Obamacare: Just Another Unsustainable Boondoggle of Our Out-of-Control Government

Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the White House (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As if the Obama presidency was not already enough of a disaster, the presentation of Obamacare, in all its polluted, poisonous, and maddening reality should convince us that those we have in charge of the Executive Branch represent a sad, sick, and sorry parody of what government should be. No administration in memory approaches this level of incompetence and arrogance.

One theory I have thought about is that Obama's plan is working out just as he wants. When you're trying to transform a great nation into a third-world dictatorship of fascist/marxist socialism, what you have to start with is destroying the institutions that have characterized that great nation over the years of its greatness. That is what we are seeing, whatever Obama's intentions may be. At the end of his term, we are going to be less free, greatly further in debt, and with little to be optimistic about based on the performance of this pathetic administration.

Obama today, 12/03/2013, is starting a “new campaign” to try to re-sell Obamacare. He is trying to cover over his deliberate lies with new lies, such as the one that says Republicans have presented no healthcare plans. They have presented plans that would address the problem of uninsured people without wrecking the entire system to do it. Obama's rhetoric suggests that he has a poor grip on reality, apparently thinking that more speeches and a shriller tone will correct things, when Obamacare can never be corrected at all, since it tries to defy the laws of economics.

Despite the Administration's touting of the improved healthcare.gov website, the following is still true:

1. Many people have still been unable to navigate through the process;
2. The website is not at all secure, and people are putting their personal information and social security numbers on a site that is said to be subject to easy hacking; and
3. The website does not have a mechanism to effect premium payments to the insurance companies, and thus it cannot complete a transaction for the purchase of insurance. Therefore, many people who may think they have purchased insurance because they have created an account and shared their information will likely find that, when they need the insurance, it is not going to be there. It's hard to believe that this is going to go over well with these people.

We are learning of millions of people losing their insurance coverage, and many finding that the coverage available to them will come with higher premiums and much higher deductibles.

With Obama's approval rating barely at 40 percent, and with the president vowing to spend the next three years fixing Obamacare if necessary, his second-term agenda may be dead in the water. And even Obamacare is unlikely to survive. Although the president has vowed that Obamacare will not be repealed as long as he is in office, it could be killed through defunding, if Congress could work up the necessary courage.

Obama's other problems and scandals are ongoing, and despite administration stonewalling, they have only begun to be investigated. Obama's ranks as the most corrupt and inept presidency yet. Lies, crony capitalism, illegal harassment of political opponents (IRS, for example), gun-running, endless debt that can never be repaid, etc.

The increased debt alone defies comprehension by its enormity. To think that this is going to end well for America's economic situation if continued on the present path, is to live in a fool's paradise. I truly believe that President Obama should be impeached and removed from office immediately, while America is still functioning. Think Detroit. That's the path we're on, only on a much greater scale.

Related articles

• Why Obama Thought He Could Get Away With Obamacare
• Obama Promotes Obamacare, Reality Fails To Intrude
• Obama Will Pay for Obamacare
• ObamaCare: Hackers in, garbage out

Trying for the Biggest Extortion Shakedown in History

English: President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and senior staff, react in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, as the House passes the health care reform bill. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You've probably seen the videos. Over and over.

As President Obama was saying, “If you like your doctor, you can keep him; if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it. Period,” he was telling a lie, knowing it was a lie. In fact, people who were paying attention knew this was extremely doubtful, but hoped it might be true. This scheme (Obamacare) was put into effect after several lies from the Con-Artist-in-Chief and his administration, pushed through on a strict party vote, under cover of darkness, handing out exemptions and exceptions in exchange for support; well, you know the history.

Enough people believed the lie that it didn't keep Obama from getting the law passed, and getting reelected. (And stonewalling on Benghazi didn't hurt either.) When you add that to the roll-out fiasco, and the likelihood that young, healthy people will not be enrolling in Obamacare in sufficient numbers to support the program as designed, the Obama Administration is looking at a massive flop. It was supposed to be (and may somehow still may be) a gigantic new entitlement program and wealth transfer mechanism. It appears unsustainable at every level. It confiscates money in the form of the mandates and inflated premiums. Instead of better, lower cost healthcare, it will yield increased taxes, and, contrary to Obama's promises, greatly increased cost, and many people losing insurance, under a misguided and misrepresented, all-around lousy plan. Many people who supported the law are finding that they will suffer harm as this monstrosity is implemented, not the least of which is a serious loss of freedom.

