270,000 Ohio employers win workers' comp ruling - Logan Daily News: News: general news, hiring and recruitment, wages and salaries, legal proceedings, personnel

The issue at the core of this ruling is the difference between premiums paid by those companies that participated in "group rating" programs and business that could not qualify for the discount programs. 

Business that had a bad loss ratio did not qualify for the "group discounts" because their experience would have a negative effect on all employers that participated in the "group rating" programs and therefore were excluded from participation.  The excluded group has argued that the large "group discounts" were too high and that they were not paying enough in premium to pay for their fair share of losses.  This created an situation through which  the employers that were excluded from the "group rating" program paid more by default. 



270,000 Ohio employers win workers' comp ruling - Logan Daily News: News: general news, hiring and recruitment, wages and salaries, legal proceedings, personnel:

20 - 50% increase in health insurance cost!

For the last two years we have been suggesting that PPACA would result in dramatic increases in the cost of health insurance. Most people found it easier to ignore this potential and decided instead to move forward blindly down the ObamaCare rabbit hole. But now signs of the Non-Affordable Healthcare Act are beginning to emerge. Aetna CEO predicts a range 20 - 50% increase for 2014!

Aetna CEO Bertolini: Get Ready for 'Rate Shock' as Some Health Insurance Premiums to Double in 2014

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/12/18/aetna-ceo-bertolini-get-ready-for-rate-shock-as-some-health-insurance-premiums-to-double-in-2014/

One more hidden tax in PPACA

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Fee

Shared from various sources

Summary

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Act) imposes a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) fee, formerly the comparative effectiveness research fee, on plan sponsors and issuers of individual and group policies. The first year of the fee is $1 per covered life per year, the second year the fee adjusts to $2 per covered life and then it's indexed to national health expenditures thereafter until it ends in 2019.

On April 17, 2012, the IRS proposed regulations that provide guidance on calculating the fee.

Timing

The fee begins in 2012 and the phases out in 2019.

For policy or plan years ending after Sept. 30, 2012, issuers and employers sponsoring certain group health plans must pay a fee of $1 per covered life per year. The fee adjusts to $2 per covered life for policy or plan years ending Oct. 1, 2013, through Sept. 30, 2014. For policy or plan year ending after Sept. 30, 2014, the dollar amount in effect for such policy or plan year shall be adjusted by the Secretary of Treasury based on the percentage increase in the projected per capita amount of national health expenditures. The fee will not apply to policy or plan years ending after Sept. 30, 2019.For policy or plan year ending after Sept. 30, 2014, the dollar amount in effect for such policy or plan year shall be adjusted by the Secretary of Treasury based on the percentage increase in the projected per capita amount of national health expenditures. The fee will not apply to policy or plan years ending after Sept. 30, 2019.

Purpose of the Fee

The assessed fees are to be contributed to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (PDF) that will fund comparative effectiveness research. The research will evaluate and compare health outcomes and the clinical effectiveness, risks, and benefits of two or more medical treatments and/or services.

Who Pays the Fee

Under the IRS proposal, issuers and plan sponsors are responsible for paying the fee, which is treated like an excise tax by the IRS. A federal excise tax return (Form 720) reporting liability for the fee must be filed by July 31 of the calendar year immediately following the last day of the plan year.

As the issuer of specified health insurance policies, UnitedHealthcare is responsible for filing Form 720 and paying the required PCORI fee in the case of fully insured coverage. As the plan sponsor, self-funded customers must complete Form 720 and pay the fee directly to the IRS. (Self-funded customers with questions about the filing of excise tax returns should consult with their tax advisor.)

Calculating the Fee

The fee is equal to the average number of covered lives for the policy year times the applicable dollar amount.

• For policy years ending on or after Oct. 1, 2012, and before Oct. 1, 2013 - the applicable dollar amount is $1.
• For policy years ending on or after Oct. 1, 2013, and before Oct. 1, 2014 - the applicable dollar amount is $2.
• For policy years ending in any fiscal year beginning on or after Oct. 1, 2014 - the applicable dollar amount is the prior fiscal year's dollar amount plus an adjustment for medical inflation.

Determining Average Number of Lives

Fully Insured Plans

The IRS proposed four methods for determining the average number of covered lives. Issuers must use the same method consistently for the duration of any year and the same method for all policies subject to the fee.

