Tag Archives: health care

12 Million Don’t Use The Health Insurance They Have

Posted on by
Reply

The lede lays out the background.

ObamaCare really is a gift that keeps on giving—for insurers. The law forces Americans to buy pricey plans with benefits they don’t need. And now the Paragon Institute reports that taxpayers are subsidizing insurance for nearly 12 million people who never use their coverage.

As the WSJ puts it, here’s the wild part:

More than a third of all enrollees generated no medical claims last year, according to Paragon’s analysis. That includes 40% of those in plans that are fully subsidized. Between 2021 and 2024, the number of enrollees who didn’t use their health coverage more than tripled to 11.7 million from 3.5 million.

There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that being forced to buy something that isn’t needed or wanted bit. The other is that “purchasers,” after paying those enormously high premiums, or having the government pay those premiums with OPM, still would have to pay out of their own pockets for any health care throughout the year because of the enormously high deductibles those ObamaCare plans hide behind.

Forgive us for being old-fashioned, but why should taxpayers subsidize insurance for healthy people who don’t need or use it?

Indeed.

False Premise

Posted on by
Reply

The Biden administration had argued, in the course of its participation in a lawsuit against Tennessee’s law barring transgender-based treatments for children, that

A teenager whose sex assigned at birth is male can be prescribed testosterone to conform to a male gender identity, but a teenager assigned female at birth cannot.

The Supreme Court last week issued its ruling that the Tennessee law was, in fact, perfectly fine; the ruling was 6-3, with the three activist Justices voting in dissent. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the Court’s opinion, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurrence centered on answering one of the objections in the dissent. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate concurrence in which he took to task all the plaintiffs’ demand that the Court knee-jerk accede to so-called experts in the Executive Branch regarding transgenderism.

However, it would have been good if the Court had addressed one more item—the Biden administration’s false premise underlying its argument.

That erroneous premise is this: that sex is assigned at birth. This is blatantly false. Sex is assigned at the moment of conception, when the male sperm, carrying either an X chromosome or a Y, joins with the egg and its X chromosome. The subsequent union, the zygote, is then deterministically a male with an XY combination or a female with an XX combination. That male or female—boy or girl—result is carried on through subsequent development all the way through fetus development and birth. The sex determination is immutably fixed at that first moment of union; it is not “assigned” later.

Had the Court put that underlying false premise to bed, also, would have obviated a myriad arguments (legal, anyway) about the origins of an individual’s transgender situation.

Clean Sweep of an Advisory Board

Posted on by
1

HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy, Jr, announced his plan to remove all 17 current members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the CDC advisory panel that advises on vaccine schedules. The nice editors at The Wall Street Journal have termed this a “not-so-clean sweep.” They rationalize their characterization in large part with this:

Mr Kennedy’s beef seems to be that the committee’s members know something about vaccines and may have been involved in their research and development. “Most of ACIP’s members have received substantial funding from pharmaceutical companies, including those marketing vaccines,” he writes.
Some members have been paid by vaccine makers—typically sums less than their salaries—to assist with clinical trials in which they help evaluate the vaccines for safety and efficacy.

I’ll ignore the opening bit of disingenuous snark. I’ll leave aside the naïve belief that folks, including government bureaucrats, are immune to chump change bribes. These editors should know better than that. Instead, look at the facts included in the snippet: some committee members being involved in the R&D of the vaccines on which they now advise in the name of the government, and some members having been paid by vaccine makers. That many of the studies in which those then-paid members were involved were double-blind is irrelevant: those members were paid by vaccine makers, and now those members advise on those vaccines.

These are clear conflicts of interest, and even the august editors of the WSJ should be able to understand that.

The editors did point out that current members have recused themselves from considerations in which they (think they) have a conflict of interest. Such recusals, though, always are judgment calls on the part of the bureaucrat considering his own recusal. There’s no need for such judgment calls when there are no conflicts of interest.

In an ideal world, such conflicts—large or small—would have no influence on government-advising bureaucrats. In that ideal world, we would have no need for conflict of interest rules. We live in the real world, however, and Kennedy is entirely correct to seek to reduce as far as may be the existence of such conflicts. It’s much too early in the process to begin criticizing his move, even a knee-jerk beef triggered by it being an RFK, Jr, move.

In the end, Kennedy has appointed eight members to the revamped ACIP:

  • Joseph R. Hibbeln, a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who worked in nutritional neurosciences at the National Institutes of Health.
  • Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist who used to work at Harvard Medical School.
  • Retsef Levi, a professor of operations management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management.
  • Robert Malone, a biochemist who helped with early research of mRNA vaccine technology.
  • Cody Meissner, a professor of pediatrics at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and former ACIP member.
  • James Pagano, an emergency medicine physician with 40 years of clinical experience.
  • Vicky Pebsworth, the Pacific region director of the National Association of Catholic Nurses, who previously sat on the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.
  • Michael Ross, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at George Washington University and Virginia Commonwealth University.

 

“Should AI Have Access to Your Medical Records? What if It Can Save Many Lives?”

Posted on by
1

The Wall Street Journal asked that question last week. And their subheadline:

We asked readers: Is it worth giving up some potential privacy if the public benefit could be great?

A good many of the published answers centered on Yes, with oversight by, among others, medical professionals.

This reader (unpublished in the WSJ) says, resoundingly, No. Not now, and not for the foreseeable future, say I. Personal data aggregators, whether government or private enterprise, have shown no ability to protect our personal data, whether from hackers or from organizational carelessness, incompetence, or ignorance. With our medical data especially, very good protection, even six sigma-level protection, isn’t good enough. This is one of the few areas where perfection must be the standard. Since that’s an unachievable standard, AIs must not be permitted any access to our personal data, including our personal medical data.

There are additional reasons for saying no. One is the inherent bias programmers build into AIs. Alphabet’s overtly bigoted Gemini is an extreme example, but the programmers build their biases into AIs through the data sets they use and have their AIs use in training.

There’s also the just as overt bigotry too many medical training institutions apply through their emphasis on diversity, equity, inclusion claptrap at the expense of training actual medicine. Those institutions are producing the doctors that would the second generation of “medical” professionals doing the oversight.

In the current state of affairs, and for that foreseeable future, it’s not feasible to let AIs into any aspect of our personal lives. The blithely assumed public benefit is vastly overwhelmed by the threat to our individual privacy—the “public,” after all, is all of us individuals aggregated.

More Revisionist History

Posted on by
Reply

The Food and Drug Administration has decided to remove social media posts and online materials commentary that overtly disdained and recommended against the use of Ivermectin as a Wuhan Virus infection treatment.

It’s good for the FDA to correct its dismal performance regarding Wuhan Virus treatments, but trying to pretend—even if its pretense is public this time—its dismal performance never happened by deleting those posts is just dishonest. The honest thing to do would have been to bring those posts back to the fore and append to them the FDA’s corrections regarding Ivermectin’s efficacy and safety.

Unfortunately, the move to alter history and deny the occurrence of actions that had plainly occurred, rather than treat the misbehavior honestly, comes as a result of a law suit settlement in which the sole plaintiff agreed to the revisionist move.

That’s how deeply embedded dishonesty about our recent history has gotten in our society.