Reading Between the Lies

Before you begin reading this blog, I need to warn you about something: It’s long and may seem overwhelming, but I strongly encourage you to read it. I’ve tried to be clear and concise to the best of my abilities. Once you understand this particular point versus what we’ve been told, you’ll begin to see why we need to question the information we’ve been given. It is definitely worth finishing, and I’d be glad to answer any questions anyone has to the best of my abilities.

On Monday (July 19, 2010), I had the pleasure of speaking to a nice lady at Senator Evan Bayh’s DC office. And I do mean it; she was very kind and listened to everything I had to say. But before we get into that call, we first need to review some statements made by our government.

Before my call, I reviewed a report created by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for none other than Senator Bayh. In summary, the report was to determine the net effects on the pricing of premiums under the new legislation. The document was sent to Senator Bayh on November 30, 2009, and the CBO has determined that although they “have not updated those estimates, the effects of the enacted legislation are expected to be quite similar.” (Read the report here.)

That document was to be my starting point to review information from a variety of government sources. My plan wasn’t to contradict anything in the report (although I question some of the data in it). In fact, my arguments assume that the data is correct, and that’s the biggest problem I have with what’s being presented by politicians. It doesn’t line up with their own data if you look at what the CBO has reported. Plus, you need to keep one thing in mind: at least twice (pages 9 and 27), the CBO refers to “the substantial degree of uncertainty” and “the considerable uncertainty” surrounding these estimates. But since the politicians are treating this report as gospel truth, so will we for the purpose of this blog.

Also, I need to make some clarifications of terminology. People enrolled in a plan before March 23, 2010 can be grandfathered in that plan. (The CBO referred to these plans as being under current law at the time the report was written.) In other words, some of the new benefit requirements do not need to be applied to them. They get a free pass on some of the legislation, sort of. If you enroll in a new plan on March 23 or later, then you’ll be required to take on the new rules, which will bring some new benefits (and other stuff) in the future. These are nongrandfathered plans, or plans under the new healthcare reform.

During my call with Senator Bayh’s office, I wanted to focus in particular on one piece of information on the White House website because obviously, I knew they wouldn’t have time to address all of my concerns in one phone call. And if this were wrong, who knows what else could be wrong? The questions I had were in regards to individual, or nongroup, health insurance. Here’s the information, direct from the site (Read it here.)

Q: Will I pay more than I am paying today?
A: No.

• You will likely pay less---perhaps much less. If you buy coverage like you have today on your own, premiums are expected to drop by 14 to 20 percent. If you get coverage through your job, premiums could decline by up to 3 percent.
  
• In addition, many Americans buying coverage in the individual market will qualify for tax credits that reduce their premiums by an average of nearly 60 percent – and they will get better coverage than what they have today.
  

Let’s break these statements down into smaller chunks. We’ll start with the first bullet, which indicates insurance rates could drop by 14 to 20 percent for coverage like you have today. Remember, these are the grandfathered plans.

1. In actuality, the first problem arises with the question. Do you see that word today at the end of the question? According to the CBO, these rate decreases of 14% to 20% are predicted for the year 2016. Notice that President Obama implies that these rate decreases will be immediate. The chart is even entitled, “Effect of Senate Proposal on Average Premiums for Health Insurance in 2016.” How could he miss that one?
   
2. There isn't any mention of inflation for the costs of medical care, which will continue to drive up rates. The CBO must have predicted them in their work, as you’ll see below. If healthcare costs continue to rise, so will premiums.
   
3. When I called the CBO several weeks ago, they did not tell me their assumed rate of increase for premiums, so I had to guess. By 2016, the CBO predicted average rates would be $5,500 for one individual under then current law (not under reform). I guessed annual rate increases of 10%, starting in 2010. After doing some math, I calculated a starting point of about $3,100 annually in 2010. I did find a website that indicated I was close, with average rates being around $2,900 in October 2009 for one person on an individual plan. So if you get the best decrease of 20% in 2016, you’ll be paying $4,400 (80% of $5,500), which is $1,300 more than you’re paying today. As a side note, the CBO estimated the cost for one individual insurance policy to be $5,800 in 2016 under the healthcare reform. Isn’t that amount $300 more than what they predicted under the old law?
   
