The calendar once again makes its call for – Platrix Chapter 2, “Queen of the Cow Counties”. No Brethren can resist the call.

Two times each year your humble author retreats from his solemn duties to Trek to
E Clampus Vitus, Platrix Chapter #2, that most ancient and honorable group. This is one of those times, kid. Would you like to read just a bit about The History of ECV.

E CLAMPUS VITUS is said by its adherents to be the most ancient of all fraternal orders. It’s founding, as the tale is told, was coeval with the origin of the human race.

It is related that in 1852 Steamboat Jake. a merchant from Yreka, thinking to improve his business by fraternal affiliations, made arrangements through certain Clampers for initiation into the Masons, the Odd Fellows and E CLAMPUS VITUS at one bargain price of $98.50. When the various brethren were assembled at the Hall of Comparative Ovation and Jake, bound and blindfolded was brought to be initiated, the question arose as to which Order should first apply the branding iron. It was agreed that the oldest should have priority.

 The Odd Fellows presented their claim for that honor, stating that their order was created by a charter issued in the form of a golden tablet by the Emperor Titus to his Jewish Legion in the first century A.D.

 The Masons disputed the claim, relating the scholarly history of Reverend Dr. Anderson to prove that the Grand Master Moses often marshalled the Israelites onto a regular and general lodge whilst in the wilderness, and that King Solomon was “Grand Master of the Lodge at Jerusalem”.

 The Noble Grand Humbug of E Clampus Vitus then rose and confounded the rival organizations with proof abducted from the unimpeachable unwritten works of St. Vitus, the final authority in all such matters, that E CLAMPUS VITUS was founded by our Clampatriarch Adam himself in the Garden of Eden, and that the original Staff of Relief, which figures so greatly in the Clamper ritual, was a branch that Adam broke from the Tree of Knowledge and smuggled out with him, hidden beneath his apron, when he was driven from Eden. All present in the Hall agreed that such antiquity was beyond compare.

The seniority of the Clampers was recognized, and Steamboat Jake accordingly was given into the hands for initiation. It is then told that by the time they were through with him he had lost all desire for further fraternal connections.

 The unsurpassable antiquity of E CLAMPUS VITUS has been recognized and proven on many occasions. There are those who claim they can trace it through the times of the Old Testament and the beginnings of the Christian Era when its rites were conducted in the catacombs of Rome and referred to as the “Enigmatical Book of Vitus” and the “Curious Book of the Clampers”. These tales tell how it was spread through Europe by the Frolicking Friars, and carried to the Orient by the indomitable Vituscan Fathers.

According to the Clampers, the introduction of the order into the United States has long been shrouded in mystery and legend. Only recently has the true history been traced by the Royal Platrix Chapter and the Archivist of the West Virginia Lodge. The result of this research supposedly proves by documentary evidence that the secrets and symbols of E CLAMPUS VITUS were imparted by the Emperor of China, Tao-Kwang, Great Hotchot of the Chinese Grand Lodge to Caleb Cushing when the latter visited China in 1844 to negotiate the first treaty between the United States and the Celestial Kingdom. Cushing was specially charged by the Emperor to deliver the secrets and signs of authority to Ephrairn Bee, innkeeper of Bush Creek, Boone County, Virginia, to be disseminated by him at his discretion among the fellow citizens so that the Chinese and American People might henceforth be united by the Bonds of Fraternal Brotherhood as well as by the more formal ties of diplomatic relations. By virtue of his authority, Ephraim Bee traveled about his native state organizing lodges of E CLAMPUS VITUS in villages and county seats. 

It is also said that among others, a number of drummers were taken into the order, with or without authority from Bee. These travelers took the gullible villagers and townsmen along their routes into the Brotherhood, until by 1849, the East and Middle West were dotted with Clamper Lodges. From these Lodges many lusty Clampers went West in the Gold Rush and founded the historic lodges in the mining camps that constituted themselves as guardians of the morals of these communities.Their duty as they saw it was to prevent the preachers and pious wives who followed the 49′ers, from imposing any excess of morality that might hamper the full enjoyment of life. How well the Clampers performed this function is commonly known, despite the lack of written records. This lack of written records is attributed to the circumstance that during the meetings there was never anyone capable of keeping the minutes and that afterwards no one remembered what had taken place.

As E CLAMPUS VITUS mushroomed along with the rapid growth of the gold towns, it declined as rapidly as they did, and, therefore, lived only in the memory of a few ancient dwellers in the mountains and in the annals of the county histories until, in 1930, when a new prophet, a second Ephraim Bee , appeared in the person of Carl Wheat to reorganize the historic organization. 

Members of the Ancient and Honorable Order of E CLAMPUS VITUS have always been adventurers and many have been leaders in conquest of their respective countries. The most noteworthy of that band of stalwarts was Juan Rodriquez Cabrillo, a doughty explorer in the service of the Spanish Empire, who on October 19, 1542, raised the Spanish Flag at a point near the beach city of Hueneme in Ventura County and took possession of the land in the name of the King. Cabrillo is buried on San Miguel island and some Clampers make an annual pilgrimage to his grave. 

Sir Francis Drake was a Clamper but not in good standing because of his piratical exploits until June 15, 1579, when this bold buccaneer reached California in the famous ship, the “Golden Hind”, and anchored in Drakes Bay where he raised the English Flag and took possession for Queen Elizabeth and called the land New Albion.

