Change We Don't Need

A few tidbits...

2010-04-29T18:35:00.000-07:00

Here are a few tidbits of information that I’ve heard in the past few days and wanted to share:

The Immigration Law In Arizona

Here is a piece from Reuters entitled Arizona Law to Force Hard Choices on Migrants. I’m amazed by the idea that people who are here illegally will have to make hard choices because they may be forced to obey the law. While I feel for them because of where they are coming from I also believe we are a country of laws and those laws must be followed. In other words, get in line and come here legally. The article quotes some illegal aliens. One says “the measure leaves them few options but to leave Arizona”. And another says "This new law gives us no other option than to leave ... I'm going back to Mexico, where I feel more comfortable”. Cha-ching!!! We’ve hit the jackpot – let’s pass this law on a national level. Oh wait, we already have…

Then there is this one by Michelle Malkin which discusses the way Mexico treats their illegal aliens – let’s just say we’re extremely kind by comparison. It does show amazing hypocrisy. Remember, Mexico’s president has come out against the Arizona law and Mexico has issued a travel advisory to their citizens that plan to travel to Arizona. Has the US issued a similar travel advisory? I mean we usually issue travel warnings for places where your safety cannot be assured – Mexico would certainly qualify.

Adult Children and Obamacare

Check out the story: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/fine-print-hinders-effort-to-cover-young-adults-628666.html

One of the big “benefits” of Obamacare was the great idea that you could keep your adult children on your insurance policy until age 26. Whether you want to do that or not is another issue. Most insurance companies allow you to keep your college students on your plan but once they graduate their on their own. So Obamacare helps graduates by allowing them to stay in their parents’ plans until age 26, right? Not quite. Too bad our wonderful representatives didn’t read the fine print. It turns out that the coverage is for the “first plan year on or after September 23”. For most insurance companies the “plan year” starts on January 1. So those graduating this May/June are out of luck until next year (i.e., January 1, 2011). And all insurance plans will be required to provide this coverage, right? Not quite. The article says “The IRS said the overhaul law allows — but does not require— employers to offer tax-free health coverage to adult children until they turn 27. [emphasis mine]” So much for that benefit if your evil employer decides not to offer it. And then there’s the cost. I bet you thought that the adult children would be allowed to stay on the policy for free, right? Not quite. According to the article: “They could spread the cost across their entire pool of employees with family coverage. Or they could charge families that elect to cover their young adults a separate premium, which would be noticeably higher.” And you thought you were getting something for nothing, right? Not quite. Remember there is no such thing as a free lunch no matter what Obama promises you.

As Nancy Pelosi said, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”. Well, it passed and we are now finding out what is in it. So far so god, right?

One more tidbit on Obamacare – remember the report by the HHS that said Obamacare would raise costs? There is a nice summary of that report here. It turns out that this report was given to the HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the controversial vote on the bill. But it was not shared with the American public. So, while the president and the other idiots that voted for it promised that costs would go down if this bill was passed, they had a report that said the costs would go up. But they smiled and lied through their teeth and passed the bill anyway. Incredible!!!

More Spreading Your Wealth but NOT Theirs

Did you catch the story of Bill and Hillary’s niece? She’s Roger Clinton’s daughter and she’s now using a “government benefit card” (aka food stamps) just to buy food. I guess we can see why Hillary thinks it takes a village to raise a child. In the her world, family just doesn’t do things like taking care of their own.

Check out the story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/blogs/yeas-and-nays/Say-what__-Clinton_s-niece-living-on-food-stamps-92266554.html

A Little Encouragement

This is from Bill Bennet’s Morning in America show. He talks with Mike from Michigan about people renouncing their US citizenship because of the state of the nation. Mike is from Croatia and gives one of the best pep talks I’ve ever heard for anyone who thinks we can’t turn this country around:

http://www.billbennett.com/michaelmedved/player.aspx?g=aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLnRvd25oYWxsLmNvbS90b3duaGFsbC9iZW5uZXR0L01pa2VfTWljaGlnYW5fU2VnLm1wMw%5e!%5e%5e!%5e

Mike ends his call with:

America is the greatest land. Every day, if you get down, if you have the opportunity kiss the ground and thank God you’re here.

NJ School Budgets

2010-04-26T14:50:00.000-07:00

Whether you agree or not with the recent budget cuts for schools in New Jersey here are some facts to consider. Many already know the facts and have heard it before but here are links to a couple of great articles on the subject with highlights and comments. I thought I knew a lot but they were still enlightening.

Viva Christie - This piece discusses the fact that two thirds of the states budgets were voted down last week which hasn’t happened since 1976. It also brings up the fact that Christie only cut the budgets by 5%. He also agreed to restore the aid to any district where the teachers agreed to a pay freeze (not cut) and pay 1.5% of their salary for their benefits. While the rest of the country is suffering a bad economy and high unemployment less than 24 of the state’s 591 “active” school districts have agreed to it. Is it really about the children as the teachers’ union says? Or is it about their money? There is a link that lists various school information, most notably the teachers’ “Mean Salaries”:

Mean Salaries (2008-09)**

Administrators and Supervisors	$112,565

Classroom Teachers	$57,465

Educational Support Services	$70,296

District Superintendents	$158,400

Principals	$113,769

Do you think there’s a reason they used “Mean” when referencing teachers’ salaries instead of “Median”? Seriously, there is a difference since mean indicates the average which is not always a reliable number since the average can be skewed by abnormally high or low numbers. The median is normally the preferred number to report. By the way the little “**” next to it references a footnote that indicates this is the first year these salaries are being reported. I wonder why they’ve never been reported before?

The author mentions the Stimulus and how it brought money into NJ and saved teachers’ jobs but what it really did was put off these tough decisions for another year. The author relays a great memory about a northern NJ school district that was having a contract standoff: “I remember walking past the town’s high school and seeing a glistening Mercedes CL500 coupe sitting in the teacher’s lot with a ‘SETTLE NOW’ sign in its windshield.” This is not representative of all teachers but it does lead into the next article.

Bringing Thunder-ous change to New Jersey – This piece starts out discussing a bridge between Morrisville and Trenton. It talks about the bridge being crowded in the afternoon as NJ state workers head home to their 3% income tax in Pennsylvania, while New Jersey’s top rate is 9%. He calls it a lesson in economics that NJ has failed. Then he gives the details of the $2.2 Billion deficit Christie inherited from Corzine and the projected $10 Billion shortfall for next year. Remember that NJ is required by our constitution to have a balanced budget. He mentions the $70 Billion in wealth that has left NJ in the past 4 years and the 115 tax increases imposed over the last 8 years. I wonder if there is a correlation between increased taxes (NJ has the highest tax burden in the country) and the “rich” leaving? The author answers that with the comment that “wealth goes where it is welcome and stays where it is well-treated.” Obviously that’s not New Jersey.

The fact that really got to me in this article was this one [emphasis mine]:
Christie notes that the $550,000 salary of the executive director of the teachers union is larger than the total cuts proposed for 190 of the state's 605 school districts.

What I find interesting about this is that the Obama Administration feels that it is appropriate to issue pay guidelines to companies that have received federal bailout money. This was in response to the “outrage over lucrative pay provided to executives of bailed-out companies while the public struggles with stagnant wages and high unemployment”. Should the NJ teachers’ union be considered a “company” that was bailed out with federal money (a.k.a. Stimulus)? And if so, where’s the outrage that the head of their union is making over a half million dollars while teachers struggle “with stagnant wages and high unemployment”. I forgot, the teachers refused to take a pay freeze so they do not have to worry about “stagnant wages” and it’s only a small handful that will have to deal with unemployment (in my opinion it’s the newer and better ones). This leads me to believe that as long as it is a union boss it is okay to pay an executive an exorbitant amount. Can you say hypocrisy?

While the teachers complain to our children about cutting programs (like band) and losing their jobs, the union executive is doing pretty good and I’m sure there are others. Where is their outrage? When will they decide to take back their union like some of us are planning on doing with our government in November? Instead of encouraging kids to “cut classes and go to the football field to protest his [Christie’s] policies” and showing “students a union-made video critical of him [Christie]” maybe they should be paying more attention to their own union and the millions of dollars they’re spending to combat the cuts.

The author closes with:
[Christie] has joined the struggle that will dominate the nation's domestic policymaking in this decade -- to break the ruinous collaboration between elected officials and unionized state and local workers whose affections the officials purchase with taxpayers' money.

I think Christie is doing exactly what he was elected to do. You can go to the NJEA’s website and send him and your state representatives a note of encouragement (just don’t use their sample letter):

http://njkidsandfamilies.com/elected/

If you’d prefer to call:

http://www.njkidsandfamilies.com/call/

They Want to Spread the Wealth - Just not their own

2010-04-15T14:15:00.000-07:00

This type of thing really bothers me:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/15/obamas-earned-55-million-2009b/

The Obamas earned $5.5 million last year. Out of all of that money they donated only 5.9%. If President Obama thinks people who earn over $250,000 are “rich” and should be taxed more to pay for social programs, then why does he and his wife need over $5 million? If they think other people can live on $250,000, and still be considered rich, then why don’t they donate $5 million of their income and live on the remaining $500,000. They’d still make twice as much as those who they consider rich.

Then there’s Joe Biden and his wife Jill. They earned $333,000 but only gave %1.44 of that to charity. Did you get that? Only 1.44%!!! That is pathetic. Where is his sense of patriotism? Why isn’t he jumping in, being part of the deal and helping America out of the rut? During the campaign he commented they he and Obama wanted “to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people”. How many of you middle-class people out there would love to have some of Obama’s or Biden’s money in your pocket?

This is the height of hypocrisy. It is disgusting and it is embarrassing that they call themselves Christians. It is typical of the liberals that are running this country. They want to raise the taxes on the “rich” so that they can spread the wealth around. They just not willing to spread their own around.

Did you catch this on Rush?

2010-04-14T13:09:00.000-07:00

You may have missed this on the Rush Limbaugh show today. He made reference to the following US Today article:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-13-nuke-plans_N.htm

The article talks about plans from the White House in the case of a nuclear attack. The article starts off with:

The White House has warned state and local governments not to expect a "significant federal response" at the scene of a terrorist nuclear attack for 24 to 72 hours after the blast

Rush mused about the idea that it could take up to 3 days for people to get help after a major disaster in this country. He wondered what the people in New Orleans would think about that.

Conservatives Beware

2010-02-23T16:31:00.000-08:00

The Republicans are meeting with President Obama this week about health insurance reform. This is an effort by President Obama to pretend to show bipartisanship. It is a trap. We should be aware of where this is headed. Last weekend, Ed Rendell (Governor-PA) was on one of the Fox news shows.