The credibility of Barack Obama has been seriously undermined. But it has been obvious to a lot of people that he can hardly be believed on any promise.

We've been seeing headlines like, “Did the president mislead us on Obamacare?” No, he didn't “mislead” us, he willfully lied about his “signature” accomplishment. For the sake of politics. That is because, to these people, politics trumps everything. When liberals are in power, we get incompetence, a bad economy, and tyranny.

But, of course, it's the fault of the insurance companies. Or maybe George W. Bush. Or the Republican Party.

Update 11/07/13: Further reading: "Barack Obama and His Democrat Party: The Most Documented Liars in the Entire History Of The Human Race," at Start Thinking Right. I agree almost entirely with the article and its theological analysis, but would add that I think that not only will Obama's and his supporters' actions bring on God's judgment, but that we are already under judgment in the form of our corrupt Federal government and an increasingly corrupt and deceived electorate. Also, I am not sure Obama is demon-possessed, but his actions can certainly serve in preparation for the Antichrist. James Madison said,

Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical [imaginary] idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend upon their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.*

 * Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 20, 1788. Quoted by Founding Father Quotes.

Related articles

• Exclusive - Palin: Congress Has America Caught Up in 'Endless Extortion Scheme'
• It's RICO Time! How To Stop The Obama Administration Crime Wave
• A Congressman With Guts Takes on Obama

The Waxman Inquisition

March 30, 2010

Several large companies have announced that they are taking charges to reflect expected losses resulting from the Obamacare legislation, specifically the deductibility of subsidies for providing retired employee drug coverage. [1] The White House says these companies get the dual benefit of a subsidy and a deduction, so the removal of the deduction simply closes an over-generous loophole. Be that as it may, the change represents a substantial reduction of income for some large employers.

The companies and their announcements, as reported by Business Week, are as follows:
AT&T: $1 billion
Deere & Co.: $150 million for the current fiscal year
Caterpillar Inc.: $100 million for the first quarter of 2010
Verizon: Said the law change “may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.” [2]

Since these announcements tend to put the health care law in a bad light, Rep. Henry Waxman must of course hold hearings to grill the CEO’s and try to intimidate them for daring to suggest that the law might need to be changed, and that it will deliver a serious blow to their bottom line.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has “requested” internal documents justifying the write-downs, and asserts that “independent analyses” show that the law is supposed to reduce their costs. So Waxman is preparing a hearing apparently to disparage these companies for the sin of giving unfavorable publicity to the Congress and Administration. Of course, this plan could backfire by bringing even more negative attention to the health care law.

Waxman appears to think that these companies just wanted to embarrass the Democrats. These announcements should be justly embarrassing, but why would the companies make such announcements? It seems an expensive ploy, if that were the purpose. But they have valid reasons and requirements to fulfill. Accounting rules require that these known future losses be taken on their books at current value. Failure to do this would be misleading to investors. The companies do this in spite of the probability that their stock prices could go down as a result, something they do not wish to have happen.

Waxman wants to defend the law and put pressure on some of its critics. The Democrats’ strategy is generally to try to silence critics, demonize them, and, if possible, criminalize them. Waxman must know this is an unjustified and costly inconvenience. The “independent analyses” by the Congressional Budget Office have been based on information provided by the Democrats, who view the health care “reform” through rose-colored glasses. The things that are supposed to provide lower costs are not likely to happen (huge Medicare cuts, etc.) and the tax picture (in addition to the changes whose effect is being recorded by these companies) is unfavorable and probably largely unknown as to how bad it will really be.

Democrats hope to lay a trap to embarrass and intimidate the executives they are summoning. It remains to be seen whether the execs will be assertive or submissive. Generally, they want to be on the government’s good side, but at what cost?

The heretics must be called to account for the sin of doubting the cost-effectiveness of Obamacare. Even if they expected some financial benefit down the road, they can’t record that until it actually happens. Those pesky accounting rules again.

Meanwhile, they are expected to dig up every email, worksheet, confidential document, and published document to explain their decisions, and be prepared to defend them and to explain their accounting methods. They are asked to testify at a hearing on April 21, and to provide the requested information by April 9. And for what? For Waxman’s bullying PR stunt. None of Waxman’s efforts on this serve the public interest in any way.

In Waxman’s letters, he claims to be concerned about “unintended consequences.” This is just the tip of the iceberg of unintended consequences. That is largