Obama’s “Gift-Horse?”
Trust me!
After the astonishing victory of the now Senator Brown in Massachusetts the Progressive left has had to take a look about how they conduct business in “reforming” our nation. The ”too much, too fast” push by the Democratic super-majority has startled the spectrum from the moderate left to the extreme right, and the Independents spoke out in that election. The Democratic Party as a whole (moderates and Progressives) have had to take a look at how they conduct business in what many believe is a nation that is generally just right of center. Here’s the latest.
President Obama is expected to announce in his State-of-the-Union address that he is going to seek a spending freeze on all “non-security” spending over the next three years. Analysts say that this will save $10 billion to $15 billion out of next year’s budget of $3.5 trillion and $250 million over the next 10 years. Non-security spending means that defense, veterans affairs, homeland security, foreign aid, and healthcare (medicare and medicaid) spending will continue as usual. But what this means is we would do away with state entitlements. No $500 million for research on honeybee pollination in this state, and no $1 billion dollars for XYZ in another state. For example, the healthcare bill the House of Representatives passed included 5,224 earmarks in the bill worth about $3.9 billion. My understanding is that these would not be allowed, but currently just saying “non-security” spending is vague and earmarks may still find a way into security bills.
I’ve been sitting here trying to decide how I feel about this. Let’s first talk about this policy on the surface. I’m in favor of cutting non-essential spending period. That’s the basis of my conservative affiliation. I would favor this policy even in a surplus budget, let alone in this current massive deficit. This is why I wasn’t happy with the “big-government” republican Bush administration and like the idea of the Tea-party infiltrating the Republican Party (rather than a 3rd party, please!). If the government was a teenager with a credit card, it’s time to cut that card up and regulate a budget. So, again…on the surface, this is good.
But I want to think about this a little more. What is the motivation of our liberal and progressive President? It is difficult to trust the kind of person that associates himself with people like Bill Ayers (the American Terrorist), Anita Dunn (the former White House Communications Director who said, and I Quote: “Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa; not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most”), Van Jones (former Green Jobs Czar and self-proclaimed Communist), Ron Bloom (manufacturing Czar who said, and I Quote Again: “We know that the free market is nonsense…. We know that this is largely about power, that it’s an adults only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.”). So is there an ulterior motive? The progressive movement has made it’s way into the Democratic party to push the agenda towards a “European” type of government system with a global world order. The global world order is anti-capitalistic with large control from a big government. Most Americans would immediately revolt if we immediately changed to this system. Can you imagine paying taxes to something like the UN?! But Glenn Beck (regardless of what you think of him) made a point on his opinion show the other night. If we are at point A and the government said we are now going to be at point Z, we would revolt and no more progressive movement. But if we went to B, instead, and maybe on to C. Then you stop paying attention for a little while and you’re at point P. Then Z is not so far away. Could it be, that this cut in spending is an appeasement to lessen the blow of moving to the next point? The progressive movement clearly sees the next point is much more important than state senator’s pet projects.
So, for now, I will happily accept any cut in spending (even if it is a small fraction of the budget), but keep you eyes open, America. Saving $10 billion next year is not a reason to lower your voice on trillions of dollars worth of government growth and spending proposed by this administration. For an added sting to all of this, last week the Senate Democrats asked congress to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion dollars for its bills which would make the national deficit a whopping $14.3 TRILLION. Remember when Ross Perot had his panties in a bunch that we were $4 trillion in debt?
Money is No Object, Apparently
KDM Mean-Muggin
The New York Daily News reported today that the civil criminal trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the criminal mastermind of the 9/11 attacks will cost up to $200 MILLION…PER YEAR! Does anyone have a problem with this? I do! Will the administration listen? No.
I have several problems with this. First of all, there is no reason that a non-US citizen, prisoner of war should be afforded the rights and protections of our Constitution. Of which, by the way, he condemns. He now has the luxury of a state-appointed attorney. He has the right to remain silent. He has the right to plead the 5th Amendment…the 5th Amendment of OUR Constitution! If a Japanese admiral was captured during WWII, he would not be transported to Hawaii to stand criminal trial. How is this different?