4. Now let’s examine the phrase “if you buy coverage like you have today.” If you haven’t figured this out yet, I hate to break it to you, but you may not be able to buy insurance like you have today by the end of the year. In fact, if you purchased it after March 23, 2010, you’re already set to get the nongrandfathered plans. If you’ve had a plan for a long time, don’t change too much about your plan or else you may have to kiss that grandfathered version good-bye. And don’t even think about changing insurers. So in reality, you can’t “buy” coverage like you have today. The best you may be allowed to do is renew what you currently have. Pretty sneaky, huh?
   
5. The CBO predicted rates in 2016 by examining three broad categories, two of which reduce rates, and compared the effects of changing the law to doing nothing. Essentially, the CBO compared grandfathered and nongrandfathered plans to determine cost changes. For example, let’s say a grandfathered plan has a premium of $1,000. Then a nongrandfathered plan would have a rate of $800, with the 20% decrease. You can’t turn around and decrease the grandfathered plans by 20% as well to make them $800. Otherwise, there would not be any net change. Consider it this way. Both Store A and Store B sell goods for the exact same price. Store B then makes some administration decision so they can lower their prices by 20%. Now Store B is 20% lower in cost than Store A, a valid comparison. But if Store A also reduces their prices by 20%, then you can no longer say Store B is 20% lower. True, both stores are 20% lower than their original price, but in comparison to each other, they are exactly the same. So by lowering both grandfathered and nongrandathered plans by 20% as Obama states will happen, the CBO couldn't say that one will be 20% less than the other.
   
6. But that’s not the only deception President Obama has in those numbers. Half of that 14% to 20% discount supposedly comes from a decrease in administration costs for insurance plans due to the new rules. However, those rules may not all apply to grandfathered plans.
   
7. The other half of that discount is from “economies of scale,” so to speak. There will be more healthy people enrolled in the plan, so that should reduce costs, right? Oh, yeah, there’s that crazy March 23 date, though. The problem here – insurers can’t add people to the grandfathered plans any more. Gotcha!

One could potentially make a few counterpoints to my arguments above. For example, if you can save money in the nongrandfathered plans, those savings could be passed on to people in the grandfathered plans as well, but that’s up to the insurance company’s discretion. Additionally, due to the benefit options and rates, young, healthy adults are the ones most likely to remain on grandfathered plans, if they got them before March 23. As a result, there should be fewer claims in them, which would keep down costs. Finally, one could say that the CBO was comparing plans in general under the two versions of the law, not comparing grandfathered to nongrandfathered. Is there a difference? I don’t really know, and I don’t think I’ll find anyone who does.

I warned you that there was a lot of material here, and we’ve only covered the first bullet point. Before we continue, read the second bullet point again. Does it sound like you will not only save up to 20%, but perhaps another 60% as well, for a whopping 80% discount? Sound true good to be true? Well, it is.

1. Don’t let the phrase “in addition” fool you; the numbers can’t be added together. If your current premium is $1,000, you won’t be paying $200 after an 80 percent discount. We must take one discount at a time. First, we’d take off 20 percent, or $200, bringing the new premium amount to $800. Then we’d get an average of 60 percent from tax credits, which amounts to another $480. So after we subtract the $480 from $800, we’re left with a $320 premium, not that lovely $200 premium.
   
2. But even $320 sounds great, right? Well, it’s not the whole story. The CBO predicted that rates under the new law would be 10% to 13% higher in 2016, not lower. In reality, your premium is going to be more than what you’re paying now. You could get some tax credits and subsidies, but technically, it’s not reducing your premiums being paid to insurers. But if you subtract those from your higher premium, you’ll get to the $320 range (assuming you get the best discounts and highest subsidies).
   
3. Now here’s the real kicker. What I’ve just explained isn’t entirely true either. The two bullet points are mutually exclusive. You can’t get both. So at most, you'll save up to 60% in 2016. But since rates are going to be higher under the healthcare reform, all of that 60% decrease comes from tax credits and subsidies averaging about two-thirds of the total premium. As for that $1000 premium, you’ll be shelling out more than that. But you could get some back with the tax benefits, but it won’t bring you down to $320.
   
4. Of course, tax credits and subsidies don't just appear by magic. Someone, somewhere, has to pay the price. That either has to come from increased taxes or decreased spending.