He talked about listening to Republican ideas on health insurance reform. He referred to an “excellent” idea by Tim Pawlenty. The idea was to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. He said “that’s a good idea in theory” but he only wants that company from Idaho to sell in Pennsylvania “if they are held to the same standards”. In other words if they provide the mandated coverage that Pennsylvania requires then they can sell insurance there. This is the trickery that the Democrats will be using. You have to pay careful attention to what they are saying. It sounds like they are opening the door to competition by allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines. Here’s the problem – that insurance company in Idaho can already sell insurance in Pennsylvania by registering with the state and selling the insurance that Pennsylvania mandates. There’s no change!!! The point of removing the barrier of state lines is so that people will have the option to buy insurance from a company in a state where there are fewer mandates and cheaper premiums. It’s a simple concept that the Democrats just do not get: more mandates equal higher premiums (see idea #2 in REAL Reform – 7 Ideas for Health Insurance Reform).

Governor Rendell also used the liberal ploy of victimhood by bringing up children with autism. He portrayed Pennsylvania as the champion of the little guy where they tell their health insurance companies that “you have to provide coverage to autistic children”. This is what the liberals refer to as a “consumer protection”. While there are legitimate mandates like covering children with disabilities many of the mandates are unnecessary and simply cause insurance premiums to be higher.

So what is Governor Rendell’s solution? He wants to “set up national standards”. Translation: a national insurance commissioner that determines what is and is not acceptable coverage. So when this commissioner decides massage therapy is a necessary consumer protection (or mandate) that those evil insurance companies must cover, we end up paying higher premiums – whether we want massage therapy or not. It's just another way for the government to tell us what insurance we must have. It’s no different than what we have now at the state level and we see how well that works.

The Democrats will set this up as an effort to be bipartisan. They'll say that they're "listening" to the Republicans' ideas. They'll say they want to implement their ideas. But in reality, they'll ruin the effectiveness of those ideas with more government intervention. Then, when it does not reduce premiums because there are still too many coverage mandates they'll blame the Republicans. If the Republicans say no to this ruse then they will be branded as the party of "no". The trap is set and the Republicans are walking into it. Let's hope the American people are smart enough to see this for what it is.

A Really Good One-Term President?

2010-01-26T05:43:00.001-08:00

Check out the article about Obama's exclusive interview with Diane Sawyer:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/president-obama-good-term-president/story?id=9657337

In it he states that "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." Finally, I can agree with President Obama on something: I too hope he is a one-term president. There's already enough evidence to show that the "really good" part won't happen so I hope he can at least follow through on the second half of this statement.

After reading the article I actually found more things I agree with him on. Like when he said "When your poll numbers drop, you are an idiot." Well his poll numbers have certainly dropped in the past few months so I tend to agree with this assessment of himself – it's more honest than the B+ he gave himself a few months back. Then there was: ""I'd probably say I make a mistake a day, maybe two." Or three or four and most days more.

What amazes me is that this president added $800 Billion to our children's debt with the promise that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. We all know too well where it is now. Then a month or so ago he had a "Jobs Summit" to figure out how to create jobs. Do you think he should have had that summit prior to the $800 Billion stimulus bill? Of course the Chamber of Commerce and National Federation of Independent Business were not invited to the "summit" but unions were. I'm thinking something is a bit backwards there. He invited the people that kill jobs by demanding too much for their constituents but left out the people that create jobs and then wondered where the jobs were.

During the campaign he told us that he was for the middle class. But at the end of the article it talks about him proposing "measures that emerged from his Task Force on Middle Class Families". Say that again? He has to have a Task Force on Middle Class Families? I thought he understood us and that he was bringing hope and change to the working families of America. What does he need a task force for?

Speaking of hope and change and taxes, remember the promise that anyone making under $250,000 ($200,000 for an individual) would not see their taxes increase, "not one single dime"? Of course he ignored that when he raised the cigarette tax but that was for a good cause - health care for kids - so we can let him slide on that broken promise, right? And the health insurance mandate he was going to force on all those young uninsured people, well that wasn't a tax that was a mandate with a "fine" if you didn't comply. So he's still okay, right? Well how about in the article where he's asked about tax increases for people making under $250,000 and instead of guaranteeing "not one single dime" he responded with "I can guarantee that the worst thing we could do would be to raise taxes when the economy is still this weak". Wow, that was emphatic.

The worst thing you could do when the economy is weak is consider jobs-killing bills like cap-and-tax and health insurance overhaul, but he's been doing that for a year now. The worst thing you could do when the economy is weak is to continue to attack the job creators with threats of higher taxes, but he's been doing that for a year now. The worst thing you could do when the economy is weak is to make a statement that indicates once the economy strengthens, they are going to raise taxes. If you were a company why would you consider investing in new jobs when you've just been warned that your taxes will go up when things improve? You wouldn't. You'd hunker down and save your money for the coming storm. That's what people are doing, that's why jobs are not being created, that's why people are not investing. You'd think by now Obama would have realized this but I don't think it is in DNA to understand this.

Does anybody still feel their taxes won't go up? Anybody? Does anybody still think this guy knows what he's doing? Anybody? How's that hope and change working out?

Merry Christmas America!!!

2009-12-23T15:52:00.000-08:00

From Political Cartoons

Click on the picture to view it in full screen.

Health Care Reform, Slavery, Civil Rights and Women’s Suffrage

2009-12-12T00:58:00.001-08:00

Are you for slavery? Are you against a woman's right to vote? Are you against Civil Rights? Well, if you do not support Harry Reid and his efforts to change health insurance he thinks you are. Here's what he said:

Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today

Let's get this right, if you do not agree that government should take over health care in this country with a 2,000+ page bill that limits your choices, raises insurance premiums and does very little to actually help those that need it most, you are a racist or a misogynist or both. According to Harry you are on the wrong side of history, which is something that the Democrats know plenty about. Just ask Al Gore Sr. about his vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I guess he was one of those enlightened Senators that resorted to threats of filibusters. But that's Republicans for you. Oh wait, Al Gore Sr. was a Democrat. Now that adds a new dimension to Harry's accusations, but that's another discussion.

The difference here is that we're not talking about "guaranteeing equal civil rights" to people "regardless of the color of their skin". We're talking about government taking over health care. We're talking about forcing people to buy health insurance and fining them if they don't. We're talking about having to buy your insurance from a government exchange. We're talking about a health commissioner who will decide what coverage can be offered through that exchange, what premiums you will have to pay and how much the evil insurance companies can make, their greedy executives and shareholders. This isn't about the great injustices of slavery and excluding women from the right to vote. This is about health insurance, how much it will cost, who will pay for it and how much the government will be involved.

It should also be about what the people want. Do they want this reform? The most recent polls (even in Nevada) say "No" but the politicians are deciding to forge ahead so they can be "on the right side of history". It's a very emotional pretext; like telling everyone about the 47 million people without insurance or the tens of thousands of people that die each year without health insurance. But what about the merits of the bill? If you were trying to sell someone a car would you tell them they were racist for not buying the car or would you tell them about all of the great features on the car? Instead of the immature name calling, why can't Harry tell the American people about what his bill will do to help them? Instead of platitudes about making history and winning one for the American people, tell them what the right side of history is, tell them what you've won for them. Or is Harry afraid that the American people are smart enough to realize they've won a booby prize? Even in Harry's home state there is a "growing belief … that Obama's reform package will raise taxes, result in rationing of health care, and cause major cuts to Medicare programs." Only "39 percent of the [Nevadans] approve of Reid's efforts to get a bill through the U.S. Senate." And he talks about being on the right side of history?

Harry will tell us that the Republicans are the party of "No", that they have no ideas and can just say "slow down" or "let's start over". Of course Harry will not tell us about the many alternatives that Republicans have offered like: leveling the tax system for individuals who buy their own insurance, reducing (not increasing) coverage mandates, real competition by removing the barrier to buying insurance across state lines (not an insurance exchange run by the government), vouchers for the working poor, expanding health savings accounts and tort reform. Unfortunately, his bill does not include any of these common sense approaches to real health insurance reform. Harry's bill doesn't include them because they give power and choice to the people and take government out of the process. We can't have that now can we? Since Harry does not like what the Republicans offer he just pretends that their ideas do not exist. No wonder he reverts to name calling and emotional appeals, he has nothing else.

Instead of extolling the virtues of his plan, Harry blathers on about slavery, women's voting rights, Civil Rights and the right side of history. Meanwhile the interests of the American people are ending up on the wrong side of history.

Obamacare and Public Housing – Can We Expect the Same?

2009-12-04T07:44:00.001-08:00

Which Would You Choose?
The Public Option	The Private Option

Grove Parc Plaza	Obama's House in Hyde Park

Liberals tell us that health care, like food, clothing and housing, is a basic human right. And that in a country as rich the United States no one should go without these basic human rights. This is the driving force behind the push for health care reform – there are 46 million people without insurance and that's just not fair (see Myth #3 below). We are one of the most compassionate, caring and giving nations in the world so we listen to the politicians and allow them to pass laws that legislate our compassion. We allow them to take our money and decide how best to give it to those that are less fortunate, while taking a good percentage off the top to pay for the administrative bureaucracy. If we complain we're labeled selfish and greedy.

So to take care of all of those poor uninsured people, Harry Reid has introduced a 2,000+ page health care "reform" bill that is now being debated in the Senate (the house has already passed their version of this debacle). There is plenty about this bill that should scare people, from the major "reforms" not taking effect until 2014 to the creation of a "Health Choices Commissioner" who will decide what benefits you must have in your insurance plan to young people being forced to buy health insurance (so much for no new taxes on people making under $250,000), but the biggest is the government's involvement and their ability to provide for the people who really need help.

The Federal government is not known for providing efficient and effective services (think Katrina, the Post Office, Welfare, the DMV). But what about the promises of "hope" and "change" made by President Obama? Where others have failed before he can certainly do better. Can't he? After all, he has a lot of experience providing the basic human right of housing for his constituents in the past. Surely, the man that wants to bring health care to 46 million uninsured people and make it more affordable for the rest of us would have a stellar record when it comes to housing for the poor. The man who promises hope and change for the country and a total revamp of our insurance industry and one-sixth of our economy must have brought similar hope and change to the poor people he represented in Chicago.