Second, yet again, the government cannot figure out what things cost. REMEMBER THIS. This applies to ALL areas of government and government spending. It isn’t even close. Eric Holder when announcing this whole fiasco-to-be said it would cost $75 Million in security which is off by nearly 3-fold. Before I make a decision to purchase anything, I get a price-quote first. Didn’t he, or did he just guess? Either way it makes him out to be a chump, because if he got a quote, he is getting ripped off, and if he guessed, then he’s incompetent.
Third. $200 Million?!?! Really? That’s not chump change. Think about what you could buy for 200 Million dollars. Why is it so much? Federal marshals are going to be used for the security force. They get paid whether they are stationed at a base, working in a disaster area, or providing security for a trial, so the money isn’t going there. Is it the planners? How much does it cost to get a bunch of people to sit at a table and say “OK, we’re going to close off these streets and only people with proper identification can get past security. Anybody runs the line gets tased immediately. Lunch?” So hopefully the money isn’t going there. Gas for helicopters overhead isn’t going to be that much. What is costing this money?!
So, to conclude this little rant, why are we even doing this? Does anybody really have a problem with letting the military take care of the trial? Even if you have a problem with it, does it keep you up at night to the point that it is worth $200 Million a year of your tax money that could have been given back to you or put towards the debt? Why does “change you can believe in” including changing everything, even changing the way the country has done things for centuries? We’re going back to change the policies of FDR? The Obama administration seems to be hellbent on changing the flow of everything regardless of the expense, and that’s my biggest problem. I heard the cries about closing Gitmo vs. keeping them there, but was there a big push by any special interest group (because that is all to whom our president is interested in listening) to make KDM and his cronies civil criminals? I have yet to figure out who benefits from this move, other than KDM who can lawyer up and make this a spectacle.
12 Questions for a Representative
I was asked to attend an appearance at our hospital by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I took a lot of time preparing some questions, so I figured I’d post them up. Here goes…
1. HR 3962 authorizes an Institute of Medicine study on geographic spending variations. The results are to be given to the Secretary, who will be authorized to change medicare payments on his own. His decisions do not require any further authorization of congress. This is a huge amount of power in the hands of an unelected official.
2. Under the national high risk pool program, any individual who doesn’t have coverage is “eligible”, including those who chose not to buy coverage. The rate is set at no more than 125% of the prevailing private rate, and there is no pre-existing condition exclusion period. What is to stop healthy persons from dropping their current coverage and using the high risk pool as a free “if I need it I’ll sign up” insurance plan?
3. This bill will drastically increase the prices of insurance, particularly for the young:
A: no lifetime limit
B: insurers must cover everyone
C: 2:1 age ratio (oldest person only pays 2 times as much as the youngest person)
These will all drive up the price of insurance. As the price goes up, those willing to purchase it get sicker. And the prices continue to rise.
4. Any new health insurance plan (not grandfathered) must meet the new guidelines to be considered a qualified plan. So saying you can keep you old plan is technically true. You can keep it, if they offer it and if your company continues to purchase it. Obviously the point is to have everyone on a new plan. And we all know what happens to grandfathers… they die. So lets just tell people that they will most likely all end up in a new, government designed and authorized insurance plan.
5. Wasserman-Schulz claimed on hardball with Chris mathews that this bill will cover “46 million Americans”(hardball 11/6/09). But this is far from the truth. First from the census bureau, 9.7 are illegal aliens, 14 million are eligible for medicaid but haven’t signed up, 17.6 millin make 50,000 or more a year. That leaves roughly 8 million people who are too poor to purchase coverage but not poor enough to be eligible for medicaid. That’s 2.5% of the population, and you guys are gonna spend almost 1 trillion dollars, add over 100 new bureaucracies and interupt the care for 290 million americans to allegedly care for 8 million people?
6. Wasserman Schultz claimed (in the same interview) that this bill will shave $104 billion off the deficit, but IF this is true, it’s only due to the GIGANTIC increase in taxes.
