The presumptive leader in the 2010 race for governor of the Sunshine State has launched a controversial public campaign to persuade Attorneys Generals in other states to join him in “launching a full review of the constitutionality of the individual mandate and potential legal options for States to pursue on behalf of their citizens should this mandate become law,” Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum writes in a letter to his AG peers.

The Senate recently approved a draft of the healthcare reform bill that provides for a mandatory tax of $700 to $4,000 against individuals who do not obtain health insurance coverage, either individually or through their employers, before 2013. The provision was added when lobbyists for the nation’s top health insurance companies successfully negotiated it in exchange for dropping an additional proposal that bans insurance companies from declining to provide coverage for people with pre-existing health conditions.

McCollum maintains that the tax would violate the provision of individual freedoms contained in both the United States Constitution and that of the State of Florida.

“I have grave concerns about the constitutionality of this mandate,” said McCullom. “Such a ‘living tax’ is worrisome because it would be levied on a person who does nothing, a person who simply wishes not to be forced to buy health insurance coverage…The mandate is especially troubling to Floridians who are guaranteed through the Florida Constitution to have ‘the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into [their] private life.’”

In another public statement to the media, McCullom explained his stance against the proposed tax and threatens legal action if it becomes law.

“I am committed to pursuing any legal action necessary to defend (the rights)…of the more than 18 million individuals who call Florida home,” writes McCollum.

Earlier this year, McCollum announced his intent to seek the Republican nomination for Governor of Florida in 2010. He intends to replace Governor Charlie Crist, a fellow Florida Republican, after serving one term as Attorney General. McCollum is considered the frontrunner in the race for the nomination because Crist also served as AG for Florida before he took over the state’s highest office.

Democratic Senator Dan Gelber of Miami, who is running to replace McCullom as Attorney General, quickly criticized McCullom in a statement shortly after McCllom announced his intent to review the constitutionality of the healthcare tax.

“General McCollum’s decision to use his office to investigate ways to block health insurance reform is exactly why we need new leadership in the Attorney General’s office,” said Gelber. “There are four million Floridians without health care including 800,000 children. Only one state has a higher percentage of uninsured. I wish McCollum was as concerned about solving Florida’s health care crisis as he was about stopping the solving of the health care crisis.”

States have struggled with it. Hospitals pray their patients won’t fall over it. Software makers are grinning over it, like the Cheshire Cat.

The massive rock paperweight that keeps our medical records in an ever-growing stack is fossilizing. Fast. As a result, congress, President Obama and insurance providers are shaking hands, creating partnerships and evaluating vendors to send our medical records into the cloud. Poof! Just like that…Up, up and away goes the latest results of your cholesterol test to that great big server in the sky. Paperless healthcare is supposed to create lower healthcare quotes for consumers. But will it?

“We’ve proven that paperless documentation can save costs for one of the most documented segments in the healthcare industry,” says Gerry Stone, founder of Redoc, an electronic medical records software company that specializes in documentation for physical and occupational therapists. “Believe me, if it works for Physical and Occupational rehab, it will work for the rest of healthcare.”

Stone has a point. He built his software platform from scratch 14 years ago, when electronic medical records were but just a glint in Bill Gates’ eye. Since physical and occupational rehabilitation is usually prescribed by health insurance plans to those who injure themselves on the job, Workers Compensation claims (and in the case of post-65-year-olds, repeated Medicare reimbursements) require an average of one hour of a therapists’ time filling out forms after each session. Stone has managed to reduce the hand-driven process of jotting down billing codes and treatment notes down to mere minutes by designing a simple interface of drop-down and text boxes, key shortcuts and the like. That was w-a-y before big Goliaths like Siemens, SAS and open-source companies jumped into the tepid waters of paperless healthcare.

Now that the President has essentially mandated paperless medical practices, the Cloud is gonna get a lot more crowded now. But how soon is now? Depends on who you ask. Software companies are courting their respective Congress persons and the President is waiting for the sky to open up and accept the first pile of medical paperwork. So far, there doesn’t seem to be any protocols drafted to guide how the information is documented, where and how it’s shared and who backs it up and how often. By the time the paperweight gets lifted, the ACLU and other privacy advocates will have their say on how private medical information is managed.