As it turns out, there was not so much hope but definitely change. One needs only to read a Boston Globe article from June 2008 entitle Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy to see Obama's poor record on providing the basic human right of housing to his lower-income constituents. It provides an insight into the "health care" that might be provided by Obama and the Democrats in Congress. The article describes a public housing complex of 504 apartments called Grove Parc Plaza, a neighborhood represented by Barack Obama when he was a state senator. This complex is home to "people who can't afford to live anywhere else" – sounds a bit like those 47 million uninsured Americans we keep hearing about. However, in the opening paragraphs the article states:

But it's not safe to live here.

About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks.

Sewage in the kitchen sink!!! This is what Obama was able to deliver as a basic human right to his constituents – sewage in their kitchen sinks. Can you imagine what his version of health care will be like?

The article goes on to describe various relationships Obama had with developers that were responsible for public housing throughout his district and the poor conditions that their properties eventually wound up in. The Obama camp said that he knew nothing about the poor conditions but the article states that:

Obama sometimes worked on their cases. In at least one instance, he represented the nonprofit company that owned Grove Parc, Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., when it was sued by the city for failing to adequately heat one of its apartment complexes.

I guess housing is a basic human right but heat in the winter is not. Again, can you imagine what his version of health care will be like?

Highlighted in the article is the millions of dollars that people made by providing a "basic human right". Our tax dollars (yes, much of it was federally funded) enriched many of Obama's associates in the name of being compassionate, caring and giving. It also enriched his campaign coffers as these developers donated money to him in return for his support. The most disturbing part of it is that this is the man that is promising to fundamentally change our health insurance. He wants to provide a "public option" for all of those poor people that cannot afford health insurance. A public option that many companies will "choose" for their employees. A public option that you may end up on. Think about it, do you really want health insurance provided by the government? Would you willingly give up your current coverage and take Medicaid?

Do you still think you have a choice? Once this health care bill is passed you will not have a choice. Once the government exchange is implemented in 4 years the Health Choices Commissioner will choose for you. The government will decide what minimum coverage you must have and you will either get that coverage or pay a fine. Your employer will choose to provide that coverage or pay a fine and force you to take the public option. The Health Choices Commissioner will decide what procedures will be covered. Remember the most recent guidelines for breast cancer screenings? Which one of your sisters, mothers, wives or daughters will not have this life-saving screening because the government has decided it is not necessary and it is no longer covered? Which cancer drug will the government deny because it is too costly? Keep in mind that the rich who will be supposedly be taxed to pay for all of this wonderful stuff will still have money to get private care while we're left with the public option.

After reading about Barack Obama's record on providing the basic human right of housing with sewage backing up into people's kitchen sinks and apartments with no heat in the winter (in Chicago!!!), do you trust him to provide your health insurance? Do you even want him involved in your health insurance? The article closes with a very prophetic quote from a housing activist in Chicago with regards to Obama. He says "I hope there is not much predictive value in his history and in his involvement with that community." I couldn't have said it better. Let's hope that the change Obama brings to our health care and insurance is not the same change he brought to the people in Grove Parc Plaza.

Have You Seen The Newest Stimulus Signs?

2009-08-30T21:07:00.000-07:00

REAL Reform – 7 Ideas for Health Insurance Reform

2009-08-25T17:47:00.001-07:00

Here are 7 ideas for health insurance reform that are not part of the plans currently proposed in Congress. If you look at the Republican's counterproposals you will find some version of these in all of them. These reform ideas are based on the free-market and are aimed at putting the power and choice over health care decisions back in the consumers' hands.

Tort Reform – This is an often laughed at proposal made by conservatives. Liberals like to mock this idea saying that is the only plan Republicans have to offer. Regardless of who offers it up, shouldn't it be considered? According to an IBD Editorial, "The accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers says about 10% of the cost of medical service is attributable to medical malpractice lawsuits. Roughly 2% is caused by direct costs of the lawsuits; an additional 5% to 9% is due to expenses run up by defensive medicine." According to CRS Report for Congress, in "2006, National Health Expenditures (NHE) were $2.1 trillion". If we saved 10% that would be $210 billion in savings. We could cover a lot of uninsured people with that money.
Considering the rate at which the lawyers are donating to the Democrats in Congress it is not likely that tort reform will ever be a part of this law. Consider that 2% of the health expenditures in 2006 would have been $41 billion. The lawyers typically get 1/3 of that or about $13.6 billion. According to a Washington Examiner Op-Ed:
An Examiner analysis of the 15 firms on the National Law Journal's "2008 Plaintiff's Hot List" shows that for 2009, their employees have contributed $636,305 to federal politicians and PACs. Only $4,875 of that amount has gone to Republicans, meaning that the nation's top trial lawyers are giving more than 99 percent Democratic this year. The PAC for the American Association of Justice, the top trial lawyer lobbying group, has been marginally more balanced, giving Democrats a mere 96 percent of its $627,000 in contributions.
Is it any wonder why the Democrats do not want to implement tort reform?
Reduce Mandates – One of the biggest reasons insurance premiums have continued to rise is the ever expanding mandates on coverage. The politicians think it is a great idea to force insurance companies to provide coverage because it is necessary or compassionate. The problem is that these mandates increase the cost of premiums. A recent report by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance stated that:

While mandates make health insurance more comprehensive, they also make it more expensive because mandates require insurers to pay for care consumers previously funded out of their own pockets. We estimate that mandated benefits currently increase the cost of basic health coverage from a little less than 20% to more than 50%, depending on the state and its mandates. Mandating benefits is like saying to someone in the market for a new car, if you can't afford a Cadillac loaded with options, you have to walk. Having that Cadillac would be nice, as would having a health insurance policy that covers everything one might want. But drivers with less money can find many other affordable car options; whereas when the price of health insurance soars, few other options exist.
Lobbyists contribute to a state politician's campaign and all of a sudden you're paying a higher premium for coverage you may not need or want. While politicians can go back to their constituents and claim that they have provided them with better health insurance coverage, all they've really done is increase the premiums that everyone pays. The proposals before Congress add more mandates to coverage and with the proposed "insurance exchange" all of your coverage will eventually be determined by the government. If you want a cheaper policy that does not cover doctor's visits or has higher deductibles you will not have that choice. The government will decide what coverage you will be forced to have. So with all of these new mandates, how can they claim they will reduce premiums?
Change Tax Code – Two of the selling points that the Democrats are using is that under their plan people will no longer have to fear losing coverage if they move or change jobs and if you like what you have you can keep it. These are false promises because if you change jobs you will only have coverage under the government option meaning that you cannot keep what you have, even if you like it. Changing the tax code and leveling the field for people buying individual insurance could actually accomplish both of the above points.

Currently, your employer chooses the insurance plan and you have to live with it. If you're lucky and work for a larger company you may get to choose between several plans. Either way, your employer makes the decisions. If you want to change jobs, your insurance coverage disappears. If you purchase your own policy you do not get to deduct all of the cost from your taxes while your employer deducts 100% of the cost from his taxes. How is any of this fair to the employee? The current proposals do nothing to change this.
The tax laws need to be changed so that individuals get the same tax breaks that employers get. The idea would be to encourage employers to stop providing insurance, pay the savings to the employees and let the employees purchase their own insurance plans. This would give choices to the employee while also allowing them to take their insurance with them if they changed jobs. No longer would an employee be stuck in job because they were chained to their health insurance. Employees would finally own their insurance policy.
This would also put choice, power and responsibility into the hands of the consumer. The consumer would be able choose the insurance that best meets their needs. They can choose a comprehensive policy that covers doctor's visits or a cheaper catastrophic policy. If they chose a more expensive policy they would have to make up the difference like they do now except it would be their choice not the employer's. If they chose a cheaper policy they could put the extra money into a Health Savings Account (see below) and use tax-free money to pay for out of pocket expenses.
According to this CRS Report for Congress:
Within the private category, private heath[sic] insurance payments accounted for a growing share of spending (34.4% in 2006, compared with 22.2% in 1966), while consumer out-of-pocket payments accounted for a shrinking share (12.2% in 2006, compared with 39.8% in 1966).
This is an indication that over the past 40 years more and more of the payments being made are coming from the insurance companies and not from the consumers. This is a disturbing trend because people are removed from the real cost of the services they are receiving. How many people know exactly what their last doctor's visit cost? They know what they're co-pay was but most have no idea what their doctor charged the insurance company. If consumers paid more of their health care costs out of their pocket they would be more aware of the actual costs and demand that costs were brought down. Consumers would be more willing to shop around if they were paying the bill. As it stands now, most people think they are getting "free" health insurance from their employer and look to the politicians to implement "reform" (i.e., more mandates) in order to get better coverage. What they do not understand is that their employer pays the insurance premiums on their behalf and reduces their wages proportionately. Putting the power in the employees' hands will give them more choices, more security and more "skin in the game".
Allow Purchasing of Insurance Across State Lines – The current laws are such that you have to purchase insurance only from providers that sell insurance within your state. If you hear of a cheaper insurance policy that is available in the state next door, you cannot purchase it. Removing the barriers of state lines would truly increase competition; more than any government option would allow. The current proposal in the House includes something called an "insurance exchange". The concept is that all insurance will eventually be purchased through this exchange. On page 17, the bill discusses the "GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT BASED HEALTH PLANS" and page 19 of the bill states:

Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
In essence, this will allow individuals and companies to purchase insurance across state lines. Unfortunately, this exchange is a huge encroachment by the government into the insurance industry. The exchange will mandate more coverage meaning higher premiums and dictate the profits that insurance companies are allowed to make. When are we going to start limiting the profits of Bill Gates and Microsoft? How about the actors making over $20 million per film? This exchange will not increase competition it will only involve the government more than they need to be.
Expand Health Savings Accounts (HSA) – Health Savings Accounts are similar to 401Ks and IRAs in that tax-free money is put into a savings account. This money is then used to pay for out-of-pocket health care expenses. HSAs have the benefit of being a tax-free investment vehicle. When the individual retires the money can be withdrawn, like form an IRA, without penalty for non-health care related expenses. An HSA could be used in conjunction with a cheaper catastrophic insurance policy and would pay for the associated out-of-pocket expenses (e.g., doctor's visits, deductibles, etc.).
Vouchers for Working Poor – There is a segment of our population that is truly in need of help with accessing health care. This is the small group of people that do not have employer-provided insurance and make too much money to qualify for government programs like Medicaid but not enough to reasonably afford health insurance on their own (estimates put this group at 8-12 million people). This group should be given vouchers that would allow them to purchase their own insurance (tax credits are a similar option). These vouchers would give the worker the choice of which insurance plan works best for them. Again, the idea is to give the consumer choices. The major initiative of the proposed bills in Congress is to cover these people with a "government option". This is simply another version of Medicaid and does not give people a choice. It will be another government entitlement program full of fraud, corruption and bureaucrats paid for by the taxpayers. This is not the answer. Give people a choice and with it some dignity. Here is a great quote:
Self-respect arises only out of people who play an active role in solving their own crises and who are not helpless, passive, puppet-like recipients of private or public services. To give people help, while denying them a significant part in the action, contributes nothing to the development of the individual. In the deepest sense it is not giving but taking – taking their dignity.