7. Wasserman Schults told Chris Mathews that the bill “does not provide any federal funding for abortion” but later said…“I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won’t be there,” during an appearance on MSNBC. “And I think we’re all going to be working very hard, particularly the pro-choice members, to make sure that’s the case.” Isn’t this working in bad faith by getting moderate democrats to sign on to a pro-life bill that will be turned pro-choice in the end?
8. In a debate with Rep. Diaz ballart (8/24/09), Wasserman Schultz agreed that this bill cuts 500 billion dollars from medicare but ”from providers, not from benefits”… How do you distinguish the two? Are the providers to work for free?
9. In the same debate, Wasserman Schults claimed that the taxes would only be shouldered by the “wealthiest 1.2% of Americans”, but aren’t taxes on medical equipment like knees, pacers, wheelchairs, hospital beds, operating room supplies and the like taxes on ALL Americans? What about taxes on elective medical procedures? Most tummy tucks, etc. are purchased by average americans. Don’t these taxes break Obama’s pledge to only raise taxes on those making over $250k??
10. In the same debate Wasserman Schults stated that a public option is necessary due to the lack of competition and obscene profits being made in the private insurance market. Two questions, first, with 30 major interstate companies (wikipedia) and probably thousands of regional insurers, how would 1 additional plan help without government subsidized price fixing? Second, Aetna, United and Tenet had profit margins of 3.8%, 4.1% and 2.6% respectively. Which compares with Wal-mart at 3.3%. Apple, Microsoft and Google had profit margins of 15%, 25% and 21% respectively. How close to bankruptcy would you have insurers run? (source: lockergnome.com)
11. In this bill, there are $460 billion in taxes on those with income over $500k. To start, one study found roughly 1/3 of the tax would come from businesses filing as individuals, these taxes would be passed on to the consumers of those businesses in ALL tax brackets. Secondly, this is $460 billion of money that won’t be spent on cars, dinners, computers, and the like. $460 billion that won’t go to fund jobs that would have been staffed by those making far less than $500k. Taxes on the wealthy are taxes on everyone.
12. The bill estimates $135 billion in new taxes for corporate compliance failures and $33 billion in the individual compliance failures. Those are all taxes that will be paid by ordinary Americans. That’s another $168 billion that will go into the general federal revenue and won’t go into providing medical care for Americans.
In response, I would propose three easy reforms:
1. Tort reform. Stop defensive medicine practices. It’s free, and it would save BILLIONS.
2. If you don’t have coverage, don’t get care. No exceptions. Either have insurance or provide a way to fund your care up front. This would end the problem of those who “choose” not to purchase insurance because they are too healthy. Lets all face it, EMTALA is a disaster and increases the price of insurance which leads to more people who choose not to buy insurance.
3. Published rates for prices AND actual costs (materials, labor, taxes, rents) of common medical billing rates and procedures. Make hospitals, docs, and insurers compete on everything. Does anyone actually know how much a lap chole costs?? Some people know the price (but that’s different for everyone) but does anyone know the cost? Medicine is the only industry with this backroom idea of economics and it shows.
A Hint of Rationing????
Filed under: Current Events, Healthcare, Obamanation, Women
So even though the national healthcare bill has only been passed by the House and is still mulling around the Senate, I think I’ve found the first sign of national healthcare rationing in recent times. The GOVERNMENT (specifically “a government task force”), has come out with a recommendation that mammograms should be started age 50 and performed every other year and that self breast examinations should not be taught to women due to the number of false positive results and extraneous medical resource consumption.
The American Cancer Society has long advised, and still advises mammograms yearly starting at age 40 and that self breast exams are important. It is true that the importance of self breast exams have declined over the last few years due to that fact that there are many false alarms from fibrous breast tissue felt to be a “lump.” However, the incidence of breast cancer increases with age with many women being diagnosed in their 40’s. The data quoted by the task force is that screening 1,300 women in their 50s will save one life, and that is worth performing the test. However in order to save one life of a woman in her 40’s, 1,900 mammograms must be performed. Financially this makes more sense. Tell that to the one woman in her 40’s with breast cancer. Not to mention you have more to gain the younger you are when you’re cured from cancer.
