

Koolayde brushed aside unanswered questions as to how private insurance has failed miserably in this quest, yet now is set to virtually take over the system entirely.
She dismissed reality-based criticism that throwing more money at the insurance industry would surely be a recipe for disaster.

Starting next year, residents who don't have coverage will lose their state income tax deduction and face a monthly fee. Advocates tend to erroneously compare this individual mandate to car insurance requirements for drivers in many states.
The provision seems to be aimed at younger, healthier workers who could afford health insurance, but have opted to forego it because they see it for what it is: an incredibly expensive, low-quality product, (notably chintzy HMO's that would be all they could afford) which yields zero return on investment.
Under the outrageous new law, low-income residents will supposedly have access to state-subsidized insurance policies, the efficacy of which is yet to be determined.

Phil "Tank" Grandman, chairman of Affordable Care Today, a corporate front group comprised of business leaders and health care providers in Massachusetts, comments, "This bill is good for our business, good for the hedge funds, and good for Wall Street in general. Milking the uninsured eliminates hidden costs in everyone's insurance premium. The provisions to improve the quality of care, provided it's profitable, will improve our industry's bottom line."

U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) agrees: "Massachusetts once again leads the nation with a corporate-friendly plan that will achieve our longstanding goal of expanding the insurance industry's access to national markets.
Forget the fact the Clintons tried it in 1993 - this time it's sure to work - it's a Republican idea."

Opponents

Some unions and libertarians have rightly criticized the individual mandate as being too heavy-handed. Others have questioned the feasibility of enforcing such legislation.

AFL-CIO President John Sweety remarks, "It is unconscionable that Massachusetts has adopted this misguided individual mandate. This legislation leaves middle-income families dangling without a safety net, jeopardizes families who currently have employer-sponsored health care, and gives employers a free ride. The bill supposedly protects workers with the lowest incomes, but punishes middle-income families. Massachusetts' new requirement will bankrupt many middle-class families. We believe that workers have to participate in the solution to the problem, but this plan puts the entire burden on workers while letting employers off the hook."

John Paul Groans, state affairs director for the Council for Profitable Health Insurance, says, "This plan is a good roadmap for a national insurance industry powergrab, but in the meantime, it's bound to be a disaster for Massachusetts workers and patients."

Michael Nontan, director of health and welfare studies at the pompous libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., accurately calls the Massachusetts bill "an unprecedented expansion of government power." He warns that an individual mandate opens the door to insurance industry interference in personal health care decisions and expanded privatization of the already voracious health care industry. Such 'critics' tend to favor a "free-market", HSA-fueled approach to health care, while offering balmy criticism of the way-too-powerful insurance industry, as it represents one of the last frontiers of truly free enterprise: the ability to take money from a large cross-section of individuals and businesses, skim cream off the top for payouts to greedy investors, then parse out coverage chintzily or even renege on its obligations.

Hawaii's example

Hawaii has long required employers to provide health insurance to all employees who work more than 20 hours per week - at least those that are on the books.

The state Prepaid Health Care Act, passed in 1974, compels businesses to pay at least 50% of the premium for the coverage, leaving the rest to be paid by the employee. Any employer that fails to provide coverage must pay a fine to the state and remains liable for medical costs incurred by an eligible employee.

HMO revenues in Hawaii jumped 21% in 2004 and a more modest 13% in 2005.

Hawaii has a massive, under-the-table (cash-only) economy which rarely gets mainstream press coverage, as it's, well, under the table. Some pundits have quipped this phenomenon may well be the only thing that keeps economies like Hawaii's going.

Only 9.5% of Hawaii residents and 8.5% of Massachusetts residents were uninsured in 2001, compared to 14.4% nationwide, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The states with the highest uninsured rates were California (19%), New Mexico (22.4%) and Texas (23.2%). - L.C.S.

Contact small business workin' class, no-punches-pulled reporter/editor Ziggy Whupsteen at ZIGSTEEN@YAHOO.COM

Bay State Insurance Corporatocracy giveaway

Greetinx from the foothills of Central Massachusetts, where we just got front page news of some Democrats winning. So what? As you can see from the lackadaisical glance this cow is givin' you, nothing's going to change for the working class.

That cow's healthy, youbetcha - and that's why we chose her - to represent our bloated, for profit as well as supposedly 'non-profit' healthcare industrial complex.
She's the perfect mascot; the udderly ideal symbol, the best analogy we could think of!

In light of what passed for healthcare reform back on April 12 of this year, we here @ URL aren't the least bit taken aback with any kind of high hopes that things will improve, nor will the cost of living magically be reduced for the working woman/man in the trenches of self-employment; not with the proposed INDIVIDUAL INSURANCE MANDATE staring them in the face.

This scary and quite frankly egregious item in the legislation speaks volumes to industry influence.

And as the entire bill is splayed out over 145 pages (and counting?), we as working stiffs have neither the time, patience, or desire to sift through and find how we're going to be screwed on July 7th, 2007, the date set for the mandate to kick in. Nor are we well versed in legalese, which would no doubt be a must for deciphering such a document. But hey, we know we're not intended to understand it.

Therefore, what the URL hopes to accomplish is to get some discussion going among the disaffected, soon to be affected and others from whom after-tax dollars will be collected, no matter how much they might have objected!

All ensuing posts, therefore, will be satirical in nature. Hells bells, rage - even rage against the machine, however justified or seemingly necessary, gets you nowhere.

- The editors