Vouchers would help them and allow them to "play an active role in solving their own crises". Giving them the government option will do nothing for them. By the way, this quote is from one of liberals' greatest heroes Saul Alinsky in his book Rules for Radicals.
Pre-Existing Conditions – This is a tough topic because everyone wants to be compassionate and provide coverage to all people. However, encouraging people to forgo insurance and only get it once they need it is not a good answer. This would be like getting car insurance after you've had an accident. At one point the insurance companies had agreed to drop the pre-existing conditions clauses as long as everyone was required to have insurance. Another option is to set it up so that as long as you are in the insurance system (i.e., insured) you cannot be denied coverage because you are changing insurance policies for some reason. There would need to be a grace period of some kind so that people currently not able to get insurance because of pre-existing conditions would be able to get into the system.

All of the above reforms require government oversight of the insurance industry – similar to what is already in place at the state level. These reform ideas give choices and freedom to the consumer and limit the role of government, which should be the goal of any legislation that is considered. Obviously, Obamacare does not seek to give the consumer choices and limit government involvement because Obama and his liberal cronies are not interested in reforming health insurance to make it more affordable and expanding it to more people. They are simply interested in more government control, control we do not need or want.

Obama’s Own Words – A Little Context

2009-08-17T19:45:00.000-07:00

By now you've probably seen the video of Obama stating that he is "a proponent of single payer health care" and we're not "going to eliminate employer coverage immediately". If not, check out the post below. Or check out this video from the GOP:

In the video Obama says "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care system" in 2003. Then in 2007, he said "I don't think we're going to eliminate employer coverage immediately, there's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out or 20 years out where we've got a much more portable system." Now, Obama says "if you have insurance that you like then you will be able to keep it".

The distribution of videos like this prompted the White House to post a video response claiming that these clips of Obama were taken out of context or were "cherry-picked". The truth is that these quotes are taken out of context. To put them into context we need only look to one of Obama's idols, Saul Alinsky. In the introduction of his book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky writes:

Effective organization is thwarted by the desire for instant and dramatic
change…To build a powerful organization takes time. It is tedious, but that's
the way the game is played

So now take Obama's words in the context of his community organizing mentor. We're not going to get instant and dramatic change. We're not "going to eliminate employer coverage immediately". It takes time, "a decade … or 15 years … or 20 years".

Alinsky goes on to write:

Men don't like to step abruptly out of the security of familiar experience;
they need a bridge to cross from their own experience to a new way.

And:

The fear of change is … one of our deepest fears, and a new idea must be at
the least couched in the language of past ideas; often it must be, at first,
diluted with vestiges of the past.

Alinsky puts Obama's words in context. "If you have insurance that you like then you will be able to keep it" – until your fear of change has been put to rest. Obama has also said:

I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based system in this country with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that I believe would be too disruptive. So what would end up happening would be, a lot of people who currently have employer-based health care would suddenly find themselves dropped, and they would have to go into an entirely new system that had not been fully set up yet. And I would be concerned about the potential destructiveness of that kind of transition.
What Obama is trying to sell you is that "bridge" to cross to a new way. He is diluting it with vestiges of the past, "we historically have had a employer-based system" so if you have employer-based insurance you can keep it. But if you change jobs, lose your job or move you're only choice will be the government option. If your employer decides it's cheaper to pay the 8% penalty than to keep your current insurance, then your only option will be the government option. This is that "transition process" Obama talked about in 2007. In order to sell you this health care atrocity, Obama will tell you that "you will be able to keep it" and hide his true intentions "in the language of past ideas".
Now the administration is saying that the public option is not a requirement but the liberal Democrats are saying that health care reform without the public option is not reform. Be assured that some form of this public option will be included in any bill. It may be hidden with language about co-ops or some other verbiage but it will be there.
Remember that words do matter. And for those that still want to believe what Obama says today versus what he has said in the past, here is what he said last week at a town hall meeting in Belgrade, Montana:
Everybody here who still has -- who has currently private insurance, you
would more than likely still be on your private insurance plan.
Is "more than likely" good enough for you?

Why We Need Health Care Reform – according to Obama

2009-08-17T06:00:00.000-07:00

The New York Times on Saturday published an OP-ED piece titled Why We Need Health Care Reform by President Obama. In it Obama continued his assault on those evil insurance companies saying that "millions upon millions" of people "struggle every day with a system that often works better for the health-insurance companies than it does for them". What he neglects to mention is that tens of millions of people have no problem with their insurance companies and more than 80% of people are happy with their health care (see CNN poll). He then goes on to tell the horror stories of a self-employed woman who cannot get health insurance because she has hepatitis C and a man who died because his insurance provider delayed his chemotherapy treatment. Again, he leaves out the countless stories of those people who do get health insurance and have received benefits and lived to tell about it. He also leaves out the statistics on cancer survival rates in the US versus countries with a single-payer system. How about telling some of the many horror stories that we hear coming from Canada and the UK? Of source, that would not sell the "change" that Obama is trying to push through. Demonizing the insurance companies is the current scare tactic that is being employed.

Obama goes on to point out four ways that "the reform we're proposing will provide more stability and security to every American". His first point: "First, if you don't have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job" is intellectually dishonest. That "affordable coverage" will be the government option (note that he does not refer to the "government option" in the entire piece). You will not have coverage if you move, change or lose your job unless you are on the government option – that's not stability or security, that's government getting involved in your health insurance. Real reform would include changing the tax code so that people had the same tax advantage as their employer when purchasing their own insurance coverage and opening up the insurance market so you could purchase insurance across state lines. This would be real stability and security but the Democrat's plans do not include any of this reform. It only includes a government option.

Obama's second and third points involve Medicare and Medicaid. He claims they will get hundreds of billions of dollars in savings from cutting waste and inefficiency. When has government ever cut waste and inefficiency? The terms waste and inefficiency go hand-in-hand with most people's thoughts of government but we're supposed to believe that more government will equate to saving money. He also gets a few shots in at those evil insurance companies by suggesting that by cutting some of the waste in Medicaid and Medicare "we'll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies" and "unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits". The insurance companies are not the evil ones here, the government bureaucrats wasting our tax dollars are the problem. More bureaucracy is not the answer. However, cutting the waste in Medicare and Medicaid would be a welcomed "reform" if you trust that the government is actually capable of such cuts.

Obama's last point is aimed directly at those evil insurers and holding them "accountable". He tells us about a study from 2007 where 12 million people were "discriminated against" by these evil insurance companies. He goes on to explain how their plans will require insurance companies to provide various services like routine checkups and preventive care. What Obama is missing is that this will only drive up the costs of our insurance premiums. One of the biggest reasons for our rising insurance premiums is the increasing number of mandates placed on our coverage by the government. The more the insurance companies have to cover the higher the premiums will be – it's simple.

This is reminiscent of one of the arguments used by liberals for mandating that everyone have health insurance coverage: car insurance. They argue that everyone has to have car insurance so what's so different about everyone being required to have health insurance? It's a good argument, except that not everyone has to have car insurance. Name me one ten year old that has car insurance. Driving is a privilege and in order to take part in that privilege you have to have insurance. But let's consider this example further. First, car insurance provides many options. You can pay a smaller premium by choosing higher deductibles or forgo certain coverage like collision. Health insurance does not have these options due to the coverage mandates that vary from state to state. Second, car insurance is intended to cover you when you get in an accident and have a need. It is not meant to provide coverage for "routine checkups". Can you imagine what your premiums would be if your insurance company paid for oil changes? What if people could get coverage after they had an accident? What would your premiums be then? Finally, there is a lizard that sells cheaper car insurance. For years if you lived in New Jersey you could not do business with the lizard because NJ mandated that companies sell all forms of insurance not just car (e.g. home, fire etc.). Since the lizard did not sell these other insurances they were not able to offer their cheaper insurance to NJ consumers. Eventually, the state lifted this mandate and NJ consumers are now saving money on car insurance – it's called competition. Maybe that would work for health insurance.

The president discusses all of the organizations that are "on board" with his plan. Unfortunately he is exaggerating the level of support for his policies in order to garner support. For example, he claims the AMA is on board, which they are. But the AMA only represents a small percentage of practicing physicians. Some physicians argue that "the AMA represents less than 1/3 of America's physicians and half of those are retired." That's not as much support as the statement infers. He also states that "we have an agreement from the drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year." Notice the careful use of words. Does the AARP support the policy of an agreement with the drug companies or Obama's overall policies on health care reform? In his New Hampshire town hall meeting Obama suggested "We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors." The only problem is that AARP released a statement after the town hall that said "While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate." The reality is that there are not as many people "on board" with his plans as he'd like you to believe.

In his closing paragraphs, President Obama tells us that "the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain". He then goes on to use the politics of fear by suggesting that "we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day" and maybe you should fear that you may be one of them. Most of those Americans are losing their health care because they are losing their jobs. We could stop these losses by cutting taxes on the companies that create jobs but instead we are considering a health care reform bill that will raise their taxes. Companies are scared to hire people because they do not know what the impact will be of this health care atrocity. Obama continues with the fear that "[p]remiums will continue to skyrocket" and the "deficit will continue to grow". Well, if you continue to increase the mandates for our insurance the premiums will continue to increase and the bills in Congress do just that. So, with or without this reform our insurance premiums will grow. As for the deficit, as long as the politicians continue to spend our money like there is no tomorrow, the deficit will continue to grow. When they stop spending money they do not have, our deficit will not only stop growing but will actually disappear.

The fear of the evil insurance companies had to be included because they "will continue to profit by discriminating against sick people." Of course, they won't continue to profit because that is what they are supposed to do; it must be because they "discriminate" (again, notice the wording). It's not that the insurance companies deny coverage because of policy or coverage limits. It's because they discriminate. So let's pass this health care "reform" and make those evil profiteers pay. While we're at it, let's make those evil money-making doctors pay, and the greedy drug companies and everyone else out there that tries to live the American dream and make a profit. Let's also forget that the reason we have the best health care in the world is because of the ability for innovative and motivated people to make money.

Obama ends with the thought that "[t]his is about America's future, and whether we will be able to look back years from now and say that this was the moment when we made the changes we needed, and gave our children a better life." He is right that it is about America's future and how we will look back years from now. Will we make the changes that we really need? Or will we allow more of our rights and freedoms to be taken away with the liberals' version of health insurance "reform"?

