What Healthcare Reform REALLY Does For Us

In an historic vote late Saturday evening, the US House passed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on a mostly party line vote of 219-212. The Act will be made into law (the bill passed by the US Senate 60-39) upon signature by President Obama. On Tuesday, March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the bill into law in a ceremony attended by members of Congress, the US Senate, staff and an 11-year old advocate of healthcare reform who had lost his mother to cancer. There’s been a lot of confusion and misinformation spread about the bill as to what it contains and when certain aspects of the legislation go into effect. The terms of the new law were discussed in impressive clarity by Rachel Maddow and Barney Frank. See also, this article from the New York Times. As of March 23, 2010, consumers will be entitled to the following: - Tax credits go to small businesses for buying health insurance for their employees, and; - The so-called “doughnut hole” for seniors under Medicare Part D (drug) coverage is going; if you’ve reached the total for 2009, you will be immediately sent a rebate check of $250.00, and; - Pre-existing conditions will no longer be allowed for denials of health insurance coverage on new policies issued, and; - States will be required to maintain their existing Medicaid and children’s health insurance coverage based on policies currently in effect. While states can expand their programs, they are not allowed to cut back on eligibility and are not allowed to put in place any paperwork requirements that would make it harder for people to sign up for coverage, and; Freestanding birth centers” are now eligible for Medicaid payments, and; - Another provision that appears to take effect right away is an expansion of Medicare to cover certain victims of “environmental health hazards,” which was aimed specifically at the town of Libby, Mont. - A requirement that the secretary of health and human services establish criteria “for determining whether health insurance issuers and employment-based health plans have discouraged an individual from remaining enrolled in prior coverage based on that individual’s health status.” On April 23, 2010, - The secretary of health and human services must post on the Internet “a list of the authorities provided to the secretary under this act.” In June, 2010, - High Risk Insurance pools open to cover those with any pre-existing conditions (June 1, 2010),; and - The Secretary of HHS must “develop a standardized format to be used for the presentation of information relating to coverage” — so that consumers have a more understandable way of comparing health benefits — like medical, surgical, hospital and prescription drug coverage — offered by private insurers (June 23, 2010). On September 23, 2010, - Children may not be excluded from any coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and; - Insurers will not be allowed to deny coverage because you get sick (so called “rescissions”), and; - No more lifetime limits on coverage or benefits allowed, and; - Children are covered under your policy, if you want, until age 26. [more . . . ]

Continue ReadingWhat Healthcare Reform REALLY Does For Us

We need to create a new word.

I'm looking for a word, but I don't think any existing word has the meaning I'm looking to express. Hence, I believe that we need to create a new word. There isn’t any rule that we can’t create new words, of course. It's done all the time (Shakespeare did far more than his share). The way to create a neologism is simply to announce it and then hope it goes viral. The concept I would like to express is not simple—it is a compound somewhat-conflicting concept. Of course, individual words can richly express compound ideas. Take, for instance, the Chinese word for “crisis,” which is often thought to consist of two characters that stand for danger and opportunity (though I’ve recently learned that this delightful story seems to be a myth). Or consider the German word “schadenfreude,” which in pop culture means “'shameful joy', or taking pleasure in the suffering of others. But I digress. We need a new word for the following concept:

Short-sighted dangerous action motivated by instinctual kindness.

I saw this situation in action two days ago, while I was driving the green car northbound on a four-lane road (see the image below). The pink truck had come to a stop ahead of me and to my right, in front of a hotel. As I found out (suddenly) the truck had stopped to allow the yellow car make a left turn out of the hotel driveway to go southbound. well-meaning-and-dangerous The yellow car popped right out in front of me and I had to slam on my brakes (no collision resulted). This is a stunt that you see every so often—a tall stopped vehicle waving the shorter vehicle to blindly drive out into traffic on road having more than two lanes. I have worked as an attorney on a couple traffic cases like this. In one case of those cases, a well-intentioned driver slowed down on a road with two lanes in each direction (failed to take the right of way) in order to wave a child across the street in front of him. He did it out of kindness. The child was killed by a car that didn't see child until the child stepped out into the second lane of traffic. Regarding my traffic incident two days ago, the truck should have taken its right-of-way thereby allowing the yellow car to fend for itself. Doing this would have seemed less considerate, of course, but it would certainly have been a better option than the short-sighted dangerous action that the truck driver took. Therefore, if you are reading this, let me know whether you have any ideas for a new word to capture all of these ideas: Short-sighted dangerous action motivated by instinctual kindness. Or let me know if there is an existing word that has this meaning. Once we lock onto a word with this meaning, I’ll use it every day, I assure you. It would have applications in situations too numerous to fathom, most of them having nothing to do with traffic. It might become my second-favorite word of all time (the first is “paltering”).

Continue ReadingWe need to create a new word.

What Republicans believe

A new Harris poll reports what our non-evidence-based-Republican-brethren tend to believe. At The Daily Beast, John Avlon reports:

57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president" 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did" Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."
Avlon refers to these poll results as evidence of "'Obama Derangement Syndrome'—pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism."

Continue ReadingWhat Republicans believe