A recent New York Times highlighted Maine’s attempts at comprehensive healthcare reform. Their experiences serve as a cautionary tale for Congress.   The state established a public health insurance plan, expanded Medicare and Medicaid eligibility, and banned insurers from refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions, but those actions have done  little to insure more of its residents.  Contrary to the promises of public option supporters, health care costs have only continued to rise in the state.

Reasons for the high health care costs range from the state-specific to the general. Unlike the bill that recently passed the House of Representatives, Maine’s healthcare reform legislation didn’t include a mandate to buy health insurance plans. It’s a vicious cycle: forcing health insurance companies to offer policies to unhealthy people with pre-existing conditions raises the rates for younger people; young adults will be even less likely to buy health insurance if their premiums go up, which results in the insurer’s risk being spread among less people. In the end, the older, unhealthier population remains in the pool and must contend with less affordable health insurance. Therefore, there is a larger uninsured population.

Granted, Maine is a market dominated by just one private health insurance company (which, with its effective monopoly, can increase premiums to their liking); and its population is older, sicker, and poorer than the U.S. in general. Senator Olympia Snowe points to her state as a cautionary tale of what may happen if drastic changes are made too fast. Snowe is a Republican that supports healthcare reform but is against the public option. Budgeting problems have caused Maine to cap enrollment of its own public option health insurance plan at under 9,000. The federal government, unlike most states, is allowed to run a deficit. However, it isn’t exactly rolling in the money right now either.

I look at healthcare reform as a football field. It’s separated by a virtual, high-res 50-yard line controlled by the commentators at ESPN.

On one side of the yard line, there are politicians shouting at their quarterback about a health plan run by the U.S. government; one that would force private health insurance companies to compete with a presumably cheaper public plan (“GO PUBLIC PLAN!”). On the other side of the 50-yard line, there are politicians shouting at their quarterback about a health plan run by the U.S. government; one that would choke  private insurance company CEOs until they raised their premiums or be forced out of business (“GO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE!”).

Outside the stadium, insurance companies are having an awesome tailgate party in the parking lot.

The smell of hot dogs and hamburgers are filling the air, beer is flowing as fast as the crude jokes about the game going on behind them. If you look at recent public statements from some of these companies, it’s clear they couldn’t care less who wins this one. Because they know they’re going to be the ultimate winners, no matter who makes the last field goal.

After President Obama established healthcare reform as a top priority almost immediately after saying “I Will” on January 20, most major insurance carriers went into the locker room. Their public silence  was about as deafening as the Super Bowl at half-time.

But insurance industry analysts knew it was only a matter of time before the position papers, talking points and customer Q&A scripts started to trickle down, ready for public consumption. Company leaders just needed to huddle up and come up with a contingency plan. After the House won their own marathon Pro-Public Option showdown in overtime on Saturday night, it’s as if the coach for the insurance plans threw a cooler of Gatorade on themselves in victory.

Here’s a look at some of the not-so-partisan statements that have come across the newswires about the vote:

“…(we are) deeply disappointed with the legislation progressing in Congress. Both the bill proposed by the House of Representatives and the bill passed by the Senate HELP Committee miss the opportunity to address the underlying cost drivers in our health care system.” – WellPoint, nation’s largest health benefit company, with approximately 35 million policy holders.

“A government-run program would threaten employer-based coverage…An independent analysis by the Lewin Group found that millions of employees would lose their private coverage and be forced to join a new government-run health plan. People will reject proposals that could put at risk their employer-sponsored coverage.” – CIGNA Corporation, one of the largest investor-owned health care providers in the U.S., the bulk of which is employer-based.

“We support reforms that make the market work for everyone, by bringing more people in rather than creating a new government-run health plan that would cause millions of Americans to lose their private coverage.” – BlueCross and BlueShield Association, covers 1-in-3 Americans, approximately 100 million policy holders.

It’s no shock that none of the commercial insurers are behind the public option. But what’s a little surprising to me is  they’re not hanging out in the parking lot waiting for the post-game traffic to die down.

By making these dire threats about how people will lose their coverage; pay more for what they’ve got; or even lose access to insurance altogether (as in the odd assessments of CIGNA and BlueCross), it’s insulting to the American public.

If Uncle Sam were to open up shop down the street, private insurers only make their industry look like a bunch of spoiled sports  in a game where the ones who are crying foul are the ones the Fed will be counting on to administer their plan. It’s not like the U.S. Government has some kind of top-secret, underground insurance company waiting to jump out after the Senate vote and take over like King Kong in Times Square.

Bottom line: The insurance companies are going to be just fine no matter what happens in D.C. Public option or not. You know it, I know it and they most certainly know it. For the sake of public perception at least, insurance companies need to throw their full support behind health insurance reform (or at least pretend to, in an intelligent way) because the game’s  in overtime and nobody is injured on the field.

Reform is going to happen. They may not have wanted to be in the game, but  it’s now time to be gentlemen at the end and shake the winning coach’s hand on the way off the field.