Then Spain decided to occupy California to protect her colonial possessions, so two courageous Clampers were selected for the expedition: one was Don Gaspar de Portola, and the other was Father Junipero Serra. These men raised the Emperors flag at San Diego on May 17, 1769.

After Mexico revolted from Spain, an admirable Clamper, General Antonio de Santa Ana, ordered the flag of the Mexican Republic raised at Monterey on January 7,1769. 

John Charles Fremont was a Peripatetic Clamper and he raised his ensign as Captain of the United States Topographical Engineers above every camp that he made in California during his expeditions between 1844 and 1846. That flag is now in the custody of the Southwest Museum in Los Angeles. 

On June 14, 1846, a Sonoma group of justly indignant Clampers rebelled against the aggression of Mexican officials. They captured the garrison at Sonoma, issued a clampotent proclamation declaring California to be an independent republic and raised a crudely designed but historic Bear Flag.

 Clampers played an important part in the history of California in the nineteenth century because the American members of this Order worked in unison. Commodore John D. Sloat in command of the Pacific Squadron of the U.S. Navy captured Monterey and on July 7, 1846 he instructed a fellow Clamper William Mervine to raise the flag of the United States above the customhouse. When Fremont learned of Brother Sloat’s coup he ordered the Bear Flag struck at Sonoma and replaced by a 28-star flag of the United States.

It is manifest that Clampers have been leaders throughout the history of California and the flag-raising members of the Order of E CLAMPUS VITUS have contributed glamor and deeds of courage and gallantry to our heritage. It must be noted however that this history has never been proven.

 CREDO QUIA ABSURDUM – BECAUSE ITS ABSURD I BELIEVE
QUOTED FROM E CLAMPUS VITUS, THEN AND NOW, 1852-1979

As for me, I’ve been among the Brethren since 1992 at the Tehachapi Loop.
We return to the Loop this Trek.
How many of you know a Brethren of the Order?

Next week, we’re back to common sense ideas and feedback for healthcare reform. Promise!
Until then remember, we’re all in this together.

Until next week,

Mark Reynolds, RHU
559-250-2000
mark@reynolds.wtf
It means “Walk the Faith”.

 

Graham-Cassidy Healthcare reform bill: sure, it’s dead but was it just AHCA 3.0? Let’s look closer.

Not living nor making my living with in the political pressure constant in Wash DC it’s hard to look at this new GOP effort, the Graham-Cassidy bill, without a healthy bit of skepticism.

Why is that? Have you ever witnessed some one make a decision based upon desperation or a willingness to “settle”? We all have. It’s common in personal relationships, it’s frequent in business decisions, and it’s compulsory in politics.

The Graham-Cassidy bill GCB) looks and feels a lot like a political effort to avoid “doing nothing” and facing constitutes after having made the promise to “repeal & replace” the ACA. If you were a GOP legislator up for re-election in 2018, especially in the House, do you want to go home  at the end of the year to face those who trusted you when you said “Obama-care must be repealed”? Of course you wouldn’t, no sane person would. But, we’re talking about politicians not sanity.

Here are a couple of points from GCB for reference:

• Says it repeals the Individual mandate but truthfully only reduces penalty to zero. If you don’t want to buy, don’t worry, no penalty.
• Says it repeals the Employer mandate but truthfully only reduces penalty to zero. If you don’t want to provide coverage, don’t worry, no penalty.
• Maintains guarantee issue with no pre-ex while reducing penalty to zero for no coverage. Like the other GOP attempts this adds the burden to premium calculations and to premium payers.
• Eliminates only the medical device tax while leaving all the others such as the Cadillac tax. Why not eliminate all the taxes.
• Maintains Medicaid expansion and its subsidies but does so in a block grant manner.
• Converts Federal subsidies given to states into Block grants so states can use as they please. Giving states flexibility sounds great but this may create chaos between states.
• Gives states freedom to determine Essential Health Benefits and how block grant funds are to be spent. This sounds good except for the poor souls in liberal states like NY and Ca. who will see those funds spent on more freebies and no accountability.

There are countless other provisions that are a mirror of the two previous failed GOP attempts but I won’t burden you with this.

So, the language you will hear from supporters will be:

• This is our last chance to get rid of the evil Obama-care.
• If we don’t do something now then we won’t have another chance.
• Doing something is better than doing nothing
• Choice is clear, you’re either for Socialism or federalism.

If this effort fails the GOP folks can return to their districts and tell their supporters that “I tried but we just did not have enough votes” “Re-elect me again and we will continue our fight to repeal the evil liberal OB-care”.

Then, what are we suppose to do, vote for a Democrat or not vote. This is political baloney at its worst or best depending on your perspective.

If the GCB passes its initial vote in the Senate it will still face an incredible battle in the House. Plus remember that the House GOP is in a worse pickle that the Senate so they will try to flavor the baloney to their best interest.
I actually give it a 60/40 probability of passing the initial Senate vote.

OK, enough huh? Let’s watch this debate (debacle) unfold. It does not need to be this way but the swamp has not yet been drained, as they say.

Until next week, we’re all in this together.

Mark Reynolds, RHU
559-250-2000
mark@reynolds.wtf

Promoting “polls” that suggest a change in “favorable vs. unfavorable” opinions is the new technic to support the ACA. Can we trust these polls?