Again, my apologies for the long blog. Unfortunately, it’s not very exciting reading, but I believe we need to be aware of the information we’re being presented. I’ve made some generalities here for ease of arguments, just like the CBO had to make in their document. However, I’ve tried to present the information as clearly and accurately as possible. And as I mentioned earlier, if you have any questions, please let me know.

And if you’re still awake, you may be wondering what Bayh’s office had to say about all this. I guess you’ll have to read the next blog.

A Lack of Census Consensus

Yesterday (Wednesday, July 14), I got a phone call from Senator Bayh's DC office, which really surprised me. Unfortunately, I was just heading into another meeting, so I couldn't ask her any questions. I did try calling back later throughout the day, but thus far, I haven't been able to reach her.

On another topic, though, I had a visitor at my house that same evening. Apparently, the Census Bureau was not satisfied by my answers on my survey. Basically, I gave them a headcount, which is what the census is for, and told them that the rest of the information wasn't any of their business. (I didn't phrase it quite that bluntly, but I did draw lots of big X's throughout the rest of the survey.)

I'm going to state what information I was provided by the census taker. I didn't research all the laws on this subject, but I have read a number of articles regarding whether or not the questions are constitutional. Unfortunately, I'm no expert here, so I'm only going to summarize what information I was given.

The man who stopped by gave me a sheet, which read, "You are required by law to provide the information requested." And here are the laws the sheet listed that apply to the survey, in brief.

1. Your privacy is protected.


2. The government can ask you whatever they want, except questions regarding religion (although interpretation of that law is open to debate).


3. Failure to answer can result in a $100 fine. Lying can get you up to $500.

But here's the problem. Based on every reason I got for giving answers to questions, they're asking the wrong questions. For example, based on our conversation, I gathered that the larger the Hispanic population, then the more money schools could receive for teaching English as a second language. However, the questions don't address how well someone knows English. Wouldn't schools be better able to give a headcount indicating how many students they have that struggle with English?

Furthermore, you can check all the boxes under the race category with which you identify yourself. So if you had a great-grandma from China, but everyone else in the family was European, you could still mark Chinese as an option. Is that misleading? Personally, in a scenario like that, I think it is. But it's OK for the census. And I know I could get flack for this, but President Obama only checked the box for "Black, African American, or Negro." He didn't check the box for "White," even though his mother is white.(Click here for article.) So what's really the point of the question? Why even ask?

Around the same time as our original census survey came to us, we had to fill out similar questions regarding race for the school system. That really infuriated me, so I decided to call the Indiana Department of Education (DOE) to state my concerns. I asked the representative there how I’m supposed to teach my children to see beyond the color of a person’s skin if we keep sticking it in front of them. I’d also heard from school workers (not our school system) that on some paperwork they fill out, they had been told by the administrators to check a minority box, even when it didn’t apply at times, so that the school would get extra money. Again, if the whole process is about money and people are lying about it, then there’s no value to asking the question. And the lady at the DOE agreed on both counts.

Then in May, an incident occurred in California, as some teenage boys were sent home for wearing American flags and colors during Cinco de Mayo celebrations. (Click here for article.)

So why is it that we can’t be Americans first? I’m proud of my heritage, but first and foremost, I’m American. However, my family comes from a German-Swiss background. But I still want to be called an American, and if people want specifics, I’m an American of German and Swiss descent.

Now back to the census taker. Of all the parts of the census, this one doesn't make any sense to me at all. This census counts everyone, US citizen or not, including someone in the US with a student visa. In fact, he told me that the only people you don't count are the foreign travelers who are here short term, which he defined as having a two-week visa. As a result, depending upon the location of illegal immigrants or long-term visitors in the US, your counts by city could be dramatically skewed, thus affecting lines drawn for voting purposes. But I doubt that anyone would use such information for personal political gain (dripping with sarcasm).

I'll give the census guy credit, though. He was considerate, despite all my questions, and even made a few statements that I could agree with wholeheartedly. Eventually, though, he conceded that he could just write down that I refused to answer certain questions.

And when I couldn't find an option in the race category for American, that's exactly what I did.

