Health care is worth paying for. . .
October 13, 2009
The Senate Finance Committee is going to vote on their version of health care reform today and it looks like the bill will pass. Price Waterhouse Coopers released a report suggesting that the average family’s premium would increase by $4,000 under the Finance Committee’s plan. I asked myself, if we could provide health insurance to 91% of Americans would I be willing to pay an additional $4,000 per year? The easy answer is yes.
But would YOU be willing to pay $4,000 per year? The only thing I am certain of is that while fixing our existing system may save us money, the cost of providing government mandated/provided health insurance will far exceed the savings. I think every living breathing person outside of Washington would agree with me. There is no free lunch – everything has a price. If we want to provide health insurance for 100% of Americans it is going to cost the rest of us (i.e. the people with money). To refocus the debate each of us needs to think about how much we are willing to contribute to solve this problem. How much is reasonable? 10% of your income? The median household income in the US around $50,000 ($10,000 for taxes, $10,000 for family health insurance, $5,000 for 91% Universal Coverage = $25,000 for everything else). Is 10% too much? Some of my friends on the Left would argue that those with more wealth should pay a higher percentage allowing for those with less wealth to pay less (i.e. nothing). What happened to shared responsibility? Should we all pay our fair share?
The problem with the $4,000 cost per family is that it only covers 91% of American families. What about the other 9% of Americans, why don’t they get to have health insurance? What makes us more deserving of health insurance? Isn’t health insurance a right? Why doesn’t Senator Baucus care about those Americans who need health insurance the most? Does he want them to die and to die fast? Aren’t you sick of the debate? I am. None of these guys have a workable plan. In each case, including the Baucus bill, our leaders have made compromises that either make their plan too expensive or ineffective. Health care reform is like a Rubik’s cube – get one side fixed and the rest get mixed up. The irony is that 100% of Americans think our health insurance system is screwed up. It is literally a total mess. The problem is that we don’t agree on how to fix it. About half of us think the government should take it over and offer it to everyone and the other half thinks the government is the problem with the current system. I hope I sit somewhere in the middle. I think government has a role to play – a very important role – to provide the necessary regulations to provide some order to the chaos that free markets create. I believe incremental changes are called for – not a massive overhaul. I even have a plan, how about you? Any ideas how to fix this mess?
A
H1N1 – a case study for socialized medicine
October 7, 2009
Imagine that a pandemic griped our country. The government organized a group of handpicked doctors to come up with a vaccine. The group voted to determine what the vaccine should include – the voting was not unanimous. Once the voting was complete the government then contracted with several pharmaceutical companies to manufacture the vaccine. The vaccine was developed without going through the normal FDA testing or trials and as a result the vaccine manufacturers required that the government prohibit lawsuits from consumers in the event that the vaccine caused side-effects. The government then decided to make it illegal for the manufacturers to sell the vaccine to anyone but the government. The government planned to give away the vaccine to Americans for free. Of course the government only purchased enough for half of the population. The government then put together another group of doctors who decided who should get the vaccine. Americans who were not selected by the group of doctors could not use their own money to buy the vaccine directly because the vaccine manufacturers could not sell it them. Of course, if you are someone with political clout, such as the President’s inner circle, you don’t have to worry – you will get the vaccine.
Isn’t this crazy? Sadly this is our current system. The government controls what drugs can be manufactured, who can manufacture them and who can take them. We need to take back our health care system – government intervention and regulation has created the mess we are in today. Adding more intervention and regulation is not the answer. I won’t be able to get the H1N1 vaccine and if you are like me, a male in his thirties who doesn’t work for the president, you won’t be able to get the vaccine either. Why is the government involved in my personal health decisions? Do we want more involvement? Fight against Obama and his plan to further socialize our health system – or do nothing and let someone else decide your future for you.
Obama caught in astro-turf photo op!
October 6, 2009
For someone who is as intelligent as Obama, he hasn’t been acting very smart. Yesterday Obama called 150 health care workers, many of whom were doctors who recruited by a Democratic-funded group who supports the President’s plan. In view of the press when they arrived White House staffers handed out white lab coats to each participant. The mainstream media ignored the ‘turf’, but few bloggers on the right or left were able to resist calling Obama on the gaff. Michelle Malkin remarked, “Halloween came early to the White House.“ The institute for public accuracy noted that the White House cherry-picked the doctors who attended. Here are photos:
Health Care Reform is 100% Guaranteed!
October 5, 2009
Yep, it is now a forgone conclusion that both the House and the Senate will pass something called ‘Health Care Reform’. The bills coming out of each chamber will bear little resemblance to one another, but that will be by design. Senators and Representatives will feast on their triumph for quite some time – the actual legislation will be written long after the ‘final markup’ is completed in conference. The actual ‘reform’ will be free and it won’t go into effect until 2013. Those who support ‘health care reform’ (whatever that means) will be able to vote for their Congressmen or Senator without reservation. Those who don’t support ‘health care reform’ will ALSO be able to vote for their Congressmen because he will have no idea what just happened. No one will know anything until 2015 or so. In the meantime we can all rejoice that the conversation is over. The battle was won or lost depending on your side and we can now get back to borrowing money from China.