Breast cancer is the second most common cancer in women. Here are two important tables found from imaginis.com/breasthealth.
How Bad is the Democratic Healthcare Takeover?
I think the answer to that question is that no one really knows. HR 3962 is 1,990 pages long and it’s only been out for about 5 days. I don’t know anyone who can read 2,000 pages of legal documents and understand what they mean and what the consequences will be. Nonetheless, 219 democrats (out of a total of 220 “yes” votes) voted to pass the bill. The bill is apparently so bad that 39 democrats defected from their own party and voted alongside conservatives. Kudos to those 39 democrats for having the foresight to see some of the horrific problems with this bill. Let’s take a look.
It Takes Away Your Freedom
This bill will “require” everyone to buy “acceptable” health insurance. This is unprecedented. You are not forced by government to buy food, water, shelter or anything else; but you will be forced to buy health insurance. As much as I disagree with irresponsibility, you should be free to NOT buy health insurance. It’s your money, you should use it as you see fit. The penalty for not buying health insurance will be 2.5% of your income…. This means that the bill is essentially a tax increase on the uninsured.
The Bill Will Increase the Number of the Uninsured
This bill will require insurers to cover anyone who applies. No one can be turned down or cancelled. No more pre-existing conditions. The populists love this, but lets think about it…. You will now be able to buy health insurance AFTER your cancer is diagnosed, AFTER you have a heart attack, AFTER you break your arm. What if you could by home insurance after the hurricane or car insurance after the accident? The major incentive for young, healthy folks to purchase insurance is the fear of not being covered for pre-existing conditions. This will lead to an increased number of folks choosing not to purchase insurance. Sure the government will tax you 2.5% extra (making the gov $33 billion in new tax revenue), but that’s still cheaper than buying insurance. And……
HR 3962 Will Increase Insurance Premiums
Age differentials will decrease to 2:1 from 10:1. This means that the oldest, most sick person can only be charged twice as much as the youngest triathlete. So premiums for the young and healthy will go up, and since they can buy insurance AFTER they get diagnosed with cancer anyway…. It’s a no-brain-er. You just pay the gov it’s 2.5% tax penalty and you stop buying insurance.
In addition to the 2:1 rule, there can no longer be caps on coverage. (usually set at $1 million) How much would car or house insurance be if they had to cover an infinite amount of cost? This will increase prices.
Than there are the taxes on health insurers. $2 billion in new “fees” to fund the “Comparative Effectiveness Trust Fund”, $14 billion in indirect medicare/medicaid taxes and $20 billion in taxes on medical devices like wheelchairs, hospital beds, pacemakers and ortho implants. And remember, If you pay for insurance and the insurance has to pay taxes… it’s YOU paying the taxes. The only way insurance companies get money to pay taxes is from YOU. Companies don’t pay taxes, only consumers pay taxes. (directly or indirectly)
The Bill Massively Increases Taxes and The Size of Government
Let’s start with the $460 billion, 5.4% tax increase on folks making $500k a year. I don’t make that much, but it’s still the WRONG thing to do. One-third of the $460 billion will come from businesses filing as individuals. This will lead to job-losses or price increases. And for you “soak the rich” folks, it’s just as bad for individuals. That’s a $460 billion dollar transfer of wealth from the private sector to the government. It’s not about how much the rich get to spend, It’s about where they spend it. Let’s say it again, that’s $460 bilion that won’t be spent on cars, dinners, purses, or invested in companies…. in other words, $460 billion that won’t go to create jobs for other non-rich folks. Don’t hate on the rich, they pay the salaries for the rest of us.
Then there is $135 billion in new taxes on businesses for failure to buy “acceptable” health insurance for their employees. Once again, the populists love it, but this is a bad idea. Businesses don’t buy health insurance, but customers and employees do. Businesses will have to raise prices on customers, decrease salaries for employees or lay off workers to either buy insurance or pay new taxes. So don’t complain when jobs go oversees, as this bill is estimated to cost 5.5 million jobs.
