Tuesday, November 21, 2006
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.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
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
************************************************************************
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)