Conservatives need to realize that we can’t keep sending career politicians back to Washington year after year and expect a different result. We need to elect PEOPLE who share our vision for America. This battle is lost, but the war is just beginning. If you were one of the people who showed up at the Teaparty protests this summer – stay active, stay engaged – make a difference. If you are a frustrated Republican, frustrated with our parties leadership, get involved. Show up at GOP meetings and events – lets take the party back for Lincoln and Reagan.
Nevada won’t pay for health care reform?
October 1, 2009
The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid from Nevada, has negotiated provisions in the Senate health care reform bill that exempts his state from ‘new’ costs associated with the bill. Why should Nevada be exempt from the cost of health care reform? Senators from Michigan, Oregon and Rhode Island complained that their states should be exempt as well and as a result the Senate bill exempts them from the the cost of health care reform as well. What is the deal? Why are some states getting better deals than others?
Simply, the health care reform package is VERY unpopular in those states. Senator Reid looks as if he might lose his Senate seat as well as members from Michigan, Oregon and Rhode Island. Passage of the Senate health care reform package would almost certainly mean Democrats in these states would lose. What does this mean for Republican states like Texas? It means we will be paying for health care reform for the citizens of Las Vegas, Reno, Portland and Providence.
Where is the outrage? Was this the sort of republic the founders sought to create? I am not the first person to ‘bristle’ over this deal. Manu Raju from Politico is just as incensed.
Inconvenient truth: Americans have highest life expectency in world!
September 26, 2009
No really. If you remove obesity and homicide from life expectancy data Americans have a SIGNIFICANTLY higher life expectancy than any other developed country. Of course we are really fat – more twice the number of obese people in Canada and ten times that of Japan. Ouch. Homicide and obesity are NOT a health care issue. The Allysia Finley from the Wall Street Journal has an interesting article that points out that Obama’s assertion that “We spend one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it” isn’t true. Health care reform or insurance reform can’t make us skinny or prevent us from murdering each other. Today we spend more on health care than any other developed country because we are able to borrow the money from China. As a result we are the healthiest people in the world. Money = Health. Health Reform = Less Money.
Who runs Medicare anyway?
September 23, 2009
Obama has suggested that he will pay for his health reform package by cutting $500 billion in waste and fraud from Medicare. My question? Why not start cutting that waste and fraud today? We could use an extra $500 billion to reduce the deficit, right? Who told Obama there was $500 billion in waste and fraud to cut? The Medicare/Medicaid Chief? You might be surprised that Obama has NOT named anyone to run the agency responsible for both programs. I thought this was his TOP priority? If it is so important and there is so much waste and fraud to be cut, why isn’t Obama getting someone in there to fix the system NOW?
Did you know that Medicare and Medicaid are the LARGEST insurance providers in the United States? Imagine the board of directors of Humana or Blue Cross Blue Shield letting their companies run without a CEO. They better have strong D&O policies, because the shareholders would certainly sue them. It would be negligent for a board to let any one of these large insurers go without a leader. Obama had time to appoint a Green Jobs Czar, but has not had the time to appoint anyone to run the most important, most expensive and largest insurer in the U.S.? I just don’t understand.
Obama’s plan would put more of the health system under the direct control of the executive branch (i.e. Obama) and yet he has demonstrated a complete inability to run the existing system (i.e. failing to appoint anyone to run it). Do we really need a new system? Why not try to fix the existing system? Start with hiring someone to run the existing government run insurance system – fix it and then ask the American people if they want you to run the rest of the health insurance system. You wouldn’t hire a plumber or electrician who had no experience – why would we hire someone (i.e. Obama) to run a system that comprises of 1/6th of the economy?
Of course the truth of the matter is that Obama doesn’t believe his own rhetoric. He doesn’t really think there is $500 billion he (or the person he will eventually appoint) can wring out of the existing program. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office told Obama, in writing, that his plan would require benefits to be cut by (you guessed it) $500 billion. There isn’t a provision in the plan that would actually reduce any fraud or waste – there would be simply be less money. Of course this is going to reduce spending, which will pay for about half of Obama’s overall plan.
This administration views (and has said as much) the American people as unruly teenagers who are unwilling to do what is necessary for their own good. Obama believes in what he is doing, but he knows we will not accept his proposal if he tells the truth. He believes that health insurance is a RIGHT of man. He believes that 100% of Americans (and even illegals) have a RIGHT to health insurance. This is where the real debate should be happening. What is the role of government and where do we draw the lines?
If we are going to add health insurance to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, why not add the right to food, shelter and transportation? Without food, Americans will die. Should the government guarantee a certain amount of food to all citizens? Some of you will say yes and others will say no – it is okay to disagree. Without shelter Americans will die (except those in Southern California). Should the government provide housing to all Americans? Again, many of us will disagree on this issue. Without transportation Americans cannot work and as a result they won’t be able to afford food, insurance or shelter – i.e. they will die. Should the government provide automobiles or other public transportation to all citizens? Get my point? This is the real debate that no one seems to want to have. What should be the role of government in our lives?
Our existing – HIGHLY REGULATED – insurance system is a mess. As an employer my rates go up 18-30% each year (literally) while the benefits decline. Doctors have no idea what they will get paid for any of the procedures they recommend and as a result consumers have no way to ration their own care – we just listen to our doctors and hope for the best. If we choose to, we CAN alter the existing regulations and improve the existing insurance program. My friends on the Left will ask, “What about the people who either can’t afford or choose not to have health insurance?” Should our government provide it to them free or force them to purchase it? I don’t believe this is the role of government. My friends on the Left will say, “That’s not fair.” I agree, life isn’t fair. It isn’t supposed to be. We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights – we live in a nation that attempts to provide equal opportunity to all while guarantying these rights. The great experiment or bargain our forefathers entered into when they created the United States had a price – for some of you the price will seem to high.
If we want a government that ensures equality of outcome – i.e. insurance, food and shelter for all – we can’t have the same freedoms the founders set out to guarantee for us. We must decide to change course, to become a new sort of country. One based more on social justice and not capitalism. I hope we don’t go that direction, but we should at least agree to discuss the true nature of the debate – it isn’t about health care it is about the sort of nation we want to live in.
Where you stand on a issue isn’t as important. . .
September 22, 2009
…as how you would go about solving the issue. My friends on the Right and Left have no problem articulating their positions on the various issues of the day, but they rarely have the same level fluency when it comes to outlining their own plan. Most people take the time to decide which side of an issue they will take, but few actually take the time to really think through how they would propose to solve the issue. I think the process of really dissecting the issue and coming up with a plan to resolve it from your own point of view and based on your own value system is VERY important. At the end of the day you really start to understand where you fit in the political spectrum when you actually start to outline solutions. For example, I have outlined my position and plans for the various issues facing our nation and many of my friends on the Left agree with my solutions. I think this is the way forward for America – for rational people to sit down and come up with reasonable solutions. Why not sit down and outline your ideas and then share them? I spent some time outlining my various plans and thoughts, tell me what you think.
- My plan for health care reform
- My plan for immigration reform
- My plan for tax reform
- My plan for the environment and energy
- My thoughts on the right to keep and bear arms
- My thoughts on capital punishment
- My thoughts on church and state
Obama, “it depends on how you define the word tax”
September 21, 2009
Rightwing extremist Democratic strategist, George Stephanopoulos spent considerable effort trying to explain to President Obama that his health care plan would result in additional taxes on individuals. Anyone who has read the current plan understands that it will result in additional monthly payments from Americans – most of us call these ‘levies’, taxes. Obama objected indicating Stephanopoulos was spreading misinformation to the American people. The Wall Street Journal detailed the exchange here.
Stephanopoulos defended his statement insisting, “but it’s still a tax increase.”
Obama gave no ground suggesting that, “you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.”
Stephanopoulos countered, “I don’t think I’m making it up.” He then pulled out the dictionary and read the definition of a tax.
Obama chided, “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. . . .”
Obama is basically suggesting that anything that provides a new service is NOT a tax. Of course, as the WSJ notes, “All taxes can be justified in the name of providing some type of service, however wasteful.” The truth of the matter is that the ‘individual mandate’ is a tax – if we can’t agree on the meaning of words how can we possibly agree on the underlying program?
Senate Democrats Oppose Obama’s Health Reform Plan
September 16, 2009
Senate Democrats, lead by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WA), claim that, despite Obama’s assurances, the health reform plan will increase taxes on the middle class. Democrats, turning on one of their own (Sen Baucus) claim that the plan would impose a 35% excise tax on insurance companies for “high-cost plans”. Obama and his advisors believe that a tax on “high-priced benefits could help slow the growth of health costs by making consumers more sensitive to prices.” I think he might be right – I am very sensitive to price. Obama’s plan will raise more than $200 billion from the middle class through this new tax. Rockefeller tried to explain to Baucus why he couldn’t support the president’s plan:
“He should understand that (his proposal) means that virtually every single coal miner is going to have a big, big tax put on them because the tax will be put on the company and the company will immediately pass it down and lower benefits because they are self insured, most of them, because they are larger. They will pass it down, lower benefits, and probably this will mean higher premiums for coal miners who are getting very good health care benefits for a very good reason. That is, like steelworkers and others, they are doing about the most dangerous job that can be done in America.”
Soon after Baucus learned he lost the support of his own party for the plan, liberal Republican Senator Snow indicated she could not support the plan either. Looks like Obama will need to go back to the drawing board.
