This is ground control, do you read me?

GREENSBORO, NC -- Dr. Joe Guarino writes a post in response to mine last week about the false comparisons of the Veteran's Administration to Obamacare; or should I say, he pastes another writer's thoughts. His title: Why the VA Scandal is Extremely Relevant to Obamacare.

It's flawed right from the get-go. Rather than tackle the facts on their face, rather than make an argument from reality, Guarino's writer requires a heavy dose of paranoia first:

"Americans need to take a close look at the VA—and not only because of their concern about poor treatment of our wounded warriors. It is the prototype for Obamacare. The intent behind Obamacare is to completely centralize control over health care, and thus turn American health care into one huge Veterans’ Administration." [emphasis added]

Actually, the prototype for Obamacare was Republican Mitt Romney's health care plan from Massachusetts, itself a product, in part, of the conservative Heritage Foundation. But while the Heritage Foundation praised the individual mandate and subsidies of RomneyCare, when the same policies are implemented under Obama, well, then it's all just part of the real intent for the guvmint to own all health care facilities and have all health care providers on its payroll. Got that? Good, then you are all set to swallow Guarino's "extremely relevant" comparison of the VA to Obamacare.

On the other hand, here's what a comparison of the two looks like when tethered to the facts as they exist and not from orbit in the paranoiasphere. From Sam Baker at the National Journal:

"If you want to argue that the VA's problems are a sign of what happens under true government control of a health care system, well, there's an argument to be made there. Some of the problems at the VA—namely, long waits to see certain doctors—are similar to the biggest complaints about other socialized or quasi-socialized health care systems, including the UK's.

"And the VA is about as socialized as it gets: The federal government owns the hospitals, employs the doctors who work in those hospitals, and finances the coverage that veterans use to get care.

"Obamacare, though, is not socialized medicine. It's not a government takeover of the health care system. Sure, people call it that, and in comparison with charges like "death panels," those characterizations don't sound so off-the-reservation. But they're still wrong.

"Most people accessing the health care system through Obamacare will do so by purchasing private insurance through the law's exchanges. The federal government regulates those insurance policies and requires them to cover certain services. The vast majority of exchange customers also receive subsidies, funded by the government in the form of tax credits, to help pay for their premiums. So it's not like the government isn't involved at all.

"But, unlike with the VA, no one on the exchanges is buying insurance from the government; it's all private coverage. The government doesn't decide how much that coverage costs. It doesn't employ doctors, or decide how much they'll get paid, or require them to accept any of the insurance plans sold through the exchanges. "Obamacare" is not a health care system. The VA is."

Dr. Wolicki's deep thoughts

GREENSBORO, NC -- Greensboro physician Karol Wolicki (an ear, nose and throat man) writes a letter to the News & Record today. Here it is in its entirety:

"The parallels are obvious. Any discussion of the comparison is thus far conspicuously absent. If you like the way the government administers health care to our veterans, you'll love Obamacare!"

Maybe the exclamation point is meant to head off any further consideration of his opinion, but I don't find his parallels "obvious" at all.

The VA is a cabinet level veterans benefit system, Obamacare is a series of laws passed by congress that mandate private insurance coverage for use among private health care providers and which helps pay for that private insurance with sliding scale subsidies.

Obvious? I think what's obvious is that Dr. Wolicki, who himself received over $30,000 in public payments last year through government administered Medicare, has something against Obamacare he is unable to articulate cogently.

Campaign reports shed light on Matheny's nonsensical Obamacare objection

GREENSBORO, NC -- Last week I wondered why my Greensboro City Council district representative and congressional candidate Zack Matheny, in explaining his opposition to Obamacare, touted medical testing company LabCorp as a good example of keeping government out of health care delivery, even though, as it turns out, LabCorp is the single largest recipient of Medicare funds in the state, getting some $157 million in government payments in 2012.

Why would Zack have explained his position on government involvement in health care by offering an example that so contradicts his position?

I think I know the answer now. From Matheny's campaign finance report's list of contributors:

$5,000 from LabCorp's political action committee, the maximum legally allowed.

News & Record's irresponsible dissemination of outright falsehoods

GREENSBORO, NC -- What responsibility does the News & Record have to its readers to see to it that outright falsehoods are not disseminated on its pages? Apparently, none.

While people are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts, but not so on the opinion pages of the News & Record where the editors don't concern themselves with factual accuracy; case in point, a letter to the editor today from one Ned van Buren, in which he writes:

"Buried in the Affordable Care Act are what the Economist magazine (Oct. 5, 2013) describes as death panels designed to “unplug Grandma.” Section 1553 of Public Law 111-148, page 259, tells how the risk of death increases by withholding treatment, but not for the purpose of causing death." 

