The Senate Health Bill: Federal Micromanagement of Health Insurance

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) giant new health care bill contains the same provisions as the other House and Senate bills to establish Federal micromanagement of all private health insurance.
Like the others, the Reid bill would subject all private health insurance — whether purchased from an insurance company by employer groups or individuals, or provided through an employer or union self-insured plan — to detailed Federal regulation.
These so called “insurance reform” provisions amount to a de facto nationalization of health insurance and they would produce that effect regardless of whether or not Congress creates another, new government-run health insurance plan.
Benefit Control. Of particular concern to patients should be that the detailed benefits in their health insurance coverage will soon be determined by the Federal Department of Health and Human Services. Last week, Americans got a foretaste of what Federal health benefit regulation means when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendation for breast cancer screening (mammography) for women aged 40 to 50 from “B” (recommended) to “C” (not recommended).
Normally, such recommendations would not create controversy as, until now, they have been merely suggestions to guide providers and health plans in making their own decisions for their patients or members. But under the proposed legislation they would take on the force of law, since the legislation will require all plans — starting in 2011 in the Reid bill — to provide coverage (with no patient co-pays) for, “items or services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force.”
Thus, a decision by a, heretofore, obscure HHS Task Force to recommend a specific medical service would in the future carry the force of law, and would impose additional costs on insurers and employer health plans. Conversely, any decision by the Task Force to issue a “C” or “D” rating (not recommended) — as it did last week in the case of breast cancer screening — will be henceforth viewed by insurers and employers as a justification for discontinuing coverage.
Cost Impact. Over time the more specific HHS gets in its benefit requirements — driving up the cost of coverage — the greater the incentive will be for insurers and employers to control those escalating costs by not covering anything that they aren’t absolutely required to cover by federal law.
The eventual result will be that the only medical care paid for through private health insurance will be the specific, items and services required by federal regulations promulgated by HHS. At that point, Congress will have effectively nationalized the entire American health insurance system under the supervision of the Secretary of HHS — regardless of whether or not it also sets up yet another government health insurance program in the process.
 article source : http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/20/the-senate-health-bill-federal-micromanagment-of-health-insurance/

Read More

Women's Orgasmic Capability

I've often written about the various orgasms women have: clitoral, g-spot, vaginal (general, with no pinpointed target zone) and anal. I've made a mission of conveying that there is no "better" or more "normal" orgasm; the one/s you have, however you have them, are normal  and the ones you aspire to are also exciting so long as you don't get hung up on judging the way you come, or don't. Still, even women with the best attitudes about pleasure sometimes wonder why she can have a vaginal orgasm just like that!  without needing extra stimulation from hands or vibes or fairy dust. They ask: what makes her so different from me? And I don't always have the answer.

To many women's frustration, what we do know is that women are wired slightly differently from one another, built differently, and juggle changes in hormones, nerve conduction, and psycho-sexual attributes differently  all of which contributes to the sheer diversity of our sexual responses. Knowing this, however, doesn't always satisfy the hunger to understand exactly why you can't get off the same way that your friend or sister can. Now...finally...someone claims to have a solid and potentially verifiable bit of data to feed women who aren't happy with mere generalities.

Kim Wallen, professor of psychology and behavioral neuroendocrinology at Emory University, says that a simple physiological measure may have everything to do with the ease by which a woman can orgasm during sexual intercourse without an assist from fingers, toys or tongue. This measure, which he refers to as the "C-V distance," reflects how far a woman's clitoris lies from her vagina. Clitoris-vagina distances of less than 2.5 cm or roughly 1 inch, which is approximately from the tip of your thumb to your first knuckle  tend to yield reliable orgasms during sex, says Wallen. This makes sense if you think about the direct stimulation that a close-by clit would receive during sexual thrusting, pressing, and grinding.

Wallen is not the first investigator to check into this "C-V distance." Others have also posited that the proximity of the clitoris to the vaginal opening might be the key to orgasm. As far back as the 1920s, Princess Marie Bonaparte, a French psychoanalyst and pal of Sigmund Freud, collected C-V and orgasm data from her patients and in 1924 published her observations under a pseudonym, apparently fearing in those days that such scandalous research would destroy her credibility. Recently, Wallen analyzed Bonaparte's data and found the striking C-V correlation. His own measurement study is in the works next.

According to Wallen, only about 7% of women always have orgasms with intercourse alone, while 27% say that they never come that way. This leaves us with a generous percentage of women who might climax via intercourse sometimes  but not with any predictability. And what good is the C-V span to them?

Recognition of the C-V distance, or lack, thereof, does not strike one as much of an assist in gaining greater orgasmic traction. To the contrary, it suggests that only a small percentage of physiologically unique women may have an advantage when it comes to channeling that elusive, effortless hands-free orgasm.

Why not check out your own C-V? First, take a good look at your thumb  or at a large marble, or an inch thick slice of sirloin for that matter  to gauge just what that 2.5 cm really looks like. Not very long, is it? Then grab a mirror and have a glance down below. Is the distance between your own clitoris and vagina as short as that? Chances are it's not.