Don't Ask Me; I Just Work Here

For those of who you have been reading these posts, you may have figured out that I’m not a big supporter of this healthcare reform, which in all honesty, is really health insurance reform. There are a lot of things that concern me about the bill itself, but none of those reasons top my chart. Yes, I’m worried about the increase in costs for insurance. Yes, I’m concerned that people have been making misleading statements (probably on both sides of the debate). Yes, I’m bothered by the amount of “free” money being offered by the government. Yes, I fear for this nation and the future of our children. A number of these concerns extend beyond even the measures of this law.

Although those reasons are valid and they are why I ask a lot of questions, they aren’t the issues that bother me the most at the end of the day. So what is it that really concerns me? The fact that no one seems to know what’s going on, or that they aren’t willing to take questions. I’m not sure which scenario is more likely, but it’s probably a combination of both. And that’s why all those other concerns I have are even floating around.

If you call a Senator’s office, more than likely the person to whom you’ll speak won’t have a clue as to the impact of a certain bill. I’m no expert on law, but I know more about what’s going on than those people who breathe it each and every day. For many, it’s their job, their paycheck, nothing more. They either make uninformed statements or else hide behind blanket statements like, “I can’t speak on behalf of the Senator.” No, you may not be able to do that, but can you speak for yourself? Can you start to look at the bigger picture? Or will you just fall into line like all the other Americans are supposed to do?

You know, it really bugs me that all these people, working in the offices of Senators and Representatives, have a direct link to our top leaders, and yet they don’t seem to care. Perhaps they do, but they sure don’t convey it.

Consider this: I’ve been waiting for months for a response from Senator Evan Bayh’s office. Last week, after I called the Indianapolis office to complain about the DC office, I was promised a response from the DC office. That was on Wednesday, July 7. I gave them 24 hours (I had already given them six months), and I called the Indianapolis office again to find out what had happened.

“I sent that email yesterday at, let’s see, 3:50. Someone will get back to you.”

“I’ve been told that before. When?”

“I’ve made note of that. Someone will get back to you.”

“So what’s a reasonable time frame to expect an answer?”

“What do you mean?” (I don’t know why, but I get this question back from staff members a lot.)

“How long should I expect to wait to get an answer, a day, a week, a year? What’s reasonable?”

“When you get an answer, that’s what’s reasonable.”

Does that sound like someone who cares? (By the way, as of Monday, July 12, I still haven’t heard a word.)

I called HHS and spoke to a gentleman there who claimed that I would have answers to some questions by the end of the day. That was on Friday. Still no answer yet.

But every now and then, you’ll find someone who will give you a straight answer, one you know that is the honest truth. I can’t say for sure whether it’s because the person just slipped and forgot office protocol, because they are frustrated and want to get it off their chest, or because they really do want to be honest. I once asked someone in Bayh’s Indy office what percentage of phone calls they were getting were opposed to the healthcare reform. I was surprised when she answered, “80%.” Well, that wasn’t what I expected. Normally, I get, “We don’t have that information available.” (And I’ll avoid a long rant about that number and whether or not Bayh was listening to his constituents.)

Another time, I was speaking with an intern and asked her if she planned to go into politics once she graduated from college. She informed me that after this experience, she had no desire whatsoever to enter that field. You know what? I would vote for her.

Our government keeps preaching about how consumers will be protected, that they’ll have more benefits. It sounds good when they’re talking about insurance companies, banks, giant retailers, Internet providers, and so forth. But those same rules don’t apply to themselves. They are somehow excluded from the same rules of common courtesy, of helping out the consumer, so to speak.

As Americans, are we going to continue to tolerate this kind of treatment? Will we settle for second best, to allow our concerns to be addressed by pat answers or ignorance? Or are we going to push a little harder, ask tougher questions, and stand up until we get some answers? Frankly, I’m in favor of the latter.

I think I need to make another phone call.

America: Land of the Free?

On Thursday (July 8), I attended a meeting in which we reviewed some new requirements of healthcare reform. Assuming that the law has been interpreted properly up to this point, here’s what some of it boils down to:

1. If you were enrolled in an insurance plan before March 23, you’ll be grandfathered in that plan, thus allowing you to keep similar covered benefits to what you already have.