• Actual Count – Count the total number of covered lives for each day of the policy year and divide by the number of days in a year.
• Snapshot Method – Count the number of employees on a single day (or days if consistent for each quarter) during a quarter and divide the total by the number of dates on which a count was made. The date used for each quarter must be the same (i.e., the first day, the last day)
• NAIC Member Months Method – The issuer determines the average number of covered lives based on member months reported to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) on the Supplemental Health Care Exhibit for the calendar year. The average number of lives in effect for the calendar year equals member months divided by 12.
• State Form Method – This method is for issuers that are not required to file the NAIC Exhibit. These issuers may determine the number of covered lives using a form that is filed with the issuer's state of domicile, if the form reports the number of covered lives in the same manner as the NAIC Supplemental Exhibit.

Self-funded Plans

Self-funded plans may determine the average number of covered lives by using any of the following methods. Like fully insured plans, plan sponsors must use the same method consistently for the duration of any year and the same method for all policies subject to the fee.

• Actual Count – Count the total covered lives for each day of the plan year and divide by the number of days in the plan year.
• Snapshot dates – Count the total number of covered lives on a single day in a quarter (or more than one day) and divide the total by the number of dates on which a count was made. (The date or dates must be consistent for each quarter.)
• Snapshot Factor – In the case of self-only coverage, determine the sum of: (1) the number of participants with self-only coverage, and (2) the number of participants with other than self-only coverage multiplied by 2.35.
• Form 5500 Method – For self-only coverage, determine the average number of participants by combining the total number of participants at the beginning of the plan year with the total number of participants at the end of the plan year as reported on the Form 5500 and divide by 2. In the case of plans with self-only and other coverage, the average number of total lives is the sum of total participants covered at the beginning and the end of the plan year, as reported on the Form 5500.

Special Counting Rule for Multiple Self-funded Plans

Under the proposed rule, if the plan sponsor of a self-funded plan has more than one self-funded plan (e.g., one for medical, another for pharmacy) it may treat them as a single self-funded plan for purposes of this fee to avoid double counting of the members. This special counting rule only applies to self-funded plans in the proposed rule.

Determining Number of Covered Lives in the First Year

For the first year of the fee, plan years beginning before July 11, 2012, and ending on or after Oct. 1, 2012, a plan sponsor may determine the average number of covered lives using any reasonable method. In the first year, fully insured plans, for example, may report only 25 percent of the number of lives it reported on the NAIC form in 2012.

Special Rule for Health FSAs and HRAs

• If a plan sponsor only maintains a flexible spending account or a health reimbursement arrangement, then the plan sponsor may treat each participant's account as covering a single life. (The plan sponsor is not required to count spouses or other dependents.)
• If the FSA/HRA is sponsored by a plan sponsor that also has an applicable self-funded health plan (that is not a FSA or HRA), the two arrangements may be treated as one plan.

Plans or Policies Impacted

The fee applies to certain "specified health insurance" policies and includes medical policies, retiree-only policies, any accident or health insurance policy (including a policy under a group health benefit plan) issued to individuals residing in the United States. This does not include:

• "Excepted benefits," as defined under HIPAA, such as stand-alone vision or dental plans
• FSA plans
• Expatriate coverage
• Stop loss, where the issuer is liable for all losses in excess of a specified amount and where the plan sponsor retains its liability for losses
• Indemnity reinsurance policies, where the reinsuring company accepts all or part of the risk of loss under the policy and the issuing company retains its liability for covered lives
• Medicare
• Medicaid
• SCHIP
• Non-insurance health programs for members (spouses or dependents) of the Armed Forces or veterans
• Federally recognized Indian Health Services

Historian, Anthropologist, Politico, Liberal, Conservative….What are we seeing?

  Historian, Anthropologist, Politico, Liberal, Conservative….What are we seeing?
Over the last few months, I have been contemplating the changes we are seeing and feeling in the national mood.  I have struggled with the idea that I may be misguided in my beliefs as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.  These beliefs were formed through many influences. It started early with my hard-working family of eastern European heritage, being a Lutheran, then a period of great change when I was coming of age (late 60s and early 70s), becoming a father, being an independent-minded entrepreneur and staying married for over 30 years.  Could I be losing touch with what’s really happening?  
 