You’ve probably seen them, too. Polls that show the “favorable” opinions about the ACA increasing dramatically. Since the introduction of the failed House and Senate bills to replace the ACA more articles are stating that opinion polls are showing the “favorable” attitude about the ACA increasing.

Who in the world did these polls approach. And I do mean “in the world”, because if anyone likes the ACA better now than before January 2017, they must have been people from other world counties. Another likely scenario would be that the polled population was previously uninsured who are now covered by either Medicare expansion or a state exchange with full or nearly-full subsidy.

Who could find the ACA more favorable after 7 years of:

• Double digit premium increase (100%+ in many areas)
• 50% fewer providers in the PPOs
• Crappy benefits with higher out of pockets
• Limited number of insurers

The answer is that no one would find the ACA more favorable unless:

• You paid premium before but now it’s paid for you.
• You were uninsurable before and had no coverage.
• Had no coverage before but what the heck – its free now.
• You are Harry R or Nancy P or Z Emanuel or J Gruber.
• Or one of their relatives (even that’s unlikely, though).

The key to the outcomes in these kind of polls is often the format in which questions were formulated to meet the desired outcome of the pollster. In a sensitive issue such one’s health care it is easy to ask a yes-no question in a manner that leads the subject to the answer desired.
For instance: if I asked you “Do you think it’s fair for insurers to decline an applicant for coverage?” you could easily say NO. But, would your answer change if you knew that the applicant had several opportunities to enroll before but chose not to until just recently after a negative diagnosis was received?

Our citizens are smarter than politician think, or want for that matter, so they know what should be done. However, if they are polled with questions impossible to answer then it skews the outcome. As Ms. Vido, in My Cousin Vinny, said “It’s a bullshit question”. By that, as she goes on to explain – “It’s a trick question. No one could answer that question.” So how are we to believe these polls?

Or let’s say you were asked – “Sir, do you still beat your kids?”. Of course you don’t because you never have but you must answer yes or no. The point is that professional pollsters conducting polls for entities with certain agendas can make the American public seem like it supports or does not support an issue based on the specific outcome desired.

So, don’t you find it difficult to believe that any American would answer that he/she is more favorably inclined toward the ACA today than they were 1 or 2 years ago? Unless, it was because they were among the citizens outlined above.

I know I can be a skeptic or even a cynic, as I’ve mentioned before, but some things are beyond giving the benefit of the doubt.

Now, if you were to ask people the following questions you could be sure of people’s true opinions:

• Do you think premiums increasing 100% per year is reasonable?
• Do you think insurers should be subsidized by the government.
• Do you think PPOs with half the Doctors carved out provide good service?
• Do you think the premium you pay should be tax-deductible?
• Do you think people who choose not to enroll should be GI with no Pre-ex later?
• Do you want your plan to cover pediatric dental if you are a single 50 yr. old male?
• Do you think healthy working-age people should get their coverage for free?
• Do you think the Congress should have been better prepared to offer a replacement plan for the ACA?
• Do you think calling the House or Senate’s bill a “repeal” was an assault on your intelligence?

I guess I got on to another rant there for a moment but you get my meaning. It is very difficult to believe that tens-of-millions of our hard-working premium-paying citizens would find the ACA more favorable today than they did a year or two ago.
But, what do you think?

Until next week, just remember that we’re all in this together.

Please keep praying for the folks in south Texas and Louisiana. They have a long haul ahead.

Mark Reynolds, RHU
559-250-2000
mark@reynolds.wtf

The Cruz Amendment, what would it do for Healthcare Reform? Maybe, just maybe, it would provide options.

As I write this Post today, the Senate’s two attempts at HCR are on hold for voting purposes. Initially, the public reason given for the delay is that they are waiting for Senator McCain to be released and back at work. Please join us in wishing the Senator a speedy and full recovery!

Now, we hear that Leader McConnell is pulling the bills back all together.

In the interim let’s discuss the possibilities of the passing the BCRA (Better Care Reconciliation Act), or any Reform or Replace legislature, with the Cruz Amendment (CA) included. The opposition argument against the CA is some what logical and makes for good debate even though the opposition is too scripted and predictable to be conclusive. Their argument is that the CA will cause premiums to increase dramatically on full service standardized or ACA type of benefit plans. What’s wrong with that argument? Plenty!

For one, it makes us accept (or forget) that premiums haven’t already increased dramatically (over 100%) and done so to the point of being unaffordable.

Two, the opponent’s argument conveniently forgets to acknowledge that the ACA Bronze Plans and even Silver Plans leave members with such high out-of-pocket costs that the plans provide no real benefit for basic primary care or for higher cost care such as diagnostic care for most Americans covered by those plans. Who can afford to pay a $6,500 deductible before their plan pays anything?

Three, their argument neglects the fact that insurers are so regulated and handicapped by the ACA that the insurers have skinnied down PPOs to the point that finding a doctor to accept your Bronze/Silver plan is nearly impossible. In addition, by eliminating 50% of the providers in your area the opportunity for you to even receive care is reduced.
You might have a Health Plan Id card in your pocket but you have no providers at which to use it.

The opponents of the Cruz Amendment want you to forget that the ACA has allowed or even forced insurers to offer high-priced, high out-of-pocket, skinny network plans that people would not want to purchase unless they were forced to do so. And could not afford the richer Gold and Platinum plans available.

And don’t forget the subsidies paid to insurers which further drive up the costs of the ACA plans because we all pay those subsidies don’t we. Those subsidies also skew the pricing assumptions that insurers usually make.