And what about HIPPA (Healthcare Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)?  When the medical records pile shifts to the servers, we’ll probably have an even L-O-N-G-E-R paper form to read and sign at the pharmacy counter. Figures.

I recognize that healthcare reform is a serious issue that has the potential to change the lives of millions of Americans. I also acknowledge that many people are worried that such a bill will endanger their existing health insurance plans; their fears shouldn’t be downplayed. However, when healthcare reform proposals are compared to “domestic terrorism”, isn’t that going a bit too far? North Carolina Republican Virginia Foxx recently took to the House of Representatives floor to express her vehement opposition to the Democrat-written bill. The representative was quoted in the Associated Press as saying that the nation has more to fear from the bill’s potential passage than it does from terrorists. While hyperbole is a standard feature of modern politics, Foxx has reached a new level.

One of the identifying features of terrorism is the intent to cause a feeling of terror in a population.  Many may disagree with Nancy Pelosi’s plans of healthcare reform that include a public option, but keep in mind that congresspersons of both parties genuinely believe that what they are doing will help America. They may be wrong–and their policies might have disastrous results–but neither Democrats nor Republicans are purposely trying to destroy the United States. Therefore, comparisons to the likes of Osama bin Laden are off-base.  The worst thing about her comments is that they serve to cheapen the legitimate concerns people have. Foxx doesn’t like the bill because she believes it will allow the government to force people to buy health insurance, raise taxes, and and give bureaucrats more power. These are all valid arguments that deserve to be debated, but some people may tune them out due to her inflammatory statements.

Our infamously long-winded Vice President once said that he tried to never question a person’s motives, no matter how much he disagrees with their policies. All of our politicians would do well to take that advice. Both parties are striving to achieve what they think is best for America. Their varied opinions on healthcare reform deserve to be discussed civilly, without resorting to the modern equivalent of Godwin’s Law. In my opinion, that would be best for us all.

(Image: U.S. Army under CC 2.0)

Forget the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Right now in Washington D.C.,  it’s more like the invasion of the health insurance industry’s lobbyists. The final reconciled healthcare reform bill is set to hit Congress in a few weeks’ time, and over the past few days it’s become clear that it will more likely than not include some version of a public option. Groups such as America’s Health Insurance Plans have registered over 3,000 lobbyists on the subject, at a cost of $263 million this year alone. Leading Congressional Democrats, like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, have reaffirmed their support of the public option while turning against the insurance companies. Both sides of the issue seem to have rejected further attempts at compromise.

Meanwhile, thousands of lobbyists are currently courting representatives and senators–their targets run across the political spectrum, but they’re mostly focusing on Democrats perceived to be weak on health care reform.  The days of infamous lobbyist Jack Abramoff taking congresspersons on all-expenses-paid exotic vacations in exchange for voting in his client’s favor are supposed to be over, but some may still be swayed on the public option by their schmoozing. On the bright side, it seems as though their actions this time around could be obviously sleazy enough that even most politicians may turn against them. Even though Americans disagree on the best route for reform of our nation’s various health insurance plans, we all hope that our representatives in Congress will do what’s best for America as a whole.

(Image: Fovea Centralis under CC 2.0)

Finally, we get some more concrete information about the proposed government-run health insurance plan, otherwise known as the public option. It’s already in the House of Representatives healthcare reform bill, but the Senate’s version goes into more detail on what a public option for America would look like. First off, it wouldn’t take effect until 2013; after which it would be included in an exchange (think the Dow Jones or NASDAQ for health insurance), along with private insurers. Small businesses and individuals will be able to take part in the exchange and pool their buying power to buy their health insurance plans at a lower group rate. The idea behind the public option is that, with the government’s negotiating muscle and lack of profit motive, the competition will make healthcare costs lower across the board.  Opponents are skeptical, and believe that there is no way other health insurance providers can compete against governmental subsidies.