I repeatedly asked myself these questions, “what am I missing”, “what don’t I understand”, “what are people are seeing in our national direction that I can’t”.  Could what I believe be so wrong?  During any attempt to have meaningful discussion, things quickly became political.  I kept asking the same questions, but I could never get a clear answer that made sense to me.
 
Questions about:

• Gay marriage versus rights under a civil union license issued by the state?
• The right of a woman to choose means what?
• Why should an unborn have more protection than person?
• Why did President Obama expand the welfare state?
• Why do I have support people not willing to work?
• Does anyone really know what is happening to the Palestinian people in the West Bank?
• Is health insurance really a right?  Or is it a privilege?
• Why have we not fixed the immigration policy to open the country up to the smartest people on the planet?
• Why are so many people on food stamps?

 
These questions and the inability to get a clear, logical answer, led me on a journey of self-questioning but also trying to find other reasons that may not be so apparent.  The polarization that we are experiencing causes us to not be able to discuss the very things that are causing this polarization.

Could the polarization be caused by the issues and the respective positions that have been taken due to peoples trying to hold onto to what they think they know, while other forces are impacting this shifting mood?  
 
Unfortunately, when a person is afraid of change, the person works to rationalize the reason for their beliefs and when reason does not work, the position must get more extreme.  This pushes any person trying to hold onto what is familiar and comfortable to them, towards the edge-of-reason.  The edge-of-reason builds a fundamentalist’s approach to viewing their position, while clouding their ability to see through their extreme position to recognize an opportunity to collaborate.  I believe we will continue to see this polarization for the next couple of decades, due to a macro shift in the mood of the people.  
 
This is not a mood shift from conservative to liberal or from democracy to socialism, but a confluence of different evolutionary events in which we are the active participants and a driving force….even if we don’t know it or want to be.  There is an undercurrent of change that has already happened and will happen again.
 
Two of the thought processes are shared in this document.
 
 

********************

 
Historian Arthur Schlesinger attempted to identify these changes in the political landscape.  His cyclical theory explores a model that shows continual shifts by the populous on macro level nationally.  This shift is between public purpose and private interest.   “Each of these cycles includes a phase of dominant public interest, a transition phase, and a phase of prevalent private interest.”

The cycles (1)
Schlesinger defined these to be “self-generating and autonomous”. They begin in the mentality of the masses, rather than creations of influential individuals of a time period. Leaders or politicians are representations of the “mood”, chosen to express the voice of the majority. Shifts in the national mentality are initiated when discontent with present conditions over time drives Americans to pursue a new trend that promises to satisfy the interest of the masses. This discontent, described by Schlesinger as “inextinguishable”, drives the cycles of change in national politics.
Modernity is the psychology behind the disenchantment of the people with their surroundings. As society modernizes, or advances, the external conditions around each individual evolves, therefore stimulating changes in the individual’s attitude. Over a period of time, the attitude towards society and its goals will become negative, and whichever stage (public purpose/private interest), will cease to be ideal. Studies and surveys show that in the 20th century, this critical time period to develop discontent has decreased, implying that people are quickly dissatisfied with the ever-changing society.

Shifts are produced by changes in the mood of the majority. When more and more people shift from one end of the “balance” to the other, the balance itself begins to tilt to the other side. However, the change in mood must be reflected in a diversity of ethnic backgrounds and social classes to take effect. The cycle is not a permanent transition. Periods of stability in each stage of the cycle (public purpose/private interest), Schlesinger presents the concept the “accumulation of change”. He stated that when certain changes near the end of a phase take effect, they become permanent, and are unaffected by later “swings of the pendulum”. Therefore, the proper way to model the cycles of American History is by using a spiral, or single helix.

Private interest
This value systems stresses on a non-interventionist government, especially in its economy. Resulting from the 18th century fears of tyranny and a strong federal power, the free society is where an individual controls his own actions. The government’s only functions are to maintain order and structure. The values of Private Interest bear strong resemblance to Adam Smith’s theories of the laissez-faire economy (free market) and also the invisible hand. Smith proposed that the collective result of individuals with a variety of purposes is an economy that will profit the entire society.

Ideally in a Private Interest system, government must respect the “sanctity of private property”. This means that individuals have the freedom to pursue their own interests, but also bear the responsibility for success or failure. One of the possible disadvantages of such Social Darwinism is that the wealthy rise to the top, leaving the poor to fend for themselves. Another problem that may be present is political corruption. Overall, “survival of the fittest” may lead to “concentration of power”, “evangelicalism”, and “limited citizenship”. In connection to history, periods of Private Interest are often associated with times of economic prosperity.