2. If you enroll anytime after that date, some of your benefits will change on January 1, 2010, or sometime thereafter, depending on your anniversary date. One new benefit will be increased coverage for preventive services, which will now be paid at 100%. (Previously, you may have had to pay an office visit copay or perhaps had to pay 50% of the costs. It would vary by plan.)

Of course, it’s a little more complicated than this, but you get the idea. Basically, with the new requirements of extra coverage along with some other changes, you should expect to pay more for the second scenario. Come this November, people in the non-grandfathered plan, especially young, healthy adults, could see a hefty price increase.

Consider it this way. You can join AAA in their basic plan for let’s say $60. That will get you five miles of towing if you need it. However, if you think you’ll need to be towed longer distances, then you’ll want to join their premium plan. But guess what? It’s going to cost you $80. Of course, in all of this, they’re betting on the fact that not everyone is going to need towing, no matter which plan they join.

Insurance is the same way. As a result, if you are in the non-grandfathered plan, you’re getting better benefits because you have more coverage for preventive services. So it should cost more, right?

Here’s the problem. If you check out the link below from the US government, you’ll find this statement:

“Individuals whose plan changes and is no longer grandfathered will gain access to free preventive services, protections against restricted annual limits, and patient protections such as improved access to emergency rooms.” (Click here for details.)

Did you notice the word free? For those of you who know me, I really like the word free. It’s up there with other great words like cheap, inexpensive, sale, and so on. I like free stuff, but there are two guidelines I use to determine whether or not something is free.

1. I didn’t pay anything for it, nor did I exchange something for it.


2. I’m buying one item and getting something else at no extra charge. The kicker to this scenario, though, is that the original item I bought would still cost the same amount whether or not I got the free item.

I’ve seen deals in stores where I can pay $10 for something or else pay $12 for it and get something else for free. That’s not free. And that’s how I see this preventive benefit. To call it free is misleading.

Before I contacted HHS (Health and Human Services) about this issue, I decided to make sure I knew what I was talking about. My best bet was to call the Indiana Department of Insurance (IDOI) and ask them if it was legal for an insurance company to advertise benefits as free.

When I explained my concern to the person at the IDOI, he immediately said, “You can’t say it’s free. You’re paying for it.” So based on regulatory requirements, insurance companies cannot say something is free if there is an increase in cost to have that benefit. So the government is using misleading language on their website, language which does not hold up to the regulatory requirements of the states. For some reason, after all of this, you would think I would no longer be surprised by this kind of thing, but I must admit, I still am. (And as a side note, you’ll be ever so glad to hear that the IDOI doesn’t sound too happy about these new laws.)

I called HHS to ask about what the meant by “free preventive services.” I told him that from my understanding thus far, rates would have to go up to cover these additional benefits, thus nullifying the fact that it’s free. There’s a big difference between paid at 100% and free. It may seem like the same thing at the doctor’s office, but it’s not when it comes to paying the insurance premium. But this is what he told me: “We’re not aware of any rate increases being caused by the extra coverage for preventive benefits.”

What? Are you serious? You didn’t know that rates would have to go up because of this? What don’t you understand about insurance? Is the government completely ignorant on this subject? (That last question is rhetorical.)

After a little discussion, he really couldn’t tell me what was meant by free preventive services. I did inform him about what the IDOI had told me, that it would be illegal for an insurance company to make a statement like that. But he told me he would be willing to investigate it for me and call me back.

At the end of the conversation, he asked me a question that puzzles me. He wanted to know if I was a reporter or if I worked for some sort of organization because my question would have to be directed to the appropriate person. At the time, I didn’t think about it, but why would a reporter get a different answer than a concerned taxpayer? Shouldn’t the answer be the same? Is this a reason to be concerned?

By the way, if you’re thinking I’m just being nitpicky about wording, it’s these simple, misleading statements that cause problems. I may be wrong, but if rates do increase in November, I’m expecting a backlash against insurance companies because President Obama has promised rate decreases by up to 20%! (Technically, I believe that decrease is based on rates for the year 2016, but I'm guessing most people don't know that.) (Read more info here.)

Contrary to President Obama’s promises, I’m coming to believe that America is no longer the land of the free. With all the extra taxes, excise fees, property taxes, sales taxes, and so forth, our paychecks are being cut by 50%. Depending upon you're viewpoint, I guess we’re either America: Land of the Half Off or America: Land of the Fee.