The claims of fact presented by Mr. Van Buren here are false. The News & Record printed them anyway.

Did the Economist magazine describe death panels "buried in the Affordable Care Act?" No, it did not and it would have been an easy thing, as it was for me, for the News & Record to check, find Van Buren's statement false, and invite him to resubmit his letter without the falsehood. 

What the Economist described, in an article about "Ted Cruz, bomb throwing reactionary," were the fears of some people that the Affordable Care Act would result in "death panels," the scare quotes are theirs. The Economist did not describe such a thing as being in the Affordable Care Act, as Van Buren wrote, it described a fear of such a thing existing in the minds of people: Not in the law, but in some people's minds. Furthermore the term itself—"death panels"—was put in quotes by the magazine to identify it as a catachresis—a strained metaphor—not the Economist's description. Here, read it for yourself:

"Obamacare seeks to insure millions more Americans and rein in sky-high medical costs. Lots of insiders suspect that change will hurt them, whether via higher premiums, skimpier coverage or government 'death panels' with the power to unplug Grandma." 

What about the second part of Van Buren's claim, the confused but seemingly ominous observation that a provision in the Affordable Care Act provides for withholding treatment? Again, the News & Record could have, should have—as I did in two minutes—checked Van Buren's citation to see if it says what he says it does. It does not.

The provision Van Buren "describes," right down to the page number, deals with assisted suicide, specifically PROHIBITING the denial of health care funds to health care providers that DO NOT offer suicide assistance. In other words, it demands the exact opposite of what Mr. Van Buren seems to think it says. It mandates that insurance MAY NOT require services "for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing."

From his woefully wrong "facts," it is a short hop for Van Buren to come to his Nazi comparison—fully accommodated by the News & Record.

This should not happen. If the News & Record is going to allow just any claim, no mater how wrong, to appear on its pages, it could save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year by dismissing its editorial staff and just allowing people to post to its Op-Ed pages directly from the internet. Presumably, the News & Record employs editors to add value superior to the cacophony of bull crap that abounds on social media. That value should begin with filtering for blatant falsehoods.

Matheny's rationale for Obamacre objection subverted

GREENSBORO, NC -- I recently noted that my district city council representative Zack Matheny, who is also running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, is no longer saying on his campaign website that Obamacare should be repealed, as he had in January.

He continues to call it "bad policy" and claims that it "hurts far more people than it helps," but gone is the call for its repeal. Here is how he explains his view now, emphasis added:

"'Obamacare' is a bad policy that hurts far more people than it helps and represents the much bigger problem of overregulation and government intrusion into the lives of US citizens. Companies right here in the 6th district like LabCorp have shown that we can deliver health care services in a cost-efficient manner without getting in-between (sic) you and your doctor."

Aside from the fact that Obamacare is primarily just a means to enroll more people in private health insurance—hardly the "gov'ment" getting between you and your doctor— the News & Record revealed today that LabCorp is the largest single recipient of Medicare payments in the state of North Carolina.

That's right, Zack's example of an alternative to Obamacre thrives because it receives more Medicare payments from the government than any other doctor, practice, hospital or health care provider in the state.

I guess Zack didn't look into that.

Where does Zack Matheny stand on Obamacare?

GREENSBORO, NC -- Greensboro city council representative and sixth district congressional candidate Zack Matheny appears to have shifted his position on Obamacare. In January of this year, he wanted to repeal it. He said on his website then, in no uncertain terms:

"Congress must repeal Obamacare."

Matheny's campaign website, January 9, 2014

Yesterday, the Rand Corporation announced these results of their study of the effects of Obamacare:

"At least 9.3 million more Americans have health insurance now than in September 2013, virtually all of them as a result of the law."

That prompted me, an unaffiliated voter in Matheny's council district and the sixth congressional district, to email Matheny a link to the Rand study and ask why he opposes the law and if his opposition isn't just pandering. (His campaign rhetoric is a departure from from the moderate he appeared to be while serving on city council, so it's hard to know if we are seeing the real Matheny now or if he's just trying to push the right buttons to improve his chances in the Republican primary.)

I also revisited his website and found he has changed his language on Obamacre. He now says this:

"'Obamacare' is a bad policy that hurts far more people than it helps and represents the much bigger problem of overregulation and government intrusion into the lives of US citizens. Companies right here in the 6th district like LabCorp have shown that we can deliver health care services in a cost-efficient manner without getting in-between (sic) you and your doctor. Let’s go back to the adage that government works best when it governs least." 