HR 3962 also takes over long term care with the CLASS Act. This provision promises to pay for long term care starting in 2016, but actuaries have determined that the program will be insolvent by 2019. This will require more taxes to keep yet another entitlement going.
But in the end, that’s the whole point of this bill. It gives government more control of the economy, more control of your life, and a larger majority of your paycheck. It’s a giant loss of freedom that will lead to an equally large loss of jobs and individual wealth. I wonder if this is the “change” that Americans thought they were voting for in 2008? I just hope they remember which party rammed this disaster through congress when they vote again in 2010.
Source: http://www.aapsonline.org/legislative-bulletin-11-07-09.pdf
Yucca Muck!
Yucca Mountain
I find myself reading the news this morning holding my head in my hands at the amazing short-sightedness of the Obama Administration. One thing you can say is he pushing his extreme agendas all at once with no foresight. Major health care changes with no real plan on how to pay for it, closing Gitmo with no real plan to relocate or prosecute the inmates, and now the closing of Yucca mountain with no real plan on what to do with nuclear waste.
Here is the background. Nuclear energy is the cleanest and most efficient energy source on the planet. There are several plants across the country and since those plants were built, the technology has continued to grow with a current potential of the production of state-of-the-art plants that would be even more clean, efficient, and safe. The only byproduct is nuclear waste which is placed in ponds at the plant for 40-50 years until they reach low-level radiation, then encased in glass or concrete and then buried underground which is more than sufficient to block all radiation. See world-nuclear.org for more details.
Several decades ago a bill was passed to make a stronghold for all of our nuclear waste. It has been built over the last 5 presidential administrations and has cost $13 Billion thus far in construction alone. President Obama, during his campaign said a few things that if you were not paying attention, you would have missed. First he said he was in favor of Nuclear energy. This was a popular stance in a time when gas prices were hitting $4 and we needed energy independence. But to clarify, he said he was only in favor of Nuclear energy if they could find a safe way to deal with the storage of the waste. Further, he stated he was against the construction of the Yucca mountain nuclear waste storage facility, which in terms of safety is as good as it gets. So now you need to use some simple math and restructure his sentences. “I Barack Obama will tell you I like nuclear energy but put the stipulation that the waste disposal has to meet impossible goals in my mind so I can ultimately reject the notion that we would switch to nuclear energy and not appear to be a flat out liar.”
So yet again the people are tricked by rhetoric and do not see the true impact of the policy promises of the rock star. Allow me to point some of those impacts out.
1. We’re out $13billion in construction cost and it’s done being built so we’re not saving anything by closing it.
2. The plant was supposed to be done in 1998. That’s only 10 years late! Still want them to run health care? As a result of the delayed opening of the plant, the country has been “in default” with proper waste disposal for 10 years and has faced fines thus far of over $600 Million and the final expected settlement will be over $1 Billion. Not opening Yucca will further increase the fines.
3. Without proper waste disposal available, renewal of the licences of current nuclear power plants will be improbable and the construction of those newer state-of-the-art plants mentioned before will be impossible, so no more nuclear power as a means to gain energy independence.
4. Ulterior motives? Well, let’s see about this. This is just speculation, but what if there are people behind the scenes benefiting from this. There’s no question that the media including MSNBC lean far to the left and were openly in support of Obama’s campaign and election. The parent company of MSNBC is General Electric which has invested quite a bit of money on “green” technology which the Al Gore cult have really latched onto (and ignored the 11x greater “carbon footprint” than the average American that their Messiah leaves behind him). So there’s a benefit for Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE to use its MSNBC to push for a politician that would go against oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy in favor of (the-MUCH-MORE-EXPENSIVE-to-the-consumer-and-more-profitable-to-the-seller) alternative sources of energy like wind, solar, etc., etc.
People, there is a force moving upon our country. The average America is moderate conservative. San Francisco values are not the majority (proposition 8 in California should be evidence of this). This president has used his fame and star quality to make it where he is. He has used his rhetoric to say things that moderate America would like to hear, but if voters were not paying close attention they were not able to put together the twist at the end.