Ignore the Missing $15 Billion

Last week, I was reading an article on MSNBC. Just to be clear – this isn’t Fox News. The article (read it here) addressed the cost of premiums in a plan particularly geared toward people with pre-existing conditions. The goal is to provide their insurance at the same rate a healthy person would pay. But the big shocker according to the headlines: It could be costly!

Now it seems to me that this has been a concern all along. Where was this guy when other people outside the government administration were saying this? When I first read the article, I genuinely thought the reporter was shocked to learn this news. And perhaps he was. But I guess not everyone knows this yet, or it wouldn’t be news.

Toward the end of the article, I noticed that $5 billion has been allocated toward these plans. But here’s the alarming part because according to the author, “Technical experts who advise Congress and the administration have warned the funds could be exhausted as early as the end of 2011.” Surprise, surprise, the officials avoided the question. But that’s a big problem, potentially to the tune of $15 billion, or perhaps more. If we run out of money, how are we going to pay for it? And who are these technical experts, and why didn’t the say something sooner?

So that’s the first question I needed answered. (My next blog will go into the second question, but both questions went to the same person.)

If you read yesterday’s blog, this is one of the questions I wanted answered by Bayh’s office. Of course, the person I spoke to didn’t seem to know anything and he told me to call HHS (Health and Human Services).

On Thursday, I did just that. I called the HHS Hotline, only to be redirected to another phone number. After listening to a lengthy explanation, I was told to call back during normal business hours (which were what?) and not to leave a message. Huh? Maybe their mantra should be, “You have questions, we won’t answer the phone, and we’ll delete any message you leave.”

Today (Friday), I decided to call back. The same message. So I went to the Hotline number again to find out what the hours were. (I did check the website, but couldn’t find any listed.) And here’s our fine government at work:

“Didn’t you write down that phone number yesterday?”
“Yes, but they aren’t answering. I would like to know their hours of operation?”
“My job is only to give you the phone number, and I did that.”
“Yes, but they aren’t answering the phone. I need to know their hours so I know when I can call.”
“That’s not my job. I’ll transfer you now.”
“Can I speak to your…” (music on line)

In case you haven’t noticed, I’m persistent, especially when treated this way. I remembered from the past two messages at HHS that there was a phone number for a press contact, so I listened to the entire message a third time until I got that number. And I called them.

The lady was helpful, but couldn’t answer my questions. She did give me a name and phone number of a person I could contact, though. And to protect his identity, for now, I’ll just use his initials, BB. (If I don’t hear back from him, I’ll consider posting his name and phone number here for everyone to call.)

BB answered immediately, and after reading him the quote from the article, I asked him my first question: “What are we going to do if we run out of money?”

The answer was quite simple.

“At this point, it’s too early to get alarmed about it. We’ll worry about it if it happens.”
“So you don’t have a backup plan?”
“I didn’t say that. There are some things the Secretary can do if we have problems.”
“And what’s that?”
“Well, we don’t need to worry about it at this point.”

Don’t we ever learn anything? If BP wanted to drill for more oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and someone asked what they’d do if some accident created a major oil leak, what would we do if they said, “Well, we haven’t even built anything yet. It will be several years before there’s a problem. We can look at it then.”? It wouldn’t matter what we would do because it would be too late. Let’s wake up!

So I continued my line of questioning. “Well, if the experts are off by a magnitude of 100%, that will only get us through 2012. We still won’t make it to 2014.”

“The Secretary has some options if that should happen.”

As tax-paying citizens, I believe we have a right to know what those plans are. We’ve been told we need to keep our politicians honest, to hold their feet to the fire. So why can’t I know what the options are?

This much I do know, though. If there aren’t some plans in the works, we’ll be gushing dollars a lot faster than any oil spill ever did.

And check back tomorrow for the second question.

Not Your Best, Bayh

I finally did it! I have achieved what I thought might be an impossible task, but today, July 7, I succeeded.

For those of you who may not know this, Senator Evan Bayh is the most difficult person to reach in DC. You may not think so, but I have successfully reached every other office in DC I have contacted in the past 6 months. But not Senator Bayh. Oh, no. I typically get a message like, "Hello, I'm Evan Bayh, and I want to thank you for calling. We're experiencing a higher than usual call volume. Please leave a message and someone will get back to you." If you're lucky, the box for messages won't be full, although you'll never hear from anyone anyway.