Even though the federal government doesn’t need to maximize profits for its shareholders, it still intends to cover most of its costs through the insurance premiums paid by its participants. The Obama administration plans to increase the federal deficit in order to provide initial funding, but hopes to repay the debt through those premiums. However, those revenues may end up smaller than anticipated; the Senate bill also allows states to individually opt out of the public option portion of reform, beginning in 2014. The program will be nationwide by default, but each state can pass legislation excluding itself from it. Further details are unknown; would those states have to pay the portion of federal taxes that goes to cover the public option, or will that money be refunded to their residents so they can buy one of the existing private health insurance plans? It remains to be seen how many state governments would actually take up that offer when all is said and done, but the choice allows some halfhearted “Blue Dog” Democratic politicians from conservative regions to vote for some form of healthcare reform without arising the ire of their constituents.

(Image: Andrew Aliferis under CC 2.0)

As it stands, the health insurance industry is one of the few that is exempt from federal antitrust regulation. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy called a meeting of the Judiciary Committee to consider revoking the exemption, which would allow for greater oversight of health insurers. Democrats have criticized insurers for being a monopoly that keep rates high and cherry-picks the healthiest potential clients while leaving those who need it most uninsured. This view has been one of the main drivers of political support for the public option, which would allow the government to directly compete with private companies by selling its own health insurance.

However, a representative from America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents the health care industry, told the Associated Press that healthcare reform doesn’t need to go that far. Despite being exempt from antitrust laws, it’s still one of the most highly regulated industries in the U.S. Some believe that insurance companies have become a scapegoat in the health debate. There are many reasons for skyrocketing medical costs, and for-profit insurers are only one.

According to USA Today

The government is investigating a major insurance company for allegedly trying to scare seniors with a mailer warning they could lose important benefits under health care legislation in Congress.

It is ridiculous for companies to resort to such tactics. Shame on them.

Here at VitalOne we want you to learn about Health Insurance and understand the situation. We don’t just sell you a plan, but go through the steps to ensure you know what yoru buying and learn about Health Insurance along the way. You can even ask us questions through various mediums such as Twitter, Youtube and Facebook. Find us there and ask us your questions, we promise never to resort to scare tactics or make you feel nervous about anything regarding to healthcare and health insurance.

Of course you can always visit our site http://www.vitalonehealth.com or call us at 1-866-488-5200.

On August 11th, John Stewart on The Daily show pointed out something very important, that in reality both Democrats and Republicans have no idea whats going in with Healthcare Reform. Republicans are focused on bashing Obama and any attempt to change anything. Democrats are confused and too lazy to read through the thousand pages of tedious and boring Health Insurance Reform documents. This is why this has been such a lengthy deliberation on the subject!

We really need to get it togther. The country is going to tear itself apart at this rate. Things need to be made simpler so the general public as well as congressmen can understand it. There is too much opportunity for abuse and for strange or little known policies to be slipped in! Reminds me of what its like to buy a house, eventually you don’t even care about fighting all the fees they stick you with. I think the American people want to get this topic over with!

According to the article “Taxing Pricey Insurance: No Health-care Cure” by Kate Pickert on Time.com, Congress is trying to figure out a way to pay for the expensive health insurance reform and taxing health insurance benefits is on the table.  The plan may cost up to 1 trillion over the next 10 years and many are left wondering where this money will come from.  Employers have been offering tax free health benefits for more than 50 years and changing this system makes many people very uncomfortable.

Approximately 2/3 of Americans receive their health insurance through their employer so it may be here to stay.  One idea being considered is a cap on the amount of employer-sponsored health insurance that can be provided tax free.  This would leave only very expensive, elite plans to be taxed.  But even this proposal is being frowned upon.

This leads Congress to consider taxing health insurance companies.  The Senate Finance Committee has reportedly shifted towards a plan that would tax insurers who offer the most expensive health care plans.  This would generate some tax money as well as encourage more affordable health insurance.  The complex health care reform debate continues.