Mr. President! What is safer than Yucca Mountain?! What are we going to use for energy when nuclear plants go bankrupt?! Where are we getting the money to just waste on these penalties?!
The only sign of hope (REAL HOPE AND CHANGE) is yesterday’s elections in which 2 GOP governers won over democrat incumbants in states that easily were won by Obama in 2008. Maybe we’ll all get lucky and this will be a one-term national catastrophe that can be corrected before it’s too late.
P.S. Congratulations to my brother Joseph Di Martino (R) who was elected Alderman of Derby, CT. I’m proud of you, fight the good fight!
Shut up and Dance!
How could this be torture?!
So apparently we cannot even look at suspected terrorists sideways without Americans complaining. The latest in the push for the closing of and/or four-star hotel conditions in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp comes in the form of musicians, specifically the bands Pearl Jam (remember them?), Nine Inch Nails (or NIN if you’re cool), and REM (insert torture joke here…except ‘Texarkansas’…that song is great) joining the National Campaign to Close Guantanamo. So these musicians are complaining that the blaring music - especially if it is their music, is not humane and that music should never be used as torture. I’m not even sure where to begin on this.
OK, I understand that if I wrote a song and it were being used to upset terrorists (Note: ‘upset’ is the word; this is not considered torture by our government under the Bush or Obama administrations) my feelings would be hurt and I would be personally upset my art is being used as a sonic cannon. But let’s look at the audience. They hate all western music: country, industrial, folk, rock, rap, etc! One person interrogated with music, Mohamedou Ould Slahi reportedly believes music is forbidden. So don’t take it personally, Trent Reznor! ‘Pretty Hate Machine’ rocks, OK? On an amusing side note, Slahi was repeatedly played “Let the Bodies Hit the Floor” by Drowning Pool.
If we can’t play music to upset the terrorists and make them a little tired to resist the firm questioning that we are now restricted to, we’re not going to get any information and lives will be in danger! There is no disputing this, we need the information, period. I’m not advocating jamming bamboo up their fingernails, but come on, loud music is not even close to that.
Of course you all know where I stand on this. I know I swing towards one side heavily. I say do what needs to be done to protect our country. We are fighting a war against an enemy that will not surrender with a treaty, will not be defeated with the capture of a capital, will not have an epiphany and see what is right and wrong and stop fighting. They are an enemy force that believes, like I believe the sky is blue, that God wants Christians and Jews dead, and a patriarchal dictatorship that completely oppresses women. There is no human on the planet that will change their mind as you really cannot change what God wants. I really don’t see how to end this conflict with a victory, and I’m not going to pretend I know. But it seems the best way for now is to be a step ahead. Keep the enemy on the defensive so they cannot mount an offense. If getting information to keep a step ahead means mild discomfort like blaring music, they should thank Allah we’re not the Vietcong.
Basics of Insurance and Health “Reform”
Alright folks, so now that my oral exam is done, I’ve come out of my blogging hibernation. This healthcare reform bill is an absolute debacle. It’s so bad on so many levels that it’s hard to know where to start. So I’ll just arbitrarily start with how this bill will influence the private interactions between a customer and his insurance company.
First, no person can be denied coverage for any reason and no person can be denied a renewal for any reason. This gets a big hurrah from the populists, but lets think about it. How much would car insurance cost if Allstate was forced by law to cover every drunk, blind, muscular dystrophy driver who wanted coverage? Car insurance would skyrocket, and so will health insurance when healthy folks are force to pay the difference for every obese, smoking, sedentary or just plain genetically sick patient.
Second, insurers will no longer be allowed to set a maximum limit on the policy. Most insurances have 1 million dollar limits. This lowers the cost of insurance by setting a known value to the policy. How many of you folks have come anywhere near your 1 million dollar limit? The abolition of this limit will lead to additional increases in health insurance premiums. You will lose the option of buying a relatively cheap 1 million dollar policy and you’ll be forced to buy an unlimited policy. Once again, think about car insurance… most folks have 100k/300k plans. How much would your car insurance sky rocket if they were forced to cover you for an infinite amount of liability?