Public purpose
The values of Public Purpose assess the reality, often the consequences of a certain revolution. In times of complex social relations and economic and political confusion, the need for equality and opportunity arises. Due to certain, recurring causes in history such as division in wealth and social class distinctions, the majority begins to question the meaning of “liberalism”.

Schlesinger explains that in “modern liberalism”, the government must intervene to ensure the protection of the common good. The concerns with “social responsibility” and “commonwealth” often involve the regulation and control of the government. Compared to the stages of Private Interest, times of Public Purpose are usually ephemeral “bursts of reform”. The idealistic goals of this period are only to ensure that government intervention is possible in times of need.
The ideals of Public Purpose might include a redistribution of wealth and power and the protection of civil rights.

Transition
These periods occur as the masses change its “mood”. Results are often increased tension and division. From Public Purpose to Private Interest, the transition involves tensions, violence, and even war, due to the exhaustion from reformation.
In the transition from Private Interest to Public Purpose, the people may suffer economic depression caused by divisions of wealth and power, leading to a renewed cause for social reform.

(1)  Courtesy of Wikipedia

 

I believe we are witnessing these changes.  The shift in mood is more about the evolution of mindset due to some spiritual discontentment that can’t really be identified, but simply it is time to do something else.   This discontent may have come from a “goulash” of events:  the tech bubble bursting, 9/11, perpetual middle-eastern conflict, ENRON, business litigation environment, housing market, banking crisis, global economy….who knows.  But I do think our re-elected President is not the leader of the movement, but a reflection of a changing mood.  Being in the right place at the right time can indicate luck more than anything else.   History may be able to tell us when this discontentment started but I feel certain it was long before 2012.
 

Religion and Government…..a conflict of interests

I wanted to share something with all of you. The idea is really important so stick with me while I speculate as to how the government may impact the mission of the church.

Of course we would all like to believe that giving from the heart is above all this government stuff...but it's not....here is why. Think about what has happened in the world of Christianity over the last couple of decades.

Could there be a direct correlation between the increasing size of government and the decline of church going people?

As more and more resources of this country’s population are consumed by the government to support too many people that otherwise could be self-sufficient….these consumers of government money no longer need to rely on their community for support. They don't need the support of their church family.

These “consumers” begin to become dependent on a faithless god called government. These "consumers" become institutionalized into a system that requires more resources to run....These “consumers” develop an expectation take over their life and then they teach their children how to be a "consumer" of government.

Since 1990 regular church attendance has declined while the population of country has increased dramatically.  According the Schaeffer Institute:

· Every year, 2.7 million church members fall into inactivity. This translates into the realization that people are leaving the church.

· From 1990 to 2000, the combined membership of all Protestant denominations in the USA declined by almost 5 million members (9.5 percent), while the US population increased by 24 million (11 percent).

The Hartford Institute for Religion Research report on the "Largest 25 Denominations/Communions from the 2012 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches" reflect the following number: Total church membership reported in the 2012 Yearbook is 145,691,446 members, down 1.15 percent over 2011.

Below is the top 10 by numbers:

1. The Catholic Church 68,202,492, [ranked 1 in 2011], down 0.44 percent.

2. Southern Baptist Convention 16,136,044, [ranked 2 in 2011], down 0.15 percent.

3. The United Methodist Church 7,679,850, [ranked 3 in 2011], down 1.22 percent.

4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 6,157,238, [ranked 4 in 2011], up 1.62 percent.

5. The Church of God in Christ 5,499,875, [ranked 5 in 2011] , no update reported.

6. National Baptist Convention, U.S.A. , Inc. 5,197,512, [ranked 6 in 2011], up 3.95 percent.

7. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 4,274,855, [ranked 7 in 2011], down 5.90 percent.

8. National Baptist Convention of America, Inc. 3,500,000, [ranked 8 in 2011], no update reported.

9. Assemblies of God 3,030,944, [ranked 9 in 2011], up 3.99 percent.

10. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 2,675,873, [ranked 10 in 2011], down 3.42 percent.

On the other side of this complex equation are the people that have supported the bigger church and have also supported numerous societal healing causes.  These can include food pantries, Habitat, mission trips etc etc.  So, could these people (we) begin to wonder why the producers must work to support the “consumers”. 

