MEDICARE & RATIONING

Democrats were flushed in the 2010 election over accusations by Republicans over calling end-of-life consultations Death Panels* and that Democrats were going to ration** health care. Because Democrats were willing to do something to control health care expenses, it was time for both parties to get together and do something. Alas, the Republicans demagogued it. But there was a lot of rationing in Medicare long before the controversy in the 2010 election.

For example will Medicare cover cosmetic surgery?

Sorry, but most likely no - Medicaid pays only for diagnosed conditions, none of which those address. The surgery must address a diagnosed condition or illness and your claim that you will be psychologically damaged would need to be corroborated by an independent psychologist. And even then, I would hazard a guess Medcaid would deny the claim without a ton of supporting tests and possibly a second opinion.

How about Chiropractors? Only for subluxation of the spine.

https://questions.medicare.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/303/~/does-medicare-cover-chiropractic-services%3F

How often can men get a PSA examination or digital examination under Medicare? Once a year.

http://www.medicare.gov/navigation/manage-your-health/preventive-services/prostate-cancer-screening.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

How often can women get a mammogram? Once a year for women over 40!

http://www.eldercareteam.com/public/648.cfm

These are some rationing actions by Medicare that I know about.

Please note that there will always be rationing of health care because the wealthy can afford more health care than the rest of us. And the very wealthy can even self insure.

To preserve some basic coverage in Medicare, more rationing will be necessary which I view as being far preferable to doing away with it by converting to a voucher program. About 15 years ago, we discussed what we might give up in Medicare to preserve it. The unanimous opinion was to put a cap on expensive operations such as organ transplants and perhaps solid body parts (spine, hips, knees).

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel

** http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html

CAP AND TRADE

Among the things that Republican candidates for president are falling all over themselves to reject are their past records on global warming and cap and trade for carbon dioxide emissions.

One thing that Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney have in common: These GOP presidential contenders all are running away from their past positions on global warming, driven by their party's loud doubters who question the science and disdain government solutions.(http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-27-presidential-hopefuls-global-warming_n.htm)

Why this is a problem is hard to tell:

In fact, the whole idea of a market to trade pollution credits came from the Republican Party. It emerged in the late 1980s under the administration of President George H.W. Bush as a free-market solution to the power plant pollution that was causing acid rain. It passed Congress nearly unanimously in 1990 as a way to control emissions of sulfur dioxide. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-27-presidential-hopefuls-global-warming_n.htm)

I was involved in the National Acid Precipitation Program (NAPAP) in the 1980s when Cap and Trade was proposed to deal with sulfur dioxide emissions and became effective in 1990, more than 20 years ago. Of course there was controversy at the time, but it ended up not costing as much as first proposed and is no longer controversial. Curiously, you don't see this mentioned with regard to Cap and Trade of carbon dioxide emissions.

Since its inception in 1990, the cap and trade component of the Acid Rain Program (ARP) has reduced SO₂ emissions from power plants by 10 million tons (more than 60 percent). The program is currently at full implementation, with a permanent cap on SO₂ emissions at 8.95 million tons, or about a 50 percent reduction from 1980 levels. (http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/maps/so2.html)

TRUTH IS DANGEROUS FOR POLITICIANS

Former President Clinton has said something like “Democrats like to fall in love. Republicans like to fall in line.” There do seem to be strong lines in the Republican party, like taxes should always be lowered. It would be dangerous for a Republican candidate for office to counter this. But there are other lines, and I often wonder who establishes them? Another one is government should be smaller; yet, oil companies are to continue getting their subsidies and corn-based ethanol not only is to have a subsidy but also a tariff to make importing ethanol uneconomic. So no matter what a candidate’s opinion, a Republican candidate has to tow the line or face the consequences. Mitt Romney’s problems with promoting universal health care in Massachusetts when he was governor haunt him today in his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president. Tim Pawlenty may have a drag on his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination not only because of the health care law he put in place in Minnesota but also his opposition to the ethanol subsidy while he is campaigning in Iowa.