The reform bill passed in the House has the potential to change what all health insurance plans cover. An amendment proposed by Bart Stupak, which passed in the House of Representatives, prevents federal funding from being used to buy any health insurance plan that offers coverage of elective abortions. In exchange for the votes of pro-life Democrats essential to pass the legislation, the healthcare reform bill was modified. The previous language only prevented government money from being used directly to pay for an abortion.

Obviously, the public option will not include abortion coverage. However, the ban extends to private health insurers participating in the government’s insurance exchange. Low- and medium-income individuals and families will receive subsidies in order to buy a health insurance plan. A compromise proposed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which would serve to distinguish private dollars from federal money and allow insurers to cover abortion services with solely the latter, was rejected. Many people with employer-provided or individual health insurance have abortion coverage provided in their policies. In order to enter the potentially lucrative exchange market, insurers might eliminate that coverage entirely.

Those who pay for their entire health insurance policy out-of-pocket will still be allowed to buy plans that provide abortion coverage, although the availability and affordability of these plans will most likely decrease. Pro-choice advocates, such as Planned Parenthood, are crying foul.

Interestingly, the amendment received 240 votes–higher than the actual bill’s margin of victory. Assuming that many pro-choice Democrats voted against it, this result means that a significant portion of Republicans voted for the amendment. Whether they wanted to salvage something they wanted out of a bill that was almost certain to pass or sabotage the bill by creating a schism between Democrats, they decided to amend a bill while rejecting the bill itself.

(Image: mahalie under CC 2.0)

Marilyn Wann never bought into professional modeling marketing-speak proclaiming that “Thin is In.” It’s not because her physique doesn’t fit the phrase. For her, it’s a widely-held bullying tactic for the current authors of health insurance reform. Marilyn tells New York Times reporter Susan Saulny that an increasing number of slender Americans blame fat people — not Medicare, nor pharmaceutical company profits — for the most historic overhaul of our healthcare delivery system since the U.S. Government started Medicare itself.

“We’re kind of a popular punching bag,” says Wann, author of the book, “Fat! So?”

Physicians, dieticians and the scientific community have proven that there is a common link between obesity and a slew of chronic and terminal illnesses, from diabetes to heart disease. Healthcare bean counters claim that fat people increase the entire cost of healthcare for everyone, since they are more often diagnosed with long-term disease.

We’re all aware of the doomsday, sky-is-falling stats that apparently prove we’re all eating funnel cakes, Twinkies and potato chips all while sitting in front of the couch watching The Biggest Loser every night. It’s the stuff that sensational television and reality series’ feed off of. To be sure, the Robert Wood Foundation (a think-tank on healthcare issues) just published a study showing that two-thirds of us are fat. In four states alone, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi and West Virginia, more than 30 percent of its residents are statistically obese.

But Wann thinks it is somewhat discriminatory that corporate America is suddenly offering sums of money, free stays at fat camps and other incentives to overweight Americans in a thinly-disguised campaign to cut group insurance coverage costs while marketing the move as a gesture toward caring about the wellness of their employees.

On the flip-side, Wann and other obesity fairness champions say the efforts for reform are energizing opportunities to cultivate what she calls, Fat Pride. “Basically, we want to be treated with respect the same as everyone else.”

Who knows. Wann and her followers might start a movement toward true health insurance portability and help prove that individual health insurance is still affordable.

Healthcare reform was finally passed in the the House of Representatives after a long night. The final vote on the healthcare reform bill was very close: 220 for to 215 against. It seems that President Obama’s last minute push for the legislation worked. Despite Obama’s pep talk, nearly 40 Democrats voted against the the bill. As predicted, the vast majority of Republican representatives voted against it. However, one Republican voted for the bill. Supporters are happy that the public option was retained in the bill, and that health insurance plans will no longer be allowed to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

Now the bill must go to the Senate, where it will be debated and modified further. Some liberal representatives in the House weren’t completely satisfied with the healthcare reform proposals passed, but feel that they have a better chance of getting what they want if they pass the bill and allow their Senate counterparts to work with it. Their other option is letting it fail, possibly endangering the chances of universal health care altogether.

A 242-192 vote allowed the health care reform legislation to reach the House floor to begin with. Several representatives promised to allow the bill to reach the floor for debate, although they opposed the actual proposals to change the health insurance system.

The flu pandemic has left many concerned especially with talk of a vaccine shortage.  But that doesn’t mean there is a shortage on ways to prevent you from getting sick.  Here are three simple steps that will protect your health not just now but all year long.

Step 1  Be sure you regularly disinfect the kitchen sink, the trash can, the bathroom faucet and the tub. These places harbor a lot of germs. The champion of the contamination? The kitchen sponge. Clean it in the dishwasher weekly.

Step 2  Lace up your sneakers and take a brisk walk five times a week. Regular exercise can help reduce chances of catching a cold.