·       How is someone supposed to prioritize their giving, love and support? 

·       Is my effort really helping to satisfy the mission of the bigger church?

If the government has made the decision for me, as to whom I must support, through ever increasing size of government programs and various social welfare programs, does that become my 10% tithe to the church?

A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report in April 2012 said spending on food stamps from 2000 to 2011 went from $18 billion to $78 billion.

Why the US has a culture of dependency

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/opinion/spalding-welfare-state-dependency/index.html

statisticbrain.com Welfare Statistics       

Total number of Americans on welfare                                   4,300,000

Total number of Americans on food stamps                           46,700,000

Total number of Americans on unemployment insurance          5,600,000

Percent of the US population on welfare                                4.1 %

Swelling the welfare rolls......

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/23/swelling-welfare-rolls-are-a-sure-sign-that-recovery-never-happened.html

Is there a real correlation between the size of government, growth of the welfare state and the decline of regular church goers?  More research is required to be certain.

But we are deciding how we will spend our money.  Aren't we?

Polarization and Neighbors

Polarization and Neighbors Part 1
What ever happened to the ability to share thoughts around the neighborhood?  Not too long ago we would gather into groups of similarly situated peoples….extended family, church, block parties….to share food, discuss football, gossip a little about sexy woman down the street, lie about your golf game and share your opinion about the state of the country.  But now, it seems very difficult to have meaningful conversation about differing opinions, all of them should matter to everyone.  We can hear the unspoken communication of “don’t talk politics” .  “Don’t talk about……”…..

• Immigration
• Abortion
• Mandated birth control
• Family planning
• Gay marriage
• Muslims
• Christianity
• Corrupt government leaders
• President Obama’s background
• Professional welfare takers

These subjects should be discussed with great candor among people who care for one another with a desire to understand and learn.  But these same subjects create so much emotion that it seems impossible to get through the rhetoric and get to facts about the issues.
Our society has become infected by this idea of polarization in which the most extreme person/idea wins.  Have we lost a sense of cooperation or collaboration through which we can move our society forward?  In my next post, I will begin to speculate on why this is happening.

Polarization and Neighbors

Polarization and Neighbors - Part 2

So why is there such polarization?  Has our ability to accept another person life view been completed eroded?  This polarization challenge can be seen in every corner of our life…..but why is it accepted as the norm?

A sense of competition is built into our DNA, as the survival of the fittest.  The instinct for survival is strengthened by our society early in our childhood years.  Can we get our child into the best pre-school?  All this is done in the name of creating the greatest opportunity for our child.  The dream of all parents is to help their child be happy, successful and safe, while being protected from the pain of life.  And if we start early enough, “my” child will have a better chance than another child. Right?  Isn’t that the thinking?

The next phase of a win/lose development takes place in school.  There is nonsensical competition among the “grade getters” for tenths of percentage points of GPA for bragging rights. 

We see bumper stickers that say “My child is an Honor Student at______”.   These life messages begin to permeate our collective thought process until we think it is normal.

We are surrounded by Win/Lose examples of life.  I am not talking about the natural events that occur as we move through our teenage years into adulthood.  But the staged events in which artificial competition celebrate the winner….be the winner at all cost! 

There are hundreds of electronic games that allow for perpetual devastation of a fictional enemy simply in order to “win”.  Win what? 

Reality TV might be the most egregious example of this life approach.  Strangers move to an island or into a big house with the intent that only one person remains standing at the end of the game….the Winner!  However, the winner has, most of the time, needed to plot against the group, lie, manipulate or cheat to become the winner.  Is this the type of behavior that we celebrate?

This is being accepted as the norm in all walks of life.  Conflict, in which winning is the only acceptable outcome, allows for very little room for any compromise, rule of common sense or making decisions for the greater good. 

We see this bad behavior being celebrated in our national and world leaders through posturing to win, rather than seeking understanding or get something done. 

We see it within Christian circles where a social justice mentality has replaced the Gospel and therefore the thoughts of man are determinative. 

We see it in medical circles, where the company that finds the next big pill wins the financial game, so there is little collaboration in finding cure, which dramatically increases cost.

Radio shock jocks politicize every word spoken, rather than seeking to understand the intent of comments.

If we can polarize a position….someone must be the loser.  It seems now that we must create losers, in order to be a winner! 