Newt Gingrich would like to have the Republican nomination for president, but , alas, he was recently caught telling the truth in a recent interview at “Meet The Press” and has gotten into deep yogurt as a result. According to National Review, Gingrich said, "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering."* Apparently, the party line on this is that the Republicans don't do social engineering. Even worse he said, “ I oppose Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform but support a ‘variation’ of the individual mandate.'”** For Republicans, the individual mandate is a no, no.

Of course Gingrich has had to apologize to Paul Ryan for breaking with the party line over his lapse into the truth: “Gingrich, however, is trying to put the controversy behind him. Last night, he told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren that he’d already apologized to Ryan for his response to Gregory’s question about whether Republicans should ‘really move forward to completely change Medicare’ and ‘turn it into a voucher program’ –- a question he now wishes he didn’t answer at all. Gingrich said, 'It's a hypothetical baloney question that had no hope of happening. The Republicans don't control the Senate. They don't have the White House. They can't do what Obama did. And I should just dismiss it. So, that was a mistake.'”***

The opinion of the pundits is that Gringrich’s campaign, never strong, is finished.

You can see the video of Newt Gingrich on Meet The Press, May 15, 2011, for the Medicare and Paul Ryan voucher system:

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2011/05/video-newt-gingrich-on-meet-the-press-51511/ You can see the interview with Greta Van Susteren at http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich-the-extended-on-the-record-interview/. You can read about the Tim Pawlenty stands on the ethanol subsidy at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/politics/24pawlenty.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24

*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110515/pl_ac/8477605_newt_gingrich_goes_after_paul_ryan_medicare_plan_1

**http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/gingrich-i-oppose-paul-ryans-medicare-reform-but-support-a-variation-of-the-individual-mandate/

*** http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/18/nbcs-david-gregory-defend_n_863660.html

WILL INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS BE BANNED?

There are quite a few politicians who are concerned (means Up-In-Arms) about the supposed banning of incandescent light bulbs. These people seem to be mainly or entirely Republicans. Rep. Ron Paul is famous for browbeating Ms. Kathleen Hogan (Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy) over the banning of incandescent light bulbs and seems to accuse her or at least the current Democratic administration of taking away his choices. Unfortunately, Rep. Paul doesn't know what he is talking about. This is not some regulation issued by Ms. Hogan or the Obama administration, but a law of congress passed in 2007, and signed by President George W. Bush. Michele Bachmann is even against making incandescent light bulbs more efficient. She has authored a bill "Light bulb Freedom Of Choice Act" to repeal a Federal requirement that the typical 100 watt incandescent light bulb become 25% more energy efficient by 2012.*

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/opinion/31collins.html. Talk about Luddites!

Actually Ron Paul is probably going to be able to buy an incandescent bulb as bright

as his 100 watt bulb, if it meets the specifications: "Well the fact is that incandescent bulbs are not being banned, only the ones that do not meet the new energy efficiency standards. What does this mean? It means that 100 is the new 75…watts that is. Literally speaking, the 100 watt light bulb as we know it will no longer exist, but with better technology manufacturers are creating 75 watt light bulbs to be just as bright as the old 100 watt bulbs." (http://www.blog.robinmuto.com/2011/03/22/lightenup-the-facts-of-light-banning-of-the-incandescent-lamp/)

Why, oh why, can't Ron Paul drive on the side of the street that he prefers? He wants choices, not standardization, doesn't he.

Oh, Ron Paul says his toilets don't work, but ours do, almost always on the first flush. We only moved into our new home a bit more than 5 yrs ago so I think we are probably up to current codes.

* And as Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, wrote in a Times Op-Ed article recently, Washington has been in the standard-setting business since 1894, “when Congress standardized the meaning of what are today common scientific measures, including

the ohm, the volt, the watt and the henry, in line with international metrics.”