Step 3  Include probiotics in your daily diet to help your immune system ward off bad bacteria. Try yogurt, fortified drinks, or a tasty treat like the 90-calorie Attune Milk Chocolate Crip Probiotic Bar.

There is more proof to convince smokers that if they want to kick their habit they need to hit the gym. A new study uses images to show how getting your blood moving by exercising for even 15 minutes minimizes your cravings to smoke. Here is a look at how the study was performed.

• The study – published in the journal Addiction, looked at 20 moderately heavy smokers. The smokers abstained from smoking for 15 hours before the trial.
• All participants were shown smoking-related as well as neutral images before either 15 minutes of sitting or exercising at a moderate intensity on a stationary bike.
• Afterwards, they were again shown the images. The research team used the latest eye tracking technology to measure and record their precise eye movements. They were able to show not only the length of time people looked at smoking-related images but also how quickly pictures of cigarettes could grab their attention, compared with non-smoking matched images.
• The study showed an 11% difference in how long the exercises vs. non-exercisers looked at the smoking related images.
• Also, after exercise, participants took longer to look at smoking-related images.
• Exercise, therefore, appears to reduce the power of the smoking-related images to grab visual attention.

Lenneice A. Drew is an experienced journalist currently focused on healthcare reform. She is working to help others achieve better lives by finding affordable health insurance alternatives and reporting stories related to the healthcare industry. She lives in Miami, Florida.

On the eve of the historic House Congressional vote on the wobbly healthcare reform bill, President Obama managed one last pull at the AARP, but may not have saved its members from falling into the verbal mud pit in the long tug-of-war over the Affordable Healthcare for Americans Act. By his own admission, AARP CEO Barry Rand knows his 40 million members are still very much split down the middle in their support. This leaves the President wiping his brow while leaving Rand in the awkward position of posing for the photo-op while crossing his fingers behind his back. The near-finalized bill will hit the House floor on Saturday night for a vote.

“As members of the House gear up for this historic vote, they will hear from older Americans,” said Rand, in a prepared statement announcing the endorsement. Although Rand said this marks the first time the AARP has put its “full weight behind a comprehensive health care reform package,” he’s likely to find more raucous town hall style debates swarming around retirement homes after the vote and regardless of the outcome. That’s because by all accounts on Capitol Hill, the Senate and the House are miles apart on the road to reform. Somehow, some way, there’s got to be another lane built on the highway to accommodate both parties’ differences.

“It is not enough in our eyes just to say we endorse a particular piece of legislation and expect that all the dominos will fall into place as a result,” Sam Wilson, the chief AARP rep in South Dakota tells the Daily Republic today.

Right now, the ropes in this tug-of-war are wearing thin. Parties on both sides are gonna need gloves to avoid further rope burns. Whether or not the holy grail of health reform — the so-called Public Option — remains in the final bill is sitting squarely in the mud pit.

Kellogg’s was doing its part to keep kids healthy during the flu season or at least that’s what they led consumers to believe. A bright yellow label displayed over the cereal box said their Cocoa Krispies cereal were now offering immunity support. With the flu season in full swing parents were grabbing it off the grocery store shelves to help keep their kids healthy. It turns out the labeling may have been a trick.

Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics, said “The idea that eating Cocoa Krispies will keep a kid from getting swine flu, or from catching a cold, doesn’t make sense.”She points out that all nutrients bolster immunity, and not just the Cocoa Krispies. Marion sent a letter to the FDA about this, months ago.  Other skeptics are also convinced the cereal company was just trying to make additional revenue in the wake of the swine flu hysteria.

The cereal giants have agreed to pull the label.  But Kellogg’s, is still standing behind their claims and have plead not guilty.

You can’t believe everything you read no matter how good it sounds or how good it tastes for that matter.

Lenneice A. Drew is an experienced journalist currently focused on healthcare reform. She is working to help others achieve better lives by finding affordable health insurance alternatives and reporting stories related to the healthcare industry. She lives in Miami, Florida.

Health insurance providers, both public and private, are looking for ways to cut spending. One of their strategies is to deny claims for treatments they deem unnecessary. The effectiveness-testing studies receiving funding in Congress’ healthcare reform bill is a case in point. While that’s a laudable goal, what if your doctor recommends an unusual course treatment?

Experts recommend that you never tell your health insurance plan that you are receiving an “investigational” or “experimental treatment; or if you are enrolled in a clinical trial. These phrases are codewords that make insurers more likely to look closer and reject your claims. First off, health insurance plans will cover treatment your physician considers medically necessary. When it comes to insurance, you obviously shouldn’t lie (that could lead to cancellation of your policy, leaving you uninsured); but you also shouldn’t give more information than is specifically asked for.

You may even be wrong about the experimental status of the procedure. Some procedures aren’t typically used, but are proven medically effective nonetheless. In that case, health insurance plans should cover it. Check with your doctor, even if he or she used wording such as wanting to “experiment with a treatment”. Don’t let semantics cost you!