Results of an online survey asking women to measure and report their own distance from C to V revealed that only about 33% of the C-V distances were an inch or less, while 25% of the total were at least 2 inches apart  more than twice the optimal. It's interesting that a similar percentage  27% of women  say they never, ever climax via intercourse alone. Could that 27% be related to the 2-inch C-V span cohort? We don't want to leap to any conclusions, because surveys are not statistically validated instruments but it's food for thought.

While the C-V numbers are fascinating, in practice they're not terribly meaningful. You can't change your C-V, and, besides, if only 7% of women come reliably through intercourse alone, even having a short C-V doesn't ensure orgasmic ease. Maybe knowing that you have a short span could inspire you to focus more attention on building sensation in your nearby clitoris during intercourse, just for the fun of seeing what your physiological "advantage" can beget. Or, these preliminary findings might give you an edge when faced with a lazy or impatient lover who whines that his previous girlfriends always came easily without any "extras." To him, you can retort that either all his girlfriends fell within a group that makes up only 7% of the female population  or they were faking it. So there!

Source: www.loveandhealth.info

Read More

Obama, Democrats reassess health care

WASHINGTON — Abandoning the health care overhaul is not an option, a senior White House official said Wednesday, after President Barack Obama's top domestic initiative took a devastating hit with the Democratic loss of the Senate seat in the state of Massachusetts.

Obama adviser David Axelrod said administration officials will take into account the message voters delivered Tuesday in electing Republican Scott Brown but declined to go farther.

Questioned about the fate of health care legislation, Axelrod said, "It's not an option simply to walk away from a problem that's only going to get worse."

The stinging loss Tuesday cost Obama the 60-vote Senate majority he was counting on to pass the far-reaching legislation. The outcome splintered the rank and file on how to salvage the bill, energized congressional Republicans and left Obama and the Democrats with fallback options that range from bad to worse.

A leading idea involves persuading House Democrats to pass a Senate bill that many of them have serious problems with. Another alternative calls for Senate Democrats to promise to make changes to the bill later on. Some Democrats said their big hopes would have to be scaled back.

The leader of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, refused to acknowledge that as a possibility as she left the Capitol near midnight Tuesday after meeting with her top lieutenants to discuss the way forward. Pelosi and others contend that because Massachusetts already has near-universal health coverage under a state law, the upset victory by Republican state Sen. Scott Brown to take Edward M. Kennedy's old seat could not be seen as a referendum on the issue.

"Massachusetts has health care. ... The rest of the country would like to have that too," Pelosi, a Democrat, said. "So we don't say a state that already has health care should determine whether the rest of the country should."

"We will get the job done. I'm very confident. I've always been confident," she added.

Before Senate Democrats gathered Wednesday to discuss their next moves, Majority Leader Harry Reid held out hope for the bill, saying, "There are a lot of different options out there."
Others saw miles (kilometers) of bad road in any direction and suggested that regrouping was in order.

"We shouldn't show the arrogance of not getting the message here," said liberal Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, contending independents had turned against the bill and the Democratic base had lost its enthusiasm. "I don't think it would be the worst thing to take a step back" and turn the focus to jobs, in conjunction with scaled-back health care goals.

Republicans said do not even bother: The election of Brown over the once-favored Democrat Martha Coakley in the Democratic stronghold sent a message that the health legislation should be scrapped altogether. Losing the Massachusetts seat will cost the Democrats the 60th vote needed to overcome Republican efforts to block legislation in the 100-member Senate. Sixty votes are needed to close off debate and move legislation to the full Senate floor.

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele said Americans were breathing "a sigh of relief" over the potential derailing of the health care bill.

"People across the country are saying, 'Slow it down," Steele said Wednesday on ABC television's "Good Morning America."

But David Plouffe, who led Obama's presidential campaign, rejected calls to scrap the bill. "We have a good health care plan," he said on ABC. "We need to pass that. We have to lead."

Senate Democrats were scheduled to meet Wednesday, and a sign of their intentions could emerge then. Obama will have to exert a mighty influence to keep jittery moderates from giving up on the effort.

Democrats do not appear to have enough time to resolve differences between the two bills passed by the House and Senate — and get cost and coverage evaluation estimates back from the Congressional Budget Office as required — before Brown is sworn in.

Moderate Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat, said the Senate should not hold any further votes on health care until Brown is seated.

The legislation would expand coverage to more than 30 million Americans now uninsured, while attempting to rein in the growth of health care costs. Democratic lawmakers will have to move in virtual lockstep to enact the bill now, even as Republican opposition intensifies.

That could be too much to ask from rank-and-file Democrats demoralized by losing a seat held in an almost unbroken line by a Kennedy since 1953. Efforts to woo Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe as a convert could increase. But with polls showing voters souring on health care legislation, the president could be abandoned by lawmakers of his own party.

Article source : http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com

Read More