Welcome to Nineteen Eighty-Four

2009-08-08T16:37:00.001-07:00

Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!

Thomas Jefferson

This past week Macon Phillips, the White House Director of New Media, created a blog post titled Facts Are Stubborn Things. In it Mr. Phillips warns people of the "[s]cary chain emails and videos [that] are starting to percolate on the internet". He includes a video from Linda Douglass that was made in response to a link on The Drudge Report. The link was to a video showing Obama and other Democrats in their own words talking about eliminating employer provided health insurance in favor of a single-payer system. It's a pretty basic video and Obama is quite clear about his goals. However, Ms. Douglass tries to explain Obama's position by telling us about the "misinformation" being spread. And Mr. Phillips goes on to repeat the lie that "the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them". If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale (check out the truth).

What's most disturbing about this post is in the next paragraph where Mr. Phillips suggests "[i]f you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov". Is this really what we want our government focused on? Spying on your neighbor and reporting them to the White House Director of New Media? This is Obama's idea of liberty – make people live in fear of being reported to the White House. This is his idea of "fighting the smears". This is his vision when he called on us to join him in transforming America.

It's scary that the government, particularly the Executive Branch, is requesting that individuals keep track of each other and report on their neighbor's actions. It harkens back to the days of Hitler and the Nazis. It goes against everything for which this country was founded. It even goes against Obama's campaign rhetoric. Remember the speech where Obama suggested "I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them … I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Isn't that what people are doing at these town hall meetings? They are talking to their friends and neighbors, arguing with them and getting "in their face". The problem is that they are arguing against Obama; and the chosen one doesn't like it. As a matter of fact, most of the liberals do not like it.

It starts at the top with Obama saying "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess." What he means is get out of the way so that we can push through our liberal agenda without any real discussion. Get out of the way and let government take over health care without real, open and honest debate. When it is in his favor he wants people to argue with their neighbors and "get in their face". When it is against him he wants "them to get out of the way". This is amazing hypocrisy.

Going down the chain we come to Harry Reid describing the protestors as being "nothing more than destructive efforts to interrupt a debate that we should have, and are having. They are doing this because they don't have any better ideas. They have no interest in letting the negotiators, even though few in number, negotiate. It's really simple: they're taking their cues from talk show hosts, Internet rumor-mongerers ... and insurance rackets." Really? They don't have better ideas? You obviously have not been listening to them. There are better ideas out there and they do not include a government option. Most include less government, not more.

Then you have Barbara Boxer suggesting that the protestors are too "well-dressed" and Congressman Brian Baird (D-WA) deciding to forgo town hall appearances in favor of telephone town halls. He suggested that all people wanted was to have "the chance to shout and make YouTube videos". Not that they are concerned and want to be heard. He further insulted concerned Americans voicing their opposition to this health care "reform" suggesting that "[w]hat we're seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics." And finally there is Nancy Pelosi claiming that insurance companies are evil and that protestors are "carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."

What we're supposed to believe is that the people who are protesting this health care reform are being organized by the evil insurance industry, do not have any better ideas, are taking marching orders from "fishy" websites and talk radio, only want to shout and make You Tube videos, are like the Nazis with their swastikas and Brown Shirts and need to get out of the way. That sums up what is being heard at town hall meetings across this country according to the liberals on the left.

While the mainstream media continues to report on all of the evil right-wing extremists protesting against health care with their brown shirts and swastikas they neglect to report about the tyrannous behavior of those who support this health care atrocity. They do not report on the town hall meetings closed off to the general public but open to Blue Shirt union members (see the video). They do not report about the black conservative (Kenneth Gladney) handing out "Don't Tread on Me" flags that was beat up by Blue Shirt SEIU union thugs after calling him the N-word. Of course this should be expected considering the White House told the Democrats that "If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard." I guess some of those SEIU thugs took that literally or maybe that is what the White House meant – Chicago politics comes to Washington.

So the White House is asking people to keep track of their neighbors and report them, they are suggesting that the Democrats should "punch back" (some literally), they are vilifying people that "get in their face" and they are trying to suppress free speech by making people who disagree with them live in fear. Is this the change that people voted for? Is this a government of the people and by the people? Does this government fear us? Has tyranny found victory? Has the federal government become our master?

Welcome to Nineteen Eighty-Four's Big Brother and Obama's vision for America.

The Deception of the "Government Option"

2009-07-24T07:45:00.000-07:00

Most people know that what Obama says in speeches and what he believes are not always the same. Here is a video that shows the truth about what he plans to do with health care and the Government Option that he is trying to sell. People need to pay attention to this and realize what is coming. This option is being sold as a plan that would "compete" with private insurance and give people a choice. The reality is that this is just a first step towards a "single-payer, universal health care system". Watch the video and listen to Obama's own words:

I don't think we're going to eliminate employer coverage immediately, there's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out or 20 years out where we've got a much more portable system.

Let's hold Obama to his famous quote and tell him that words do matter and his words have told us exactly what he plans to do. They've spelled out his plan. All we need to do is listen.

This video shows the real goal of Obama and the Democrats' health care revolution. If they really want to reform health care, they'd consider actual reforms that would work. If they wanted to make health care more affordable, they'd reduce the mandates that are required of insurance companies, eliminate the barriers of state lines in purchasing health insurance and implement tort reforms. If they wanted to make health care more portable, they'd change the tax code so that employers can pay employees more so that employees could purchase their own insurance (see what you're worth to a company) allowing them to take their insurance with them when they change jobs. If they wanted to give people choice, they'd expand health savings accounts to allow them to make their own health care decisions by giving them the option to purchase catastrophic insurance and pay for other medical expenses with tax-free dollars. Letting employees buy their own insurance also gives them more choices. If they really wanted to help the uninsured working poor, they'd expand Medicaid to cover them. Or, better yet, they'd give the working poor vouchers so that they can purchase their own private health insurance thereby giving them even more choices.
This isn't about choices, competition, more affordable premiums or providing health insurance to the poor. It is about taking over our health care system and implementing a single-payer system that won't work. It's not a reform, it's a revolution.

An Introduction to the 10 Myths of American Health Care

2009-07-20T12:00:00.000-07:00

As we hear of the new 1,000+ page House plan to “reform” health care in America we need to stop and consider what is really going to be reformed and why. In order to properly frame the discussion the following slideshow introduces some of the myths or lies that are being used to push this health care “reform”. These myths are taken from the book The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care – A Citizen’s Guide by Sally C. Pipes. The book is filled with great information about the reality of our current health care problems while dispelling these commonly held beliefs that the politicians and media promulgate in order to push us into a government run health care system. As a generally compassionate society we all want to help our fellow citizen. The questions are: what is the extent of the problem, what are real solutions and how much should we have to sacrifice?

Please check out the slideshow. To see a more detailed synopsis from the book, click on the link at the bottom right of each slide or check out The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care – A Synopsis.

If you would like more information check out some of the following links:

http://www.ncpa.org/

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/

http://republican.senate.gov/doctors/

Obamacare – The Government Option and Your Right to Choose

2009-07-19T23:02:00.000-07:00

The Debate

Some people view this as a Republican versus Democrat or liberal versus conservative issue; the evil, heartless Republicans do not want to help the poor uninsured people while the caring liberals just want to provide insurance to everyone. This could not be farther from the truth. Most of us, liberals and conservatives, agree that our health care/insurance system needs to be fixed and that access to health care is not generally available to everyone. Some conservatives even believe that we should provide help to people that are not able to afford health insurance. Our compassion fills us with the desire to help others in need. The problem is that most of us are misinformed about what the real problems are, much less how to fix them. We rely on our elected leaders to do what's right. Unfortunately, we're led to believe that the problems are bigger than they are (e.g., 46 million uninsured Americans, see Myth #3). To provide some basic facts and dispel a few myths, please see An Introduction to the 10 Myths of American Health Care. It is important to understand the real issues before agreeing to massive changes in our health care system that may not increase the quality of your care or lower your costs. In fact, the proposed changes may increase your costs and lower the quality of your care.

So let's put aside the labels and party lines and honestly discuss the issue. The politicians are not interested in an honest discussion or they'd stop repeating the myths and stop lying to you about the real impact of their "reform". What impact will it have on you?

The Government Option

The House of Representatives has released a 1,000+ page health care "reform" bill. The intent of this bill is to provide health care for everyone making health insurance a right for all people. Whether you think health insurance is a right or not is for another discussion. What's more important now is what the politicians are trying to do to health care. According to this AP story on the House plan:

The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages, with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.

Bloomberg reports the bill also "includes mandates to purchase coverage and a public health-insurance option". This is pretty much what was expected. It appears that employers, "rich" people and some healthy individuals are going to cover most of the tab for this health care plan. I could go into the fact that this is a major redistribution of wealth. You could read the quotes on the right about wealth redistribution. I could even suggest that this goes against everything that our founders had in mind when they wrote our Constitution and wanted free markets and limited government. All of this may be true but is not relevant to most people. A lot of people will look at this and think

"They're taxing the rich. I don't care, it doesn't affect me."

"An 8% penalty, no big deal, my employer will have to pay it. I don't care, it doesn't affect me."

"I already have health insurance from my employer. I'm happy with it and I can keep it. I don't care, it doesn't affect me."

Should you care? Does it really affect you? If you take the politicians and the media at their word, no it does not affect you. Of course, the media always tells the truth and who's ever heard of a politician lying?

Your Right to Choose

When you listen to the media and the politicians you'll hear about the 47 million people who are uninsured and need help (see Myth #3). You'll hear about how much we're spending on health care costs (Myth #2). You'll hear about the high cost of drugs (Myths #4 and #5). You'll hear about the government option for health insurance that will provide competition (Myth #1), will be better and more like other countries (Myths #1 and #10), and will insure the poor (Myth #8). You'll hear about government mandates that will require people to have health insurance and will get us to universal coverage (Myth #6). You'll hear that our health care system is broken and needs to be fixed and that we cannot afford to continue in the direction we are headed. Well, that statement is true. But as you can see, most of the rest what you are being told is all based on myths and lies.

The biggest lie currently being told is about the proposed "government option" for health insurance. This will be a plan that will "compete" with commercial insurance policies. The argument is made that competition will help bring the prices down. I know Karl Rove is not the most bi-partisan figure but he makes a great point in this Wall St Journal piece: "1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That's competition enough." Do we need another insurance company to increase competition? But again, none of this impacts you, right? Obama has promised that "If you like what you're getting, keep it. Nobody is forcing you to shift." That's the lie.