Third, insurers will be limited in the variability of their premiums. Age will be limited to a 2:1 differential, so a 90-year-olds policy will only be twice as expensive as an 18-year-olds policy. Think about that… if 10% of the dollars are spent on the last year of life, then that 18-year-old guy is getting hosed. It’s redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the sick. And before you guys argue that “it’s ok because when I’m 90 the young guys will pay for me” lets think about that. There is no gaurantee that a generation that isn’t even born yet will agree to pay for you. And, on wall street, that arrangement is what’s called a ponzi scheme… it’s basically the Madoff idea of healthcare.
In addition to the age limitation, smoking is only allowed a 1.5:1 differential. But that’s pretty good considering all of the things that aren’t allowed ANY differential. If you don’t ever take your meds, they still have to pay for you. If you weigh 1000 pounds, they can’t charge you extra. If you live on KFC, you pay the same rate as Lance Armstrong. If you are a drug dealer and get shot once a month, they can’t cancel you and they can’t increase your rate. If you use the ER as your primary care, it doesn’t matter. It also doesn’t matter if you run triathlons and have 3% body fat… you aren’t allowed to get a discount.
This plan is obviously bad for consumers, but why did the insurance industry go along with it initially? It’s pretty simple, it’s called neo-mercantilism. They went along because they got the assurance that big government would force all citizens to purchase health insurance. This makes sense for them. Poor folks are already covered by medicaid, but there are about 10 million young, healthy adults who CHOOSE not to buy health insurance. These are people who make enough money to buy coverage but have made a conscious, free decision not to purchase it. If they were forced to purchase coverage this might make up the difference for all mandatory coverages forced on the insurance industry.
Its funny how congress can screw everyone over at the same time, though. They made the penalty for not buying coverage a measly $750. In the meantime, mandatory coverages and the lack of differentials will force premiums higher. So the insurance industry will be forced to cover the un-coverable without the assistance of profitable, young, healthy patients. But remember, companies must remain solvent, so that will force premiums even higher.
In the end, the result of government intervention in the free-market is always the same… increased prices and decreased freedom for the customer. It’s just a fundamental law of government, we’d be wise to learn it.
Food for Thought
Ok, I'm hungry now.
The congressional finance committee has just voted 14-9 in favor of healthcare reform. This plan does not have a public option but the gist of it is that all Americans will be REQUIRED to BUY health insurance and all small businesses will be REQUIRED to provide health insurance to their employees and if citizens and businesses don’t, they will be fined. While there isn’t a government-sold insurance included, there is a list of cooperating insurers who will be able to sell private insurance to those who need it and there will be some federal subsidy involved. The point of this plan is to lower insurance premiums overall and I can’t disagree that this would be a good thing for the population as a whole, and say what you want about the expanse of government-we all know I’m personally against it, but allow me to point out a slippery slope we will be headed down with this mindset.
While growing up and developing my ideals on life, I had the internal argument about seat belts. I always wear mine and feel uncomfortable in a car without one on, even in the backseat. But why is it required by law? It’s my body, my risk. Why can a cop give me a ticket if I’m not wearing mine, or worse, give my friend who is driving a ticket because I the passenger is not wearing one. I thought this was an infringement on my rights. Why isn’t it illegal to smoke or drink then? Then it occurred to me. The government/city has made themselves responsible for emergency calls. The city fire department/paramedics are the first-responders and have to treat you. Thus, if you’ve put your head through the windshield or worse, it takes more time, money and resources to scrape you up rather than “my side hurts from my seat belt.” The longer they’re tending to you, they can’t be helping others. Essentially it boils down to you’re a tax on society so this is a way to cut costs. You lose rights for the sake of society. Most people accept this as driving is considered a privilege rather than a right.