Remember that the Cruz Amendment would require insurers to offer standardized HCR metallic-like health plans before they are permitted to make other plans, with less benefits, available. It is not a license for insurers to offer only stripped out benefit plans. It’s a chance for insurers to offer more options from which individuals and small employers can choose.
So, what could the Cruz Amendment create?

The obvious goal is that it could create a menu, with more options, from which Americans could choose the benefits important to them.
For example.

Individuals:

• Young healthy men or woman(or older) might select benefits with limited  or no maternity coverage.
• Older men or woman might select plans with richer Rx benefits than younger folks.
• Young people might be more willing to buy catastrophic coverage with a deductible of $10,000, for example.
• Certainly, many people would not want to pay for built-in pediatric dental that is forced on current ACA plans.
• There are dozens of examples of how plans could be built and priced for more choice.

Small Employers:

• Could purchase low-cost catastrophic plans then implement an HRA to enrich their employee’s benefits. (Thousands of employers would do this.)
• Provide multiple options so employees can choose from more than a couple options
• The employer’s HRA plans would provide employees with better choices so that they might include their families. It’s be nice to be able to afford to include their kids on the parents plan.
• Employers could lower the cost and improve benefits for their employees.

The argument against the Cruz Amendment uses the well-tested tactic of fear to gain support for the opposition. Yet the opponents must rely on our faulty memories to forget that premium have increased by over 100% while out-of-pocket costs have increased and provider access is scarce, since the ACA went into play March 23rd, 2010.

What the Cruz Amendment needs is a solid national promotion campaign with an articulate spokesman to lay out the facts. The GOP must tell America that having more options from which to choose does not guarantee poorer benefits or higher premiums.

I recognize that I am being pretty basic here and that there are a few more details to address such as subsidies for those that need them, Medicare expansion, logical pre-ex provisions and more. But all of that can be resolved when we let competition take hold.

Fortunately these types of health plans and the solutions they bring are part of a solution for which your author has some experience. I challenge anyone to debate this issue with us. That is, if the opponents use facts and real experience.

What do you think?
Remember, we’re all in this together!

Mark Reynolds, RHU
559-250-2000
mark@reynolds.wtf

Why are some Republican Senators suddenly so opposed to their own Senate Healthcare Reform bill? Follow the money!

Money, that’s it, that’s the reason why a handful, but growing number, of GOP Senators are opposing the Senate’s current R&R effort. (Please forgive me for referring to it as R&R since we know it’s not either.) But the point is, their opposition is not about their concern for the poor or any other human related issues. It’s about the money attached to Medicare Expansion.

The creators of the ACA understood human nature and politicians so they knew that if the ACA could get states hooked on and depentant upon the billions of Federal dollars committed for ACA enrollees created by the Medicare Expansion then those states, or more appropriately those politicians, would be reluctant to give up those dollars. Actually, the ACA proponents knew that Politicians would be unwilling, actually unable, to give up those Federal dollars; as if those dollars were an addiction.

You’ve read in previous Posts how the Medicare Expansion works. It promised states that the Feds would pay 100% of the costs for those enrollees initially then reduce to 90% after a few years. Meaning the states had to come up with no more than 10% to cover the millions of newly enrolled healthy working age citizens getting their health coverage from Medicaid.

You will remember that Medicaid was originally created for the young, the disabled or pregnant citizen and that the Feds matched the state’s spending on a graduated scale based on each state’s average “prosperity rating”. So richer states like California and New York received only a 50% match while poorer states such as Mississippi received up to 75% match. These figures and factors have applied for years and as you can see are much lower than the Federal match for enrollees under the ACA’s Medicare Expansion.

Bottom line is that  which means a “political” problemthe 31 states, that accepted the Medicare Expansion, are hooked on the higher reimbursements from the ACA.

Some GOP Senators from states that excepted (swallowed) the Medicare Expansion pill now are getting pressure from their home states to keep the funding for Medicare Expansion in place. The reason is that to reduce the matching funding would cause these states a budgeting problem.

The current GOP Senate bill retains the concept of Medicare Expansion but starts to reduce the matching % in 2021. Then, by 2024, (6 years from now) the matching % would level off and be the same % as the state’s Federal match for regular Medicaid enrollees. Seems fair doesn’t it but to Governors of those states hooked on the Federal ACA match it creates a budget issue and therefore they have a “political” problem.

For the past 7+ years the GOP used the “Repeal and Replace” mantra as its campaign slogan which worked and added thousands of Republicans to every level of government office from your local representatives in city, county and state positions to Congress and Senators including a bunch of Governor’s seats. So all of a sudden the success of the GOP to unseat Dems from all of these seats has put many Republicans in a position of responsibility over budgets and caused the GOP a political problem. Now it appears that many have forgotten their pledge to Repeal & Replace the ACA which helped get them elected. Funny how quickly some politicians forget their promises, isn’t it?

Make no mistake about the magnitude of this issue. We’re talking about hundreds of billions of dollars that the states will see reduced over the coming few years. Those state politicians will be faced with citizens (voters) that will fear that ( and be told by Dems) that their public subsidy (premium or benefits paid by Government) are being reduced or eliminated. The Governors and Senators of the Expansion states fear the back-lash from those healthy, often young, able-bodied and often working citizens who are currently covered by Medicaid who that their subsidy will be reduced or eliminated.

Do you think the Dems will exaggerate or try to capitalize on this in their campaigns?