Most discussions on this subject miss a key point when discussing the government option and whether people will truly have a "choice" to keep their current healthcare plan. This piece
by Newt Gingrich quotes a study that says "as many as 119 million currently insured Americans would drop private coverage and enroll in the government plan". This is a very misleading statement and seems to indicate that Americans, private individuals like you, would get to choose whether they "dropped private coverage" in order to enroll in the government plan. It infers that you might be one of the 119 million that would choose the government option being discussed. The point missing in this is that most people have a healthcare plan provided by their employer. You know that evil, greedy, vilified entity that takes advantage of the working person in order to make a profit at any cost. Well, guess who really has the choice as to whether you keep your current health plan or are enrolled in the government plan? It's not you; it's that evil employer of yours. The same one that makes too much money and needs to have their taxes increased in order to "spread the wealth around" because "it's good for everybody". Again, none of this impacts you, unless you're happy with your current employer-provided health insurance plan and your employer chooses to drop your private insurance coverage leaving you with the "choice" to enroll in the government option.

What Are You Worth?

Your employer's choice is not something they talk about when pushing this government option, but it's something you should consider. Think about what you are worth to your employer. Remember that companies are not in business just to provide jobs to people (except for the Government). They exist to make money for someone – maybe shareholders, maybe a group of investors, maybe a single owner, maybe even a charity. Regardless of whom it is their goal is to make money. As an employee you bring a certain value to the company whether that is providing a service that people pay for, manufacturing a product that people buy, etc. Most people understand this but consider the following example.

Your company produces "widgets" and sells them to the public. You help produce those widgets and for that service you bring in $75,000 to the company. You get paid $50,000 in salary plus your employer pays for health benefits of $12,500 (about the average cost of insurance for a family of 4 in 2008, see here). In addition your employer pays half of the social security and Medicaid as well as other employer related taxes for unemployment insurance that total about 10% of your salary. So here are your costs to the company:

Salary	$50,000
Health Insurance	$12,500
Taxes	$5,000
Total	$67,500

In this example your employer makes a profit of $7,500 or about 10% of what you bring in to the company. Now consider that your employer's taxes are going to increase along with many other employer unfriendly mandates being pushed by the Obama administration. What will happen to that profit? It will go down. In order to bring it back up the employer must do something. He could raise the price of his widgets thereby increasing what you are worth to the company, but in today's economy that would be a bad idea. He could decrease his costs by lowering your salary or cutting your benefits. He could also decrease costs by eliminating some jobs and making the remaining employees work harder – just "hope" your job is not one that is eliminated. Or he could produce the product cheaper by shipping the production overseas and eliminating all of the American jobs. Whatever choice they make, your employer needs to cover his costs and make a profit or it eventually reaches a point that your employer decides it's not worth continuing in the business and will close up shop.

Now consider the lie you are being told about you having the choice to keep your current healthcare plan. Your employer provides and administers this benefit at their cost. When the government plan comes along your employer has the choice to drop your coverage and let you decide whether you want to pay for private insurance or sign up for the government plan. Your employer can choose to pay the fine, or whatever they'll call it, for not providing your insurance and you'll be on your own. Obama and the rest of the liberals have promised that the cost of the government plan will be cheaper. The currently proposed House plan puts the "penalty" at 8% of payroll. In the above example, that would be 8% of $50,000 or $4,000. So, what do you think your employer will choose for you? Will he continue to pay the $12,500 or pay the $4,000 penalty? But it doesn't affect you.

There is an added bonus for your employer in that they will no longer need to administer the benefit and incur the HR costs associated with it. After all, the government run option will be administered by those efficient government bureaucrats (think of the DMV and Medicare).

Do you still believe it will not affect you? Would you trade your current coverage for the government option? Do you think you'll have a choice? And how about that government option? Will it be better than what you have now?

Your Dwindling Choices

Once you are on the government plan, who will make the choices? Obama has already told you that you will not be making the choices. According to the LA Times, "Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve 'additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care.' He added: 'Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.'" Do you think you will choose if you are better off with the surgery or the painkiller? Do you think "families" will choose whether to approve "additional tests or additional drugs"? Or will government bureaucrats approve them? Don't delude yourself. You know the answer.

If your employer does decide to keep your health insurance, what about the talk of taxing your employer provided healthcare? Remember the ad from Obama that said "taxing health care instead of fixing it. We can't afford John McCain." And the one that claimed McCain's idea would be "the largest middle-class tax increase in history" and the "McCain tax could cost your family thousands. Can you afford it?" (See more on this here). Think about this, who is going to pay the tax on your healthcare? Your employer or you? We've already established that employers are evil profit-makers so I doubt the employer will pay. Again, what choices are you being given? NONE!!! But it doesn't affect you, right?

What you can do:

Check out the list of questions you should consider and then contact your representative and get answers.

Obama Does Not Want Government Run Healthcare – Really?

2009-07-19T22:30:00.000-07:00

As discussed in Obamacare – The Government Option and Your Right to Choose, the politicians are lying about their proposed health care "reforms". They are lying on many levels. Another big lie that is being pushed is that Obama does not want government-run health care. The false promise of you having a right to choose is obviously dishonest but this one is a little less obvious. According to Obama:

"Let me also say that -- let me also address a illegitimate concern that's being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I'll be honest, there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe -- and I've taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief -- that it's important for our efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth."

They're not telling the truth? President Obama, you may not be outright lying but you're not being intellectually honest. You are pushing a government option for health care, one that would force a lot of people out of their private insurers and onto the government roles. This government option will reduce competition by subsidizing the government option with taxpayer dollars and will end up putting private insurers out of business. The government option is government-run health care - period. As more and more people are forced into the government option there will be less private options available, it's only a matter of time. This is explained in Rove's Wall St Journal piece, where he says "a public option will undercut private insurers and pass the tab to taxpayers and health providers just as it does in existing government-run programs. For example, Medicare pays hospitals 71% and doctors 81% of what private insurers pay." Is this how the government option will "compete"? If this does not sound like a level playing field, it's not. And to tilt the field even more towards the government option this Investor's Business Daily article reports that the House plan has "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal". You read that right. The article sums it up nicely:

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

Other articles suggest that private policies would still be available but only through some government insurance exchange. The government will still be involved so how private will it be?

The goal of this "reform" is to provide health care for everyone, all 46 million uninsured people in America. As Ted Kennedy said, this bill will finally "end the disgrace of America as the only major industrialized nation in the world that doesn't guarantee health care for all of its people." It's amazing how people have to degrade our country in order to show us that we're a bunch of greedy, heartless people and we do not know any better so e should let them pass what they want. The problem is that we're not greedy and heartless and I'm tired of being portrayed this way. I will not disgraced by the fact that people are coming from those other "major industrialized nation[s] in the world" to America for treatment when they cannot get it in their own country. I will not be disgraced by the fact that the amazing health care available in this country saved Ted Kennedy's life when he had a brain tumor. I will not be disgraced by the fact that we think enough of our citizens to allow them to have such surgeries even though he was probably "better off not having the surgery", after all he is 76 and the surgery was quite risky. I will not think of this great country as a disgrace – ever.

What is a disgrace is disguising government-run health care under the guise of "competition" to insurance companies and health care for everyone. It's a disgrace because it only insures 97% of the people by 2019. That's not everyone and it leaves over 17 million people uninsured; about half of whom are illegal aliens. It's a relief that we are not going to provide health insurance to illegal aliens. However, based on the numbers in Myth #3 there are about 8 million working poor and chronically uninsured people that really need help. So Obama's and the Democrat's plan is to overhaul our health care system, raise taxes on the "rich", increase the burden on companies and spend 1 trillion plus dollars over 10 years and still have 8.5 million people uninsured. That does not make sense. If we simply gave each of those 8 million people a $5,000 voucher and allowed them to get their own health insurance we'd only spend $40 billion a year or $400 billion over ten years. What's the point of this huge overhaul and the deficit spending that it will involve? Do you think there is an ulterior motive here?

The trend of this government option is obvious: get a majority of the people off their employer provided health care and squeeze out the competition to the point that the private companies cannot compete. Eventually everyone will end up on the government option and we will have a single payer system with the government calling the shots. The allure of "free" healthcare may blind some because it sounds utopian and most of us are compassionate and want to look out for our fellow citizens. But when you really think about it, it's not all its promised to be. Consider the comment Obama made that "there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well." And then when his press secretary was asked which countries those were, he responded "I don't know exactly the countries. I think if you talk to the people in the countries that have that system, they think their health care is pretty good." A single-payer system has not worked in other countries and will not work here (see Myth #10 below). If the politicians cannot name the countries where it has worked then why would we believe them that it will work here? We shouldn't.

Once a single-payer system is in place we really will be a country of the Haves and Have-nots. The Haves will get their health care from private doctors in foreign countries with equipment that the world used to envy us for having. The Have-nots, you and me, will be stuck here on waiting lists with no other choice. Instead of health care for everyone it will be misery for all, except the rich. We'll be subjected to bureaucrats choosing whether we're "better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." We'll be stuck in ambulances for hours so that the emergency rooms can meet their government mandate to treat people within a certain timeframe. We'll be left without the latest miracle drug that could help extend our lives. In short we'll be left to suffer along with our Canadian and European counterparts with a health care system that is more broken than it is today and our children will be left wondering why we did this to them. What will you tell them? I didn't care, it didn't affect me?

What you can do:

Check out the list of questions you should consider and then contact your representative and get answers.

Questions on Health Care

2009-07-19T20:35:00.000-07:00

Here is a list of questions that we should consider when thinking about any proposed Health Care reforms. We should ask ourselves these questions about the 1,000+ page House Health Plan. More importantly, we should ask our representatives in Congress and demand reasonable answers from them.

Have you read the entire 1,000+ page bill? Will you read it before voting on it? Will the public be given time to read it before you vote on it?
How does the government option reduce costs for me? What is my benefit?
How is government option different from Medicare and Medicaid?
How does the government option insure poor people better than Medicaid or State Children's Health Insurance Plans (SCHIP)?
How will the cost be contained so it does not get out of control like Medicare and Medicaid?
Medicare and Medicaid only pay part of the bill to doctors and hospitals creating a "hidden tax" for the rest of us, how will the government option be different?
What mandated coverage will be in the government option? Will it include unnecessary things like acupuncture, hair prosthesis and massage therapy?
What about Health Saving Accounts? Are they being expanded in your plan?
What about people who do not need a big insurance policy? Can they purchase a catastrophic policy and pay for other medical costs, like doctor's visits, of pocket or with Health Savings Accounts?
Obama promised that if I like my current insurance I can keep it. I have an employer-paid insurance plan, how can I keep it if my employer decides to drop the coverage?
Won't it be more cost effective for my employer to drop my employer-paid insurance plan and pay the penalty (currently 8% of payroll in the House plan)?
The CBO estimates that only 97% of the country will be insured by 2019, what happened to 100% coverage?
Will it cover illegal aliens?
Does your plan address tort reform? Are there any limits on the lawsuits?
Have you considered other options like:

Vouchers for the working poor?
Giving people the ability to purchase insurance across state lines?
Reforming the tax code to give individuals the same tax deductions that businesses have?
Making insurance more portable by allowing businesses to pay employees a certain amount for insurance and then allowing the employee to purchase their own insurance?