   

The costs of health services regulation outweigh benefits by two-to-one and cost the average household over $1,500 per year…

The Cost of Regulation

It has been estimated that the Obama administration is on track to implement over 3800 new regulations this year.  Business owners and managers can’t even begin to understand the impact of laws we don’t know about.  This all feels like the magician’s trick – watch this hand, while the other hand takes your wallet!  PPACA is ready to make a huge impact on our collective business system, and while we watch American politics degenerate into TV sound bites, more and more magical regulations keep appearing. 

The challenges for small and medium sized business seem overwhelming at times.  For the longest time the cost of government regulation were hidden costs of doing business.  Costs were only identified in terms of hard dollars directly related to some operational or physical plant change.  The impact of OSHA compliance on the work place was easy to see.  There would be a physical change to the structure, personal protective equipment, training expense – these were items we could clearly see on the P & L. 

But now a much more insidious cost has penetrated our collective balance sheets and latched on to the blood stream of entrepreneurial and corporate America.  Over reaching and uninformed regulators have taken a one-size fits all approach to their thinking.  Now – keep in mind – legislators and regulators are people that do not have to live with the rules they pass.  For example:

1.  Congress and Senate do not participate in Social Security.

2.  Government employees are allowed to have “comp” time where they can trade over-   time hours for paid time off (for-profit business cannot do this).

3.   Reduction in agency operating budgets have turned protection agencies into revenue enhancement agencies needed for their own survival.

4.   Agencies like EBSA and OSHA are graded and evaluate on how much financial penalty is assessed against free-market businesses.

5.   Pension plans and health benefits for life are passed by the same legislators that determine how much tax we pay.

6.   New regulatory agendas that target small and medium sized businesses.

You get the idea!

Only now are we beginning to understand the real cost of government regulation and how this insidious penetrator is manifesting inside our health care delivery system and dramatically impacting the cost.

The outcome for all federal regulations and all business sectors is that regulations cost small firms an estimated $7,647 per employee annually.  Regulations cost medium-sized firms $5,411 per employee and large firms $5,282 per employee. Overall, the cost per employee is 41 percent higher in small compared with medium-sized firms and 45 percent higher in small than in large firms.#2 

Health insurance is on everyone top-ten list. What was the cost of health care regulation before PPACA?

…..

Unfortunately, a lot of this information regarding the cost of regulation seems to be available, but in no way connected so as to get an understanding of the real cost to the consumer.  Therefore, one is required to sort through all the various data points to find something that is not politically motivated or biased from the source provider.  Therefore, we read and study to help sort this out for our clients.

The various sources are given credit for the data, but we get the credit or blame for the speculation and trying to show the connectivity of the information. 

“All told, cost-related insurance regulations provide a net cost of $10.7 billion. It should be noted that to represent the burden of health services regulation accurately, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act is excluded.

ERISA allows companies that are self-insured for health coverage to be excluded from a number of regulations.  ERISA laws produce a $46 billion net benefit from blocking the costs that state regulations (state benefit mandates, premium taxes, etc.) would otherwise impose on these insurance plans if they were covered through a traditional carrier.  Currently, it is estimated that self-funded employer health plans cover over 120 million Americans.

Since those would-be costs are not entered on the cost side to include the benefits ERISA provides, by blocking them effectively would credit ERISA with creating $46 billion in benefits when in fact the law merely returns these health plans to a pre-regulation status quo ante" #3 

And for the final blow to our regulator mindset, The Institute of Medicine, Care without Coverage, has estimated that 18,000 uninsured Americans die every year due to lack of coverage.  In other words, over 4,000 more Americans die every year from health services regulation than die due to a lack of health insurance.  This is information from a historical perspective prior to PPACA (Healthcare Deformity) legislation. 

The winds of political change are blowing, but yet we don’t know if the wind will bring life giving rain or a flood of biblical proportion.  Let’s hope for a gentle rain.

#1  The U.S. Census Bureau reports a total 109,297,000 family and nonfamily households in

2002. U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Table HH-1. Households, by Type: 1940 to Present,” http://

www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam /tabHH-1.pdf, June 12, 2003, p. 1.

#2 The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms, by W. Mark Crain, Lafayette College, Easton, PASBA Office of Advocacy Sept 2005

#3  Health Care Regulation, A $169 Billion Hidden Tax, Christopher J. Conover 2004