So, that’s it! It’s not about a better healthcare reform package or helping the poor or the disabled. It’s about the money, the money to which these Expansion states are now addicted. Of course the cynic in your author assumes that the politicians in those Expansion states are more concerned about their own re-election than on what’s good for America. I pray that I am wrong about this.

As I write this Post we are hearing that the Senate will introduce a new R&R bill this week that will be “better” than the Senate’s current Better Care Reconciliation Act.
I wonder; Better for Whom?

Let me know what you think.
Also let me know what you think would happen if the GOP does nothing about R&R but simply props up the ACA for another year? Let me know.

You know I believe that we are all in this together and by being together we will overcome any obstacles facing us. However, when one sees politicians act or react for their own benefit it makes a person wonder.

Until next week.

Mark Reynolds, RHU
559-250-2000
mark@reynolds.wtf

It’s often said that by looking back we can more clearly see our way forward. Instead of Healthcare Reform let’s discuss the significance of the 4th of July.

Let’s take a day off from our normal healthcare reform discussions.

Next week we celebrate the 4th of July which at its core is why we have the freedoms we enjoy and for which so many have fought. No where in the course of history on this planet has any nation achieved what the USA has or is trying to retain. So, let’s take a moment to remember why we have the freedoms to debate and disagree.
Please enjoy the brief history and interesting facts to follow:

Have you ever wondered why we celebrate the Fourth of July or the risk our original Founders took to make July 4th significant to us? Many people think we celebrate the Fourth of July because it is the day we received our Independence from England on July 4th 1776.  Not true because it would be another 7 years before we would gain our independence because the war with England to gain independence did not end until 1783.

When the original 13 colonies were first settled, and before we were called the United States, England pretty much allowed the colonies to develop freely without much interference. But starting around 1763 Britain decided that they needed to take more control over the colonies(which means money) and that the colonies needed to return revenue(taxes) to the mother country. England’s reasoning was that it provided protection to the colonies so the colonies needed to pay for their defense.

But the colonies did not agree and felt that since they were not represented in Parliament (Congress) that they shouldn’t have to pay taxes to England, which gave origin to the phrase “no taxation without representation”. But England continued to tax which led the colonies to form the First Continental Congress with the intent to persuade the British government to recognize the rights of the colonies. Of course England did not so a war was declared, which we call the American Revolution.

Most folks forget that the American Revolution (the war) lasted for nearly 10 years. Failing to get satisfaction at first, the leaders of the 13 colonies organized a second Continental Congress. It is this group that adopted the final draft of the Declaration of Independence. The first draft of the Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, it was revised by Ben Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson before it was sent the Continental Congress for approval.

The Declaration was finished and ready for signature on July 2nd but was not voted upon and approved until 2 days later. All thirteen colonies stood behind the Declaration of Independence and adopted it in full on July 4, 1776.

The Fourth of July is known as Independence Day because that is the day that the Second Continental Congress adopted the full and formal Declaration of Independence. Even though we had declared that we were independent, the American Revolution was still being fought, which meant that we were still not independent.

After the war ended in 1783 the Fourth of July was celebrated for its importance and shortly thereafter became a holiday. We celebrate the Fourth of July as the most patriotic holiday celebrated in the United States.

Maybe our political leaders from both parties and at every level of government from local school boards to the US House and Senate would be wise to remember how it is that we celebrate the 4th of July to this day.
Below are some interesting facts you might enjoy.

Let’s all remember why we love the USA as well as how brave and wise our Founders must have been.

Did you know:
The Fourth of July commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. It was initially adopted by Congress on July 2, 1776, but then it was revised and the final version was adopted two days later.

• As Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration, Britain’s army was on its way toward to New York Harbor. It began:
  “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.“
• The Declaration of Independence was signed by 56 men representing the 13 colonies. The moment marked the beginning of all-out war against the British. The American Revolutionary War is said to have started in 1775, however. The Declaration was signed more than two years after Boston officials refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, fueling colonists to dump the tea into the harbor in what became the infamous Boston Tea Party.
• Several countries used the Declaration of Independence as a beacon in their own struggles for freedom. Among them, France. Then later, Greece, Poland, Russia and many countries in South America.

• “Yankee Doodle,” one of many patriotic songs in the United States, was originally sung prior to the Revolution by British military officers who mocked the unorganized and buckskin-wearing “Yankees” with whom they fought during the French and Indian War.

• The “Star Spangled Banner” wasn’t written until Francis Scott Key wrote a poem stemming from observations in 1814, when the British relentlessly attacked Baltimore’s Fort McHenry during the War of 1812. It was later put to music, though not decreed the official national anthem of the United States until 1931.

• We’ve grown up: In 1776, there were about 2.5 million people living in the newly independent United States, according to the U.S. Censure Bureau. Today there over 330 million  citizens in the US so let’s hope all of us as Americans will celebrate Independence Day.

We hope you enjoyed the brief respite from the frustrating conversations concerning the reform of the US healthcare system. I wish to thank the folks at LiveScience for their research and insight.
Maybe we can get back to thinking America first because we are all in this together!!

Until next week.

Mark Reynolds, RHU
559-250-2000
mark@reynolds.wtf

 

 

How many Government sponsored “projections” do we need to see before we learn NOT to trust them? Let’s look at just a couple.