This is the most important question of all:

Will you and your family be the first to sign up for the government option?

Find out who your representatives are at Congress.org . It is a good place to find contact information for your representatives. Contact them and make sure that your interests are bing served. You can also track your representatives votes at http://www.congress.org/congressorg/megavote/

Remember, it will impact you at some point.

The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care – A Synopsis

2009-07-16T15:23:00.000-07:00

Below is an in-depth synopsis of the book The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care – A Citizen's Guide by Sally C. Pipes. Although reading the book is highly recommended this synopsis is meant to give a quick overview of the lies being promulgated in order to sell the American public on massive changes to our health care system. Understanding the realities of these myths helps put the discussion in perspective. This is important so that we do not blindly allow our elected officials to sell us a bill of goods we really do not want, do not need and cannot afford.

References are provided for supporting information. Where a reference is simply a page number, it refers to the page number in the book.

Myth #1 – Government Healthcare is More Efficient

Think about health care in places like Europe; you know the "countries where a single-payer system works pretty well" (President Obama to the AMA, June 15, 2009). "Americans have a better survival rate for 13 of the 16 most common cancers. Among men, an American has nearly a 20-percent better chance of living for five years after being diagnosed with cancer than his European counterpart" (p. 9). If your father, brother or husband was diagnosed with cancer wouldn't an extra five years be worth something? You're less likely to get it if you live in Europe, but at least the care is free. There are countless other stories of people who have had to wait for surgery, wait for medication, go to other countries for treatment etc.

Another thought is that we already have government healthcare: it's called Medicare and Medicaid. How is that working out for us? It's costing us a lot of money but we don't realize it. It's been shown over and over that these government plans reimburse hospitals and doctors much less than what commercial insurers pay. "[C]ommercial payers subsidize the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, essentially through a hidden tax." (Hospital & Physician Cost Shift - Payment Level Comparison of Medicare, Medicaid, and Commercial Payers by Milliman Inc.). Is this what is planned for a government option?

Now try this, say "Government Healthcare is more efficient" out loud a few times. Then say "the DMV is more efficient", "the Post Office is more efficient", "the ___(Fill in your favorite government program)___ is more efficient." Repeat these statements a few times. Try saying, "I'd prefer Medicare or Medicaid over my current health insurance." Now, think about it, what does the government do effectively and efficiently? When you think of government do the words effective or efficient even come to mind? Lastly, the author asks a great question: "Does the IRS make paying your taxes simpler?"

Myth #2 – We're Spending too Much on Health Care

"In 1950, the average American spent about $500 a year on health care in 2006 inflation-adjusted dollars…healthcare costs accounted for a mere 5 percent of GDP." "By 2006, those same costs had risen to $7,026 per person, and accounted for 16 percent of GDP." The book is filled with statistics and examples about why we are paying more today than just 50 years ago. But the basic idea is that there is a difference between cost and value. It may cost more but what we get for that greater cost is a better, longer life than we had 50 years ago. The life expectancy during this time has increased by 9 years. The author asks a great question: "How much would you pay for an extra nine years of life?" Are we really spending too much or are we getting what we pay for?

Myth #3 – Forty-Six Million Americans Can't Get Health Care

This is my favorite myth. It is perpetuated in every news story about health care. All you hear about is "the 46 million uninsured", "the 15% of the population that is uninsured" or "the nearly 50 million uninsured". It was a popular quote in the 2008 campaign and was prominently displayed on Obama's website. But who are these 46-million uninsured people? And do we really have to drastically alter our health care system to provide benefits to them?

Well, let's look at who these people are. More than 10 million of these uninsured people are "non-citizens" (a.k.a. illegal aliens). So when we are talking about providing insurance for the 46 million uninsured Americans we're including 10 million illegal aliens and we are going to provide insurance for them? I'm not sure most Americans would be comfortable with their tax dollars funding health care for illegal aliens. Although we already do fund it through the added costs at emergency rooms, but that is a different topic.

"As many as 14 million of the 45.7 million uninsured – poor and low-income Americans – are full eligible for generous government assistance programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP [State Children Health Insurance Plan] … they're just not enrolling in these programs." So when the politicians talk about the millions or as Obama says "nearly eight million children" without health insurance, they're not telling you that most of these children are eligible for government programs that their parents do not sign them up for. The author poses another good question: "If 14 million eligibles aren't availing themselves of taxpayer-funded coverage, then why should we think that a still bigger government health care bureaucracy will solve the problem?"

Then there is my favorite group of uninsured people. "Almost 18 million of the uninsured make more than $50,000 a year. And almost 10 million of them have an income of more than $75,000 a year." The median income in this country was just under $50,000 a year in 2006 (see Census report here). This includes a variety of people who just choose not to have insurance. Most of them do not feel the need to have comprehensive health insurance policies and would rather pay for a catastrophic policy if they were able (see myth 6 below). These are people that choose not to have insurance coverage for one reason or another. Forcing them to have health coverage they do not need or want will be like raising their taxes.

"There are roughly eight million of these chronically uninsured, and they really do need help." These are the people that we are really talking about. These are the people that we should be trying to help. Eight million is a lot less than "nearly 50 million" people. Furthermore, according to the Census Bureau, "the number of households with an annual income of less than $25,000 who lack health insurance has gone down steadily since 1998" (p. 40). "[T]he fastest-growing segment of the uninsured is households making more than $75,000 a year" (p. 40).

Myth #4 – High Drug Prices Drive Up Health Care Costs

"In 2007, the United States spent $286.5 billion on prescription drugs." "That same year, Pfizer … had revenues totaling nearly $50 billion" (p. 41). That's a lot of money, but is it too much? That depends on who you want to listen to. The politicians will use statistics like drug spending was only 5% of healthcare costs in the 1970's but is over 10% now (p. 41). The reality is that we are spending more on drugs but these drugs are helping people to avoid expensive procedures and costly hospital stays. Drugs help control chronic diseases (e.g., diabetes, cancer in remission, heart disease, etc.), which account "for about 85 percent of all U.S. health care spending" (p. 43). The more we spend on drugs for these diseases the less we spend on treating these diseases. This is a good thing, right? Then why are the drug companies being vilified as evil profiteers? Are these companies appropriately charging for their products?

These drugs cost a lot of money to develop. "One reason is that most drugs are complete failures that never make it to the pharmacy shelf" (p. 47). Companies need to recoup the money they spend developing the drug that makes it as well as the drugs that do not make it. "[I]t takes, on average, 10 to 15 years" to develop a drug and "it takes about $1.3 billion to bring a single new drug to market. And only two in 10 approved drugs earn enough to cover the cost of research and development" (p. 47). With odds like this, why do drug companies even bother? Because they can make money on the drugs that they do bring to market. This makes it worthwhile and we are the better for it.

Here is a different take on it. How many people remember when flat screen TVs were first introduced in the late 90's? Did you ever price one out? I went to a Circuit City to check one out. They did not have a display model because they were too expensive – over $10,000. Now you can go to Wal-Mart and buy one for under $500. It's hard to find an old tube TV now. So in about 10 years the price of these TVs has gone from over $10,000 to under $1,000. Why is that? Because some people paid the outrageous prices when the TVs were first introduced. This helped pay for the initial development costs of the product. As newer models are released the prices of the older models come down. As the technology improves the prices come down. However, nobody complained that they did not have flat panel TVs back when they were $10,000.

If we push the profit out of the drug companies we will push out the innovation and desire to produce new life-saving drugs. We will not have new life-saving drugs that we have come to expect from our drug companies. Is this what we want?

Myth #5 – Importing Drugs Would Reduce Health Care Costs

"In Canada, prices can be as much as 70 percent lower than in the United States" (p. 53). What? You're kidding, 70% cheaper? Let's open up the borders!! But first, shouldn't we ask why they are cheaper? In most cases foreign countries impose price controls and advanced drugs are not available in these countries. The problem is that only some brand-name drugs are actually cheaper but generic drugs are not. Paying $4 for generic drugs is probably not an option in most of these countries.

Here's another problem: "the United States produces the vast majority of the world's cutting-edge drugs precisely because the free market still plays a role here" (p. 57). So, we pay higher prices for these drugs while other countries impose price controls or do not make the drugs available to their citizens. We pay for the research and development of these drugs while other countries benefit from them. Why do the drug companies continue to sell to these countries? Well, countries like Canada have "promised that if U.S. companies refuse to sell drugs to Canada, it will retaliate by allowing generic companies to steal American patents and reproduce the drugs at a lower price" (p. 58). Wow, talk about strong-arming companies. Another reason drug companies agree to this is because they make their money back on selling the drugs to Americans and then can afford to sell the drugs at a lower price to foreign countries with price controls.

If we implement similar prices controls to artificially lower the cost of drugs we will eventually be left with no new drugs coming to market. Companies will not be able to cover their development costs, let alone make a profit. If there is no profit there is no reason to invest in new drugs and we will ultimately suffer.

Myth #6 – Universal Coverage Can Be Achieved by Forcing Everyone to Buy Insurance

This is a standard call by most politicians. Let's just mandate that everyone has coverage and it will happen. There are quite a few problems with this. In Myth #3 the author showed that there are a lot of people eligible for government health insurance but simply do not apply for it. Will a new law force these people to sign up? Not likely.

The author discusses some great points about this. She talks about the typical young person who does not need to pay for a comprehensive health insurance policy. They may only need a "catastrophic" policy that would cover them if they were injured or became seriously ill. This plan would be affordable but would not be available because that would not be "comprehensive". She also discusses the failures of the Massachusetts law that mandated insurance coverage. It turned out to be a failure and has been abandoned.

Another problem the author discusses is the amount of benefit mandates that are imposed by the states. These mandates require that an insurance policy sold within the state must provide certain benefits. If you want to buy health insurance in your state, because you cannot but it in another state, you must purchase insurance that includes coverage that you may not need but will drive up the cost of your premium. Some of the mandated coverages highlighted in the book are: Acupuncture, Athletic Trainer, Breast Reduction, Hair prosthesis and Massage Therapy.

