<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: government health insurance</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'government health insurance'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22government+health+insurance%22&t=%22government+health+insurance%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:43:27 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Monday Links</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4642573&amp;cid=t_274636_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FXIXBF963LZE%2F</link>
            <description>By George Scoville
A year later, Obamacare makes Pennsylvanians say &quot;no thank you.&quot;
In a peculiar set of responses to inquiries about Libya, the Obama administration makes &quot;kinetic military action&quot; against the English language.
Full or substantial government health insurance makes for an inefficient and expensive health care system.
Emotionalism as democratic waves spread across the Middle East makes incoherent foreign policy.
As long as big ticket items continue to make the cut, our fiscal house will remain in disarray.
If you didn't get a chance to celebrate Earth Hour Cato-style over the weekend, check out this clip of senior fellow Jerry Taylor making the case against &quot;green&quot; subsidies:



Monday Links is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4642573</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:26:16 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4642573</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Accountable Care Act Unconstitutional? The Fate Of Americans’ Health</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4433102&amp;cid=t_274636_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Faccountable-care-act-unconstitutional-the-fate-of-americans-health%2F2011.02.03</link>
            <description>A Florida’s judge’s ruling that the Accountable Care Act (ACA) is unconstitutional doesn’t resolve the underlying constitutional issue (which will ultimately have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court) but it has introduced new uncertainty for the $2.3 trillion health care industry, and emboldened the law’s critics to push even harder for repeal (not that they weren’t trying already).
The Wall Street Journal’s (WSJ) health blog reports that “states and companies that are supposed to be implementing the law trying to figure out what to do next. The WSJ reports that the 26 states that are parties to the suit are considering whether to ask the Supreme Court to take up the case now, before it has fully wended its way through the legal system. The New York Times (NYT) quotes the...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4433102</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 20:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4433102</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ObamaCare Comes Up against the Constitution</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4258844&amp;cid=t_274636_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fsu578fBkHkA%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonToday POLITICO Arena askes:
How badly does today&amp;#8217;s ObamaCare ruling set back the Democrat&amp;#8217;s signature domestic achievement? Should Tenth Amendment enthusiasts take heart that other federal laws with which state officials disagree can be struck down?
My response:
A quick reading of Judge Henry Hudson&amp;#8217;s opinion today striking the &amp;#8220;individual mandate&amp;#8221; provision of ObamaCare gives hope to those of us who have long urged, more broadly, for a restoration of limited constitutional government. As Judge Hudson put in granting summary judgment to Virginia, &amp;#8220;the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds.&amp;#8221;
The administration had argued that Congress had authority to enact and enforce the individual mandate to buy healt...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4258844</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:47:23 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4258844</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How Bad The Government Is At Selling Insurance (Or Is It?)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4183296&amp;cid=t_274636_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fhow-bad-the-government-is-at-selling-insurance-or-is-it%2F2010.11.19</link>
            <description>Did you know there is actually a “public option” in the health care reform law?  It’s true &amp;#8212; it’s called the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP), and it’s designed to cover people who who have been unable to get insurance because of a pre-existing condition. To hear the stories about how big of a problem this is in America, you’d think a product like this would be a big hit. Except it’s been a big flop.
How big of a flop? Well, according to the Washington Post, they missed their sales targets by 98 percent:
Government economists had projected that people turned down by private insurers would flock to the new Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, with 375,000 expected to sign up this year. But as of this week, a little more than 8,000 had enrolled, officials...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4183296</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:00:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4183296</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Health Reform Updates and Resources</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3721762&amp;cid=t_274636_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hhs.gov%2Fnews%2Freports%2Fnationalprevention2010report.pdf</link>
            <description>By Robin Strongin. No such thing as a summer vacation for those Inside the Beltway tasked with implementing and explaining health reform.
In case you were looking for some summer-time reading, the new insurance portal, http://www.healthcare.gov/ just launched (a few hours ahead of its July 1 deadline).  You can work your way through 500 pages of content and state-by-state listings of more than 5,500 open health insurance products.
And if that’s not enough to quench your health reform thirst, The new National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council, created by the Affordable Care Act, submitted its first status report to Congress on July 1.
Chaired by Surgeon General Regina Benjamin and composed of senior government officials across federal departments and agencies, the Co...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3721762</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:25:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3721762</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Healthcare Reform: Motivating Self-Responsibility In Patients</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3641022&amp;cid=t_274636_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fhealthcare-reform-motivating-self-responsibility-in-patients%2F2010.06.07</link>
            <description>Last week I heard a lecture about Accountable Care Organizations by a physician leader working for one of the major hospital systems. His discussion made me realize that large physician organizations and hospitals are spending lots of time solving problems of quality medical care. In my opinion quality medical care has not been adequately defined.
A working definition right now is to decrease hospital stays, efficient medical care for a disease at lower cost, avoidance of medical errors in the hospital, and avoidance of hospital acquired infections. These are important goals. They must be attached to monetary incentives. Many of these problems can be solved now.
The solution demands the development of processes of care. An important question is how much money will process improvement save?...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3641022</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:00:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3641022</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What Do The Economist’s Bloggers Think a Free Market Is, Anyway?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3542577&amp;cid=t_274636_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FsszwWtaGPKk%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonA correspondent for The Economist, whose initials are M.S., posts this on the Democracy in America blog:
[T]he new health-care-reform law passed in March is an entirely private-insurer, free-market-based reform. If someone were to refer to it as a &amp;#8220;government takeover of the health-care sector&amp;#8221;, that person would hold a factually incorrect ideological belief.
I wonder what convinced M.S. that the new health care law is an entirely free-market-based reform.  Was it the expansion of the government&amp;#8217;s Medicaid program to another 16 million Americans?  Was it the 19-million-plus other Americans who will receive government subsidies to purchase private health insurance? Was it the new price controls that the law imposes on health insurance?  Or the price ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3542577</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 01:06:29 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3542577</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>‘Letting the Sick Die on the Street’</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2954493&amp;cid=t_274636_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F3_H-jg5GycA%2F</link>
            <description>Blogger Matt Yglesias has described my CNN op-ed on health care as follows:
Meanwhile, in Harvard economist and Cato Institute senior fellow Jeffrey Miron’s dystopia, if your parents wind up with no money through bad luck or poor decision-making and then you get sick you’ll just die on the street for lack of money.
Did I really say such an outrageous thing? Well, I did not use exactly those words (as Matt makes clear), but yes, that is the logical implication of my position.
And I stand by it. Here&amp;#8217;s why.
First, my assessment is that even with no government health insurance, hardly anyone would die on the street for lack of health care. The poor would use their income transfers to buy some health care or insurance. The poor would receive private charity. And health care would be ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2954493</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:33:24 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2954493</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Slipping Support for Government Health Insurance</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2930958&amp;cid=t_274636_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F1arJmRCyHwk%2F</link>
            <description>Here&amp;#8217;s a striking graphic of the results of continuing New York Times/CBS News polling on the question, &amp;#8220;Do you think the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, or isn&amp;#8217;t this the responsibility of the federal government?&amp;#8221;