It’s one of the oldest and most proven opinions or statements about government and that is concerning government projections and their accuracy. In a speech in the 1980s President Reagan reminded us all of one of the scariest statements known to citizens: “Hello, I’m with the Government and I’m here to help.”?

In our current situation concerning the ACA we can identify many examples of how the Government said it was going to help us but actually did not and too often made things worse. One thing the ACA did accomplish, which I’ve addressed before, was to make coverage guaranteed issue with no pre-ex for individuals. To many that is/was the only improvement to America’s healthcare financing system.
ACA proponents would add the expansion of Medicaid as a positive. But then, if you make something free, even if it is not good coverage for folks, aren’t the proponents always going to crow about it.

The real focus of this post is the failure of projections concerning the utilization of Emergency Rooms if everyone is covered but first let’s remind ourselves of a few other missed projections. Such as:
* If you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor.
* If you like your plan you can keep your Plan.
* Premiums will drop by $2,500 per year.
* The ACA exchanges will cover 25 million people
* People will stop using ERs as their primary provider.

That last one is where we will focus because not only is it another incorrect projection but it is one that has dramatic impact on the healthcare system in both cost and access.  Statistics reveal in California, courtesy of Ca’s Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, that ER visits by Medi-Cal members increased 75% over the 5 year period from January 2012 through December 2016. The 1st quarter of 2012 reported 800,000 ER visits while the 4th quarter of 2016 reported 1.4 million visits.

That means that Emergency Rooms in California had/have to accommodate 600,000 more patients per quarter which one can correctly assume are not really people in an emergency situation. This outcome and missed projection clearly impacts California’s ERs ability to provide emergency service to the folks truly in need of an ER.

Plus the cost of ER services are generally higher per unit cost that non-emergency care rendered by local primary care Doctors. The result then is more visits and higher cost per unit of service while clogging an already overloaded ER environment for those in true need of ER services. That probably explains as well as anything could the impact of well-intended but misguided government intervention.

Why are the ERs seeing these overwhelming numbers? Again, much is conjecture but in this case it is well founded.
*  Many primary Docs (lots of them) don’t accept Medi-Cal (Medicaid) patients so the newly covered folks under the ACA Medicaid expansion have fewer providers to see than members under private coverage. Medicaid/Medi-Cal reimburse private Doc far less so can you blame them for not wanting to clog their own waiting rooms?

* Prior to the ACA folks not covered still had access to care and could use their local ERs because those providers can not deny care to anyone who enters through their doors. Most ERs are associated with hospitals and those hospitals can not turn people away so the ERs have no choice but to provide care to everyone even for just a cold or the flu.

The purpose of this post is just to be a reminder that as we see the CBO and others make projections about the outcome and by-products of the Republican AHCA 2.0 that we should use our own knowledge and common sense.

As you read here a couple weeks ago, the CBO projection that the House version of the AHCA 2.0 would result in 24 to 26 million fewer people with coverage is baloney. Yet, that is what the Press will run with day after day. It’s probably good for their advertising rates on the networks and papers to support dire predictions even when they are knowingly false.

Some are reporting that the Senate is working toward a vote on its version of the AHCA 2.0 before the end of June. No one has seen its language but I won’t bet against its probability.
Let’s just remember that as Nay-Sayers make their doom-n-gloom, old people and babies are going to die predictions, that we must not fall victim as so many did in 2010.

I liked the idea of keeping the plan I had with the doctor I had and premiums going down, didn’t you. But, we knew then it was baloney so don’t listen to the opponents of AHCA 2.0 without a healthy dose of common sense. Sorry for the dopey metaphor.

Hey, projections by the Government are like the statement President Reagan made 30+ years ago. What we need is for the Government to do is get the heck out of the way.

Anyway, we’ll see how it goes because we are all in this together!
Until next week.

Mark Reynolds, RHU
559-250-2000
mark@reynolds.wtf

 

 

Press reports coming from Internet news sources proclaim that many Senate GOPs are not hopeful about Healthcare Reform in 2017. In spite of those reports, let’s look at one issue that may hold promise. That being the Federal Invisible Risk-sharing Program.

The Federal Invisible Risk-sharing Program has been talked about by many as a tool to help hold down premiums in a future that includes AHCA 2.0. Usually pundits and authors refer to reinsurance as applying only to high risk pools that were implemented by several states to help provide coverage for the high costs associated with many insured’s. Maine, for example, has a re-insurance program that is often cited as a risk sharing program that acts like true re-insurance for insurers and available to help insurers cover the sickest or most costly members in Maine’s covered population.

Maine’s re-insurance program steps in to reimburse insurers on a sliding scale, if a member, previously declared as high risk under the program guidelines, has claims exceed a certain threshold which was set at $7,500. Then the Re-insurance association (pool) reimburses the insurer 90% of the claim cost until the claims exceed $32,500. At that point the re-insurance association reimburses the insurer 100%.

In Maine’s program the insurer would cede (pay) to the state’s re-insurance program up to 90% of the premium collected for the designated member. Maine has guidelines for designating a member both at initial enrollment as well as at later  times plus rules for members coming and going or changing plans. It is a mechanism that is administered much like what insurers experience in typical reinsurance programs available today.

The key objective is to provide a mechanism by which insurers can reduce what they would otherwise establish as their base rates in a guarantee issue, no pre-ex, and no real penalty for not signing up environment. It makes sense since insurers will be able to actuarially determine what its rates should be without the fear of one or two members killing (sorry for the pun) their actuarial assumptions.