The whole point is that mandates are not the answer. They only end up driving up the cost.

Myth #7 – Government Prevention Programs Reduce Health Care Costs

This myth is based on what every politician likes to claim – if we make people healthier we can reduce the cost to care for those people. It makes sense but is it really worth it? It turns out that informing people of the dangers of a certain behavior does not change that behavior. The author says: "On the surface, it seems logical to help people stay healthy … [S]tate-run programs to 'create good health' have had an abysmal payoff … They make us less healthy while wasting dollars that could have been better spent" (p. 82). She then continues to discuss some of the prevention programs relating to obesity, smoking, etc. and how they have not been effective. For example, "the federal Nutrition and Education Act mandated that nutritional and caloric readouts be placed on all packaged foods … Yet, since the program was launched … Americans have become fatter" (p. 85).

The interesting part of this discussion is that people who are healthier actually cost more in health care spending. "[M]edical spending on a nonsmoker who dies at the average age of 84 is, on average, $100,00 more than spending on a smoker who dies – presumably aided and abetted by his bad habit – at a relatively youthful 77" (p.89). So, by spending money on prevention programs we are actually increasing the health care costs not decrease them. However, I still believe that some of these programs are worthwhile and instead of being billed as ways to reduce health care costs they should simply be billed as educational programs.

Myth #8 – We Need More Government to Insure Poor Americans

This is the basic principle behind the "government option" that is being discussed today. The reasoning is that the poor need our help and the only way to help them is through the government. The fallacy with this argument is that the poor are already insured by government programs. Whether you believe that health care is a right or not, you are already paying for it. Medicaid is set up to insure the poor. SCHIP is set up to help insure poor children. Another government program is not the answer for insuring the poor people in America since they are already insured. If they are not covered by one of these programs then they simply have not signed up for it.

The problem with these options is that they stink. The quality of care is low. Most doctors do not accept the insurance so finding a quality doctor is hard. "Because it's often too difficult for Medicaid patients to find a doctor, they end up going to expensive emergency rooms, where they can't be turned away" (p. 97). As discussed in Myth #1 these programs do not reimburse at 100% so we all wind up paying more for our own care to subsidize these programs. When you add in the fraud that is inherent in Medicaid it adds up to a big, expensive, substandard mess. And the politicians think that another "government option" is the answer?

Myth #9 – Health Information Technology Is a Silver Bullet for Reducing Costs

The idea behind Health Information Technology (HIT) is that if we computerize all of our health records we can reduce costs. This is probably true but implementing it correctly is a problem. Can we confidently rely on government to implement this for us? Another problem is the cost to implement it versus what it would save us. According to one study, with properly implemented HIT we could save $77 billion a year but we spend $2.3 trillion a year on health care (p.113). This amounts to a savings of 3.3%. The author continues with some examples of hospitals that have implemented systems. One saves about $1 million a year while the system cost them $300 million. That seems like a bad return on investment. It's a good idea, not so much for the cost savings, but because it will reduce errors and improve patient care in the long run. All in all the savings from HIT are not as large as the politicians would like us to believe.

Myth #10 – Government-Run Health Care Systems in Other Countries are Better and Cheaper than America's

This myth is constantly perpetuated in the media and by the politicians. Obama claimed that "there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well." However, when his press secretary was asked which countries those were, he responded "I don't know exactly the countries. I think if you talk to the people in the countries that have that system, they think their health care is pretty good." Really? That's the best these politicians can come up with? If there are countries where this works then let's hear from them. Don't quote unnamed countries and tell us that "their health care is pretty good." On top of that, our health care is excellent not "pretty good". I for one would prefer to keep it excellent versus dropping it to "pretty good".

This is a very important topic because the politicians and media "experts" will tell us that our health care is very expensive and the results are very poor compared to other countries. They cite statistics from the 2008 CIA World Factbook that says the US ranks 42^nd in infant mortality (the number of deaths per 1,000 live births) putting us behind many countries, including Cuba (p. 121). And how about coming in at 29^th for life expectancy? That's horrible, right? Not quite.

First off, the author relays a personal story about an uncle living in Canada who had cancer. A drug that could have helped him was not available in Canada. If he wanted it he would have had to travel to the US. He was not able to do so and was dead in 6 months (p. 123). She also talks about her mother in Canada who was denied services because she "was too old and too sick to merit the highest quality care" (p.123). Stories like this are abundant. Just do a search on the internet. It's out there for people that want to be informed.

The author then goes on to discuss the economics of health care for all. One of her main points is the concept of no responsibility. If health care is "free" then you have no reason to watch what you eat, drink or smoke. If you need a new liver, the government pays for it. Drugs? No problem – the government is there for you. Responsibility? No need for it when you're not paying. The point is that when individuals are responsible for paying they are typically more responsible in their behavior. Maybe that explains the decay that is so prevalent in government housing, but that's a topic for another day.

She then goes on to discuss the concept of waiting lists and rationing. It's a fact of life under government run health care. It happens in all of those "countries where a single-payer system works pretty well". When there are only so many doctors to service people there will be waiting lists and rationing. One of the best headings in the book is "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care". The author provides countless examples and statistics from Canada and Europe that show long waits for procedures and a lack of access to services and drugs. She quotes a physician from Canada who said Canada "is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years" (p. 125). There are many reasons for rationing and waiting lists including: too many people needing service, a lock of doctors, a lack of resources and a lack of money. Waiting lists and rationing are coming with the "government option" – it's a reality that we will be forced to deal with.

As for the statistics about life expectancy and infant mortality there are many factors that influence these numbers. The author calls these numbers "crude indicators" that "don't reflect the quality of a health care system". Life expectancy is influenced by a variety of factors including the homicide rate and accident rates. America's homicide rate was 5.9 per 100,000 in 2004 versus 1.95 in Canada. We also had 14.24 fatalities per 100,00 people from auto accidents in 2006 versus 9.25 in Canada (p. 132). These numbers, although not good, impact the life expectancy numbers. And the infant mortality rate is reported by the individual countries. The US follows the World Health Organization's definition of a live birth as being 'any infant that, once removed from its mother, "breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart …" ' (p. 133). Other countries are more conservative in their definitions. This causes the numbers for those countries to be higher and make the numbers look better. Talk about comparing apples and oranges and deciding that we are inferior. It's amazing what you can do with numbers.

The bottom line is that the US has the best health care system in the world. It is certainly better than the "countries where a single-payer system works pretty well". It is not universal care which it why it remains the best.

Solutions

The author states: "None of the preceding chapters is meant to suggest that America's health care system is perfect. It's not" (p. 139). I have to agree. There are a lot of problems with our health care system, especially with the government's involvement. There are some real reforms that could be implemented that would help alleviate the problems but they do not include the government taking over. If politicians really wanted to reform health care to make it more affordable and more available to all, they'd consider some of the solutions discussed in this book and elsewhere. Here are the ones highlighted in the book:

Change the tax code

Currently employers are able to deduct health insurance premiums that they pay for their employees. Employers started providing this benefit after World War II because wage controls made it hard for employers to attract employees. This results in employer-provided health care that is paid with pre-tax dollars. This introduces several problems. The first is that it makes it harder for people to change jobs. If people leave their employer they risk losing their health insurance. People do not start new businesses because they would have to get their own coverage. If they have a pre-existing condition that is almost impossible. Also, when employees do not pay for their coverage we have the same problem with government provided insurance – no responsibility. The employee just takes what the employer gives them and does not look at other alternatives. The other thing employees think is that they are getting "free" health insurance. The problem is that it is not free; they just pay for it with reduced wages. Several ideas that are floated are to change the tax code so that individuals could deduct their health care expenses.

Reduce costly government mandates and regulations

This is a simple one: less government is always better. "According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, mandated benefits can increase the cost of health insurance by up to 50 percent" (p. 142). Can you imagine paying half of what you currently pay for health insurance? Some amount of mandates is necessary but we need to draw the line somewhere.

Allow the purchase of insurance across state lines

To further the mandate reduction argument, consider that we cannot purchase insurance from another state because the mandates from state to state are so different. "Take the case of a hypothetical 25-year-old man from New Jersey. According to the Commonwealth Fund, he would have to shell out roughly $5,580 each year for a standard health insurance policy. A similar policy in Kentucky – which has far fewer mandated coverage benefits than New Jersey – would run him just $960 annually" (p. 143). Now some may call this cherry picking because Kentucky has a lower cost of living than New Jersey so of course the insurance policy would be cheaper. While that may be true, $4,600 a year is a huge difference. One also must consider that the lawsuits in New Jersey are a lot more prevalent than in Kentucky (see Tort Reform below).

Expand Health Savings Accounts (HSA)

"An HSA is a tax-free, interest-accruing savings account that can be used to pay for routine medical expenses" (p. 143). These accounts normally go along with a catastrophic insurance policy and can turn into a retirement savings account. They give people more control over their health care decisions. The limits on contributions need to be increased and restrictions on these accounts need to reduced so that these accounts would become more popular and more powerful.

Support retail health clinics

Recently, large retail stores and pharmacy chains are offering retail health clinics. These clinics are often open 24 hours a day making them convenient for people to visit after hours. They are also reasonably priced, at around $50 per visit. With insurance co-pays at $30 to $40 these prices are not that far off. A lot of patients attending these clinics do so without health insurance. In most cases patients are seen by a nurse practitioner. Unfortunately, these clinics are not well supported by the AMA and legislators.

Implement tort reform

This would seem obvious but the 1,000+ page House plan does not include any of it. It's a simple process, litigation adds to the costs of health care. "Malpractice insurance can cost specialty physicians as much as $240,000 per year" (p. 146). This like a hidden tax and should be reformed.

Provide vouchers for the working poor and chronically uninsured

This is the same concept as school vouchers. Give a voucher to people who really need help and let them purchase their own insurance. It does not need to be a government option. It can be done with a free market. There are truly people that need help and any compassionate person would agree that we should help them. But let's put the power in their hands and not in the government.

The Real Un-American Astro Turfers

2000-01-01T00:03:00.000-08:00

From Political Cartoons

Obama Explains the National Debt to Sasha and Malia

2000-01-01T00:02:00.000-08:00

From Political Cartoons

Benjamin Franklin once said:

But what madness must it be to run in debt for these superfluities! ... think what you do when you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty.

If You Think The DMV is Bad Now, Wait Until They Run Health Care

2000-01-01T00:01:00.001-08:00

From Political Cartoons