Now, let’s get to the healthcare argument. You cannot deny that the Democrats want the government to take over healthcare. The far left wants a public option to do away with private insurance completely. There’s no argument with this unless you claim that they are completely incompetent. They say “it’s to spark competition,” but everybody knows private companies cannot compete in a free market with the government which operates in the red as a rule, rather than an exception. So it can be assumed that the dropping of the public option is simply a temporary compromise to get something passed to give themselves credit before the next election. This is not the end of the public option debate. So let’s discuss what a public option implies. The national government would assume responsibility for the bulk of the nation’s healthcare costs because the Liberal philosophy is that healthcare is a right, not a privilege and it would do so, in the red as usual trying to make up for the cost in taxes and cutting costs. If wearing you seat belt on a local level is mandatory because of the cost of the consequences, then smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods can all be considered detrimental to your health which is now in the hands of the government. This makes some sense, doesn’t it? How is it social justice to pay for emphysema treatments for a patient who still smokes? How about paying for liver transplants for people who destroyed their livers with alcohol even if they quit…it’s not a secret that alcohol destroys livers! We saw the start of this, didn’t we? The government has just outlawed flavored cigarettes/tobacco products. Which means, no cloves, no flavored cigars, etc. They say it is because they don’t want to encourage smoking perhaps because of the upcoming costs of healthcare the government will have to pay? Where does this stop? Flavored alcohol? Any alcohol? Any cigarettes? Any good tasting fatty foods?
I don’t have all the answers and I don’t know how to fix the healthcare system without actually changing the way medicine is practiced. I don’t think the answer lies in the private insurance companies, but rather to cut down on the need for all the medical testing. Stay tuned, that will be the next post.
Congressional Aptitude Tests!
Hey! He's awake!
I got to thinking today when I read that my senator, Robert Byrd was brought to the hospital again, this time for a “potential infection.” With all honesty, my thoughts and prayers are with Senator Byrd and his family and I hope he does just fine. However, there is a pressing issue at hand that was pointed out to me at a recent event. I had the benefit of going to the opening of yet another building bearing his name and he was present for the ceremonies. It took 3 guys to get him in and out of the car, he sat hunched over in the chair often with his eyes closed, and gave a speech that was completely incoherent due to him mumbling and what appeared to be him almost falling asleep. I don’t doubt he’s a nice guy, I don’t doubt he has done well for his state with multiple pet projects leading to the expansion of the cities in WV (note all the buildings bearing his name), but I also don’t doubt he has NOT read more than a page of the 1000 page universal health care bill. I can’t see him having an intellectual inner monologue debating the pro’s and con’s of the bill even if he had someone read it to him. But this is not an article to blast Senator Byrd personally. There have been other’s like him throughout history including the latter days of Senator Kennedy during his illness. The House and Senate have turned into more of a national collection of state monarchs rather than a dynamic body of legislators. I think there should be some changes.
1. There should be some form of test that should be passed each term. For example, a physician, after completing medical school and residency needs to take a test every 10 years to prove he is still competent. I want congressmen to take tests to prove they are able to read and reason. This will help to eliminate the breathing corpses sometimes found in congress.
2. There should be term limits and pay limits (rolled back from the current limits). This will help to eliminate the state monarchs; no more Kennedy’s, no more Byrds. I don’t want my congressmen more worried about keeping their job, rather than serving the state they are from. The Senator Spector fiasco where he changed parties because he thought he couldn’t keep his job against the new Republican campaigning is appalling. He is not entitled to his position and if his Republican constituents want him out, he should get out!
3. Town hall meeting should be mandatory and routine. This will essentially force the senators to hear the people that voted for them and perhaps, just perhaps guide their voting.
4. There should be a minimum limit on attendance and votes. No more absentee senators (except for campaigners, of course), but even on a campaign, there should be some time spent in the senate first. I don’t feel it’s fair for constituents to have a newly elected congressman and have him leave for the campaign trail instead of doing ANYTHING promised on the campaign, (like our current President did to the citizens of Illinois). You don’t show up to work, you don’t get paid!
Congress is a bit of a mess and in the shadow of this monumental spending proposed by the Democrats we need the sharpest bunch of servants we can find. Until there is any kind of legislative reform, he have to hope that people out there, including the great people of West Virginia realize that there is more what makes a good legislator than a familiar name.