It could be argued that Maine, while implementing a reasonable solution, set its attachment point (the $7,500 figure) to low. But given the potential covered enrollment, based on Maine’s overall population, that figure does make pretty good sense, too.

Insurers are quite familiar with re-insurance as many, if not most, re-insure their own plans. The attachment points when appropriate might be set considerably higher, such as $100,000 to $250,000 or even $500,000, for the larger carriers, the “big boys” in the market, such as the BUCAs.

This re-insurance model might be more appropriate than what many states use as “substandard or high risk pools” because in those models every covered member is charged more thereby increasing premiums for all. Also those models often provide different benefits for members covered in the high risk pool than what other members might enjoy.

The Maine model helps an insurer keep rates lower because it can set its rates for every member with the knowledge that the claim cost for high risk individuals would be ceded off to the Federal Invisible Risk-sharing Program. Plus, those members, whose claim cost is ceded off, will enjoy the same benefits as those not ceded off because they remain in the same plan as healthy members.

After all, isn’t the main objective of AHCA 2.0 suppose to be: bring down premiums and improve benefits?

So, the FIRSP could potentially lower premiums and improve benefits for more people. It would also allow more insurers to take the risk of offering plans and thus increase competition for the “big boys”. For example, a smaller regional insurer might negotiate a lower more appropriate attachment point than a BUCA but in the end still provide competition and more plan choices for citizens.

One final thought, which is out of my normal comfort zone, is how do we get people to enroll and make any healthcare reform solution equitable to  all including insurers? At least give the insurers a fighting chance to offer good plans and be profitable at the same time. It needs to be addressed either through meaningful penalties or, by my preference, of reasonable Pre-ex provisions.

Normally I would be against the Play or Pay mandates but I am “evolving” on this mater. If we set up mechanisms, methodology and rules by which insurers, providers, TPAs, brokers and the government must comply; is it wrong to set up a rule for our citizens?

Granted by all is the fact that the penalties for no coverage under the ACA were not effective and actually laughable. So, if we build a better system to provide benefits at lower premiums it should be worth while to consider either reasonable pre-ex provisions to protect insurers from those who would game the system or by mandating coverage but with meaningful consequences.

Here is a quick starting point idea for penalties:
* Individuals – Income $20,000 to $75,000 = 5%/income or $3,000 which ever greater
* Individuals – Income $75,001 to $150,000 = 5%/income or $6,000 which ever greater
* Businesses  – $2,500 penalty for 10 to 24 FTEs
* Businesses – $5,000 penalty for 25 FTEs or greater

As I stated above, I am more open to this idea than before and I am not one to normally support government mandates. You have read in previous posts my opinion on addressing pre-ex. But, I also think that the past 3 years have provided proof that at least 10% of our population just won’t sign up so the consequences must be real.

Though not related, I think everyone should also pay a share of their income in Federal income tax. If one makes $5,000 or $250,000 we all should put something into the kiddy. If the folks in the lowest income levels were to pay a 5% tax then they would be more concerned about the decisions made by politicians on their behalf and maybe more engaged in the process.
Just a thought!

So, that’s the current position on the Federal Invisible Risk-sharing Program and how it may just be a good provision to support the overall goal of better coverage at lower cost.

Let me know what you think because we’re all in this together!
Until next week.

Mark Reynolds, RHU
559-250-2000
mark@reynolds.wtf

 

 

This week I want to discuss an American trait seemingly lost in our current society. That is the human trait of personal sacrifice and service to others without regard to the benefit to one’s self.

Current American society and our daily news is filled with examples of self-exorbitance and self -centered actions meant only to serve the individual. We see this sad fact every day in our politicians, entertainment, government employees, maybe our co-workers and sometimes even within our own families.

When we see a citizen recognized on TV for doing something above and beyond one’s duty or at great risk to one’s safety we seem amazed. But, in reality, there are many people among us who go about their life everyday with the benefit of others as a priority. It’s in their character not a one-time action.

Allow me to introduce you to one such individual in this week’s post.
Stacy Morris is an example of what many of us wish we could be. She is an example of how a woman can be a great mother and spouse while being a great leader for her company and its staff through some of the toughest times in an industry and company’s life.

Over the past year Stacy has been the Chairman of the Board for the Visalia Chamber of Commerce in addition to her duties at her company and with her family. Stacy’s company and as well as its industry is under attack and consumed with unknowns yet she has managed her company to grow and be a better place to work.

Stacy takes her leadership role in the Chamber as well as her company in stride making it look easy.  Most people would be overcome by the load this young woman carries but for Stacy there is no choice but to meet all challenges head on and overcome them. She has lived this way her entire life!

Today, Stacy will pass the gavel, as Chairman of the Visalia Chamber of Commerce, to the next in line. I promise you and all Chamber members that the Chamber is in better shape now than ever before and the duties of future Board Chairmen will be easier because of the decisions Stacy made and actions she has taken.

Please join me and her entire BEN-E-LECT family in thanking Stacy for her leadership, her compassion for others, and for her life-long commitment to serve others before herself. It is an honor to know her and a privilege to have worked with her.

Thank you, Stacy!!

Until next week.

Mark Reynolds, RHU
559-250-2000
mark@reynolds.wtf

Why do Legislators rely on CBO estimates? Let’s take a look at the “holes” in the CBO report on the AHCA 2.0 and why their projections are so flawed.