Support for a government guarantee of health insurance starts dropping sharply as the country starts debating the topic. It&amp;#8217;s not clear from this graphic, provided by Gallup, but support is at 64 percent in June, 55 in July, and 51 in late September, well after the Long Hot August and just after President Obama&amp;#8217;s health care blitz that included his primetime speech to Congress and highly publicized rallies in Minnesota and Maryland. Note also that the question doesn&amp;#8217;t mention any downsides of th...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2930958</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:30:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2930958</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The President’s Health Care Tax</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2823955&amp;cid=t_274636_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F9d_QjFkWqlY%2F</link>
            <description>As Michael Cannon discussed in an earlier post, the White House is trying to claim that health care &amp;#8220;reform&amp;#8221; does not mean higher taxes. This is a two-pronged issue. First, there is a mandate to purchase health insurance. Second, there is a tax (the White House calls it a fee) on people who fail to purchase a policy.
The White House claims this mandate is akin to state-level requirements for the purchase of health insurance, and that the newly-insured people will be getting some value (a health insurance policy) in exchange for their money. These assertions are defensible, but that does not change the fact that a tax is being imposed.
It might be plausible to argue that the mandate is not a tax if the value of the insurance policy to the individual was equal to the cost. But ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2823955</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:45:48 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2823955</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Nobody Considers Health Insurance Mandates a Tax? Really??</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2820204&amp;cid=t_274636_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fu4DpfiwkIDU%2F</link>
            <description>As my colleague Jeffrey Miron noted earlier today, when grilled by George Stephanopolous on whether the so-called &amp;#8220;individual mandate&amp;#8221; is a tax increase, Obama replied, &amp;#8220;Nobody considers that a tax increase&amp;#8230;.You can&amp;#8217;t just make up that language and decide that that&amp;#8217;s called a tax increase&amp;#8230;My critics say everything is a tax increase.&amp;#8221;
Where do Obama&amp;#8217;s critics get these wacky ideas?  From a bunch of nobodies, that&amp;#8217;s who!
Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt, quoted by Larry Summers (1987):