Now this has been going on since late December or early January. I hate to break it to you, Senator Bayh, but if you're regularly having a higher than normal call volume, that becomes your norm. But I digress...

After giving up for a month or so, I decided to call Senator Bayh once again to ask his office some questions regarding healthcare reform. I have been trying to get questions answered for months. I've called offices across the country, but all I ever hear is, "You need to talk to Senator Bayh's DC office." But today, where the voice of a living, breathing person has eluded me, I found sweet success. Too bad the voice wasn't as sweet.

I've had a variety of questions, but today's question was new. (I do try to keep my questions current.) I recently read an article indicating that experts have been advising Congress and the administration that we would run out of money, most likely by the end of 2011, to help cover those individuals who are currently uninsured. There's $5 billion set aside, and it was supposed to last until sometime in 2014, but it doesn't look like we'll make it.

My question was simple: "Where are we going to get the money to pay for this?" I was concerned that we would face some kind of tax increase, so I wanted to know. Unfortunately, the other person on the end of the line didn't know. And since I don't know his real name (they often don't provide you with that information), let's call him John.

After months of calls and emails, being cut off and rudely treated by other office staff, I was going to get a straight answer. In this moment, I knew that my efforts were not in vain because I was calling the right person, and the Senator and his staff were going to answer to my question. The wait was over. Drumroll please… And here’s what John told me (sound of fanfare playing): this was no longer a Senate problem. The responsibilities had been moved from the Senate to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and they would be the ones to answer my question (sound of deflating balloon).

So after several months of phone calls and a number of emails, the answer to all my healthcare questions boiled down to these four words: "It's not my [the Senator’s] problem." I pointed out that the Senator voted for the bill and that everyone I had spoken with said that his office would be able to answer my questions. But I guess not. It's not his problem.

Unfortunately, that didn’t really help me. I asked some other questions about where I could get the information. He told me that I could read the information on the web. But that created a two-fold problem. First, it was the information on the Internet that was making me ask the questions. Second, I had encountered some – how should I say? – “misleading” material several months ago. I had called the White House comment line regarding some points I wanted to make regarding information on the White House website. When I read the person the information on the site, she said, "Oh, that can't be right." The person on the phone told me the site wasn’t right! In fact, she made the same comment regarding another statement on the website. Now isn't that a dilemma?

That left me with yet another question: “What am I supposed to believe?”, which I asked. And shockingly, John answered, “Whatever you want to believe.” Dost mine ears deceive me? What did you just say? I can believe whatever I want to believe about this reform. Really? That’s the best you have.

And here are a few other inquiries I made. Senator Bayh has mentioned that the bill is flawed, but something needed to be done, so he voted for this bill. Well, that makes me wonder what was flawed, right? Of course, I asked. The answer: “Well, most likely he meant that not everyone would agree with it.” Definition of flawed: “having imperfections.” Either my vocabulary level has diminished, or Senator Bayh needs to hire a new writer. By the way, I did note that I don’t think that his definition of flawed was quite right, but I was told it was open to interpretation. And I won’t even mention what he implied about my level of intelligence.

Basically, the conversation boiled down to this. If I wanted to understand the bill, I would have to read it. Since I’m not a lawyer, and I am not kidding about this next part, he suggested that perhaps I would need to hire a lawyer to interpret the information for me so that I could understand it. And I was wondering what I was going to do with that wad of cash I just happened to have lying around. Now I know. I’ll go hire that lawyer down the road to read a 2000+ page document and tell me what it all means. (By the way, that’s unlikely because not even the lawyers agree on what it means yet.)

On top of all this, the guy was sorely misinformed. He told me that I didn’t really need to worry about these laws yet because they don’t go into effect until 2014, which isn’t true either. There are changes that are taking place already.

And if you thought it couldn’t get any better, it does. I decided to call Bayh’s Indianapolis office to complain. She immediately told me that to have my questions answered, I needed to call the DC office. I told her what “John” had told me. She then said I should call the White House. I explained my previous call there and how they don’t really answer questions on a comment line, which is why I guess they call it a comment line.

Her response: “Well, I guess that’s it.”

I guess it is.