Aside from the question of just how LabCorp, a medical testing lab, is an example of whatever it is Matheny has in mind for health care, gone is the previous specific language about repealing Obamacare. There is no longer any mention of repeal on his website.

I haven't heard back from Matheny yet, and will post his reply if I do.

Five years without a cigarette

It was five years ago yesterday that I quit smoking for good. I haven't had a single cigarette or cigar, not a puff, since. I'm done. I'm sure.

If you are a smoker, here's some friendly advice.

1. Don't give up. I went through periods of "light" smoking and heavier smoking and always thought to myself, "I can quit when I'm ready." I even quit for as much as a couple of years at a time. Even though I would start again, I kept making efforts to quit and I eventually won. Don't resign yourself to being a smoker just because your attempts to quit thus far haven't lasted, if you keep trying, you'll eventually win too.

2. Try anything, try everything. My eventual permanent success came about through the use of the prescription drug Chantix. It worked like a charm for me. No side effects -- no effects at all except that, after a little while, I simply did not desire a cigarette. It kept the desire at bay long enough for me to physically and mentally free myself from my need for cigarettes. There is plenty of good advice out there for techniques and steps that can increase your chances of successfully quitting. Don't be afraid to try them, even if you have before or even if they seem foreign to you.

3. Believe in your unseen reward. If you smoke, you are oblivious to just how much better your body and mind can feel without cigarettes. Trust me on this. One thing I can guarantee you is that, if you quit, you will reap an eventual but obvious improvement in your sense of wellbeing. "Healthy" will manifest itself in a physical way with you that you will feel viscerally. You can only appreciate how vastly superior this condition is to that while you were a smoker by experiencing it, but it's real, substantial and very positive. This is not to say that you may not have some significant, maybe even tortuous suffering as you try to quit, but that will go away if you can outlast it and your rewards are some very good feelings you cannot even imagine yet, but they are there, waiting for you.

Privatization of Guilford health services cuts availability of psychiatric medications

GREENSBORO, NC -- From Michele Forrest in the comments at Ed Cone's blog:

"Monarch, which contracted with Sandhills to provide mental health services in Greensboro, is not offering financial assistance with psych meds. Previously, Guilford Center offered meds at lower prices and provided free meds for homeless people (and maybe others, as well -- it was based on income).

Our StreetWatch team is finding that some homeless people are now going without medicine for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD, depression and other mental illnesses that can result in them harming themselves or others, and/or engaging in other criminal behavior. This is a serious problem. From a cost/benefit perspective, it's less expensive to subsidize meds than to pay for jail beds. And it's inhumane to allow mentally ill people to suffer because they're poor."

Are our County Commissioners going to wait until someone goes off and hurts somebody before addressing this problem? Probably. 

UPDATE: News & Record's Joe Killian reports, Jail trying to cope with mentally ill

Four years without a cigarette

I quit smoking four years ago today; not a single cigarette or puff since then -- haven't wanted one. I quit using Chantix, obviously it was quite effective. If you are thinking about trying it and have any questions, use the comments here or email me.

Good news in Guilford College student health insurance rate increase

(GREENSBORO, NC) Local bloggers Doug Clark and Sam Hieb have taken notice of Guilford College's increase in student health insurance rates, an increase Greg Bursavich, Vice President for Finance at the college explained:

“It is directly related – it is only related – to the new healthcare law,” said Bursavich. “There is no reason why it has gone up except the requirements of the new law have forced it to go up. That is the whole story.”

As Mr. Bursavich wrote in his letter to students announcing the increase, the new health insurance policies will indeed expand coverage to conform to the requirements of the Affordable Care Act—requirements such as no co-pays or deductibles for preventative care, no caps on essential services and a doubling of maximum coverage for other treatments.

The Act also mandates that insurance companies allow students to stay on their parents' health insurance through age 26, although Bursavich doesn't mention that in his letter.

Bursavich's explanation that the new health care law is the only reason for the increase—that it is the "whole story"—is remarkable when considered in the historical context of student health care insurance costs at Guilford College which have averaged a 42 percent yearly increase since the 2007/2008 academic year*.

If Mr. Bursovich is correct, that there is "no reason" rates have gone up except for the expanded coverage of the new health care law, that means the causes for the previous increases averaging 42 percent have been vanquished. Good news indeed.

(* Historical rates for student health insurance at Guilford College gathered from archived pages of the College's website: 2007/2008, 2008/2009, 2009/2010, 2010/2011.)