[Just because] the fiscal flows triggered by mandate would not flow directly through the public budgets does not detract from the measure&amp;#8217;s status of a bona fide tax.

Economist Larry Summers, Obama&amp;#8217;s National Economic Council chair (1...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2820204</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:05:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2820204</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama’s Health Care Speech in Plain English</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2782010&amp;cid=t_274636_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fr1sh67TTEv4%2F</link>
            <description>Hell of a speech last night, eh?  Here are a few of my favorite gems.
Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.
Translation: I, Barack Obama, ignoring thousands of years of failed price-control schemes, will impose price controls on health insurance. I will force insurers to sell a $50k policies for $10k. What could go wrong? 
We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. 
True. And your employer mandate would kill hundreds of thousands of low-wage jobs that would never come back.
They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime.   We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses…. And i...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2782010</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:24:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2782010</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why a “Public Option” Is Hazardous to Your Health</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2645273&amp;cid=t_274636_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FEMa-TNTzYU4%2F</link>
            <description>President Obama and other leading Democrats have proposed creating a new government health insurance program as an &amp;#8220;option&amp;#8221; for Americans under the age of 65. In a new study, Cato scholar Michael F. Cannon shows that government programs cost more and deliver lower-quality care than private insurance. &amp;#8220;If Congress wants to make health care more efficient and increase competition in health insurance markets, there are far better options,&amp;#8221; argues Cannon.
Fannie Med? Why a &amp;quot;Public Option&amp;quot; Is Hazardous to Your Health, Cato Policy Analysis No. 642 (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2645273</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:18:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2645273</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How Many Uninsured? It Does Not Matter</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2510266&amp;cid=t_274636_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F1z8MuHzTAWI%2F</link>
            <description>Discussions like this one will be rehashed repeatedly during the coming health care debate, but they miss the crucial point: the U.S. should not expand government subsidy for health insurance whether the number of insured is 46 million or just 46.
The economics argument for subsidizing health insurance rests on the claim that private insurance markets do not provide fairly priced insurance. This is allegedly because insurers cannot distinguish the good health risks from the bad health risks and thus price insurance at a level only the bad risks are willing to pay.
This claim of “asymmetric information” is incredibly unpersuasive: absent regulation to the contrary, an insurance company can require any medical tests it wants and learn an insurance applicant’s health at least as well as...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2510266</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:12:39 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2510266</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>8 Autism Bills in California</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1352116&amp;cid=t_274636_133_f&amp;fid=35096&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.b5media.com%2F%7Er%2Fb5media%2FAutismVox%2F%7E3%2F264084021%2F</link>
            <description>I grew up in California and almost all of my family still lives there, and Jim and I have talked very seriously about possibly moving out west when Charlie is an adult. My dad has lived in Oakland for all but a few years of his life and has long said exasperated things about the city&amp;#8217;s politics and politicos (and don&amp;#8217;t get him started on Berkeley&amp;#8217;s). On hearing about a package of eight autism bills introduced by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, my dad (who is, by the way, a really really nice guy) said that he might have to change his mind about this particular politician. (Might.)
The April 3rd Sacramento Bee reports on the eight autism bills:

SB 527 directs California&amp;#8217;s Department of Developmental Services to establish a pilot project to find best ...</description>
            <author>Autism Vox</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1352116</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:42:15 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1352116</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