Like so many things in Wash DC, it was a process that started with good intentions but then turned upside down and ruined by efforts for political gain! Today legislators applaud or criticize CBO projections depending on which argument it’s projections supports. So, the answer to the rhetorical question above is “The CBO is used for political advantage”.

Without casting stones let’s just look at where the CBO estimates are skewed by incorrect assumptions and projections. To support my point I will call upon several facts from a recent report issued by Doug Badger of the Galen Institute. Mr. Badger does a much more thorough examination of the facts and is more articulate laying the foundation for explaining the mistakes with in the CBO report.

Even in the most balanced effort (which seldom occurs) it is impossible to determine the outcome on the process of repealing a gigantic metastasized piece of legislation like the ACA and replacing it with any solution, even one drastically needed. To be successful the recipe to replace the ACA will take three parts “good” legislation and two parts communication. To date, the Repub’s attempts have gotten the mixture wrong on both policy and communication. But the ACA must either be truly Repealed & Replaced or it must be fixed.

The News reports last week about the CBO estimates was dominated by the headline of CBO’s projection that 23 million fewer people will have coverage by 2026 than would be covered under the ACA, if left intact. Without casting blame or bias, the CBO’s numbers are flawed and it is pretty clear to see where the CBO’s numbers went off tract. Why the CBO did not or does not correct its errors is not the purpose of this post. You can judge that! 

The CBO’s numbers start with inaccurate enrollment data for the state exchanges which creates an inaccurate baseline of enrollment projections. Then it makes its projections from that point. For example, the CBO states that the exchange enrollment as of December 2016 was 10 million members but then uses the figure of 15 million lives covered in the exchanges for 2017. That means the baseline of 15 million, from which CBO starts its projections, is already misstated by 5 million lives or 50%.

If you recall a bit of history, the CBO originally projected that over 24 million lives would be covered by state exchanges in 2014 however that clearly not true since, as reported above, the CBO states that Dec. 2016 enrollment at just 10 million lives.

But, to make matters worse, the CBO estimates that that over 18 million lives will be covered under ACA in 2018 which would be an 80% increase from Dec 2016 actual enrollment. So, the CBO used ACA enrollment numbers, incorrect by 80%, to project covered lives compared against the AHCA 2.0. The CBO projects  that 8 million fewer lives would be covered in 2018 by AHCA 2.0 simply because it starts with the flawed baseline that 18 million lives would be covered by the ACA in 2018.

Power of the Mandate overstated.
The CBO estimates that 4 million Americans will drop off their Medicaid coverage in 2018 because the penalty or Mandate to be insured is reduced to zero by AHCA 2.0. To clarify, the Mandate won’t be repealed just the penalty for no coverage would be reduced to zero under AHCA 2.0.
The question Mr. Badger raises is “Why would 4 million people covered by Medicaid suddenly torch their Medicaid cards if their eligibility and coverage under Medicare still exists”. Pretty good question, don’t you think? 

The CBO also projects that 2 million lives will give up their employer sponsored coverage in 2018. I have trouble believing this but employees will have choices to make. However, they also may choose to re-enroll once they experience life without coverage or discover that their employer’s plan was actually a better deal.

The following  shows how weak the mandate was in making Americans sign up for coverage. The IRS reported to Congress the effects of the Mandate for 2015:
* 6.5 million uninsured paid the penalty
* 12.7 million uninsured got an exemption from penalty
* 4.2 million uninsured ignored the penalty
That’s 23.4 million uninsured Americans in 2015

So, the CBO estimates rely heavily upon the power of the employee Mandate. But, it is clearly obvious that the Mandate did not get enrollment close to full coverage.

Let’s add the Press and Pundit’s misrepresentation of the AHCA’s impact on enrollment by Medicare expansion. In 2018 the AHCA 2.0 does not reduce or impact the enrollment in Medicaid caused by the Medicare expansion. Those enrollments are still valid and states that expanded their Medicare eligibility will continue to receive those “extra” Medicare support for at least 2 more years.
In fact contrary to reports by opponents of AHCA 2.0 the Federal government will continue to fund the Medicare allotments for all states at the levels in existence prior to the enactment of the ACA. Instead of the 95% funding under ACA the states will receive the percentage of funding for their Medicare folks at the levels  already in place for the past 50 years.

If you add the currently uninsured numbers to the false baseline of 8 million fewer covered by the state exchanges as well as the skewed reporting on Medicare expansion, it is easy to see that the CBO is fodder for the opponents of the AHCA 2.0.

Once again, why should anyone rely on the CBO estimates when those estimates are clearly flawed? It’s political of course.
The CBO is in a no-win situation though when it comes to making its projections. No one can project who will waive coverage or why when the decision is made by Americans who either demand choice and quality or who are honestly dependent on support by the government to survive or who feel entitled and choose to live off the effort of others. That is not meant as a criticism. It’s merely stating the obvious as we have all seen how a entitlement mentality can impact government programs. 

To close, I don’t know if we have ever seen so many distractions in Wash DC. Most seem like deliberate attempts to fragment the efforts to improve healthcare, lower taxes and improve national security for political gain. But some is caused by the inaction of the controlling party that does not seem willing or capable of governing.

So, let’s keep watching and talking because I know we all hope for better outcomes than we are getting currently.
And, because we’re all in this together.

Talk soon,

Mark Reynolds, RHU
559-250-2000
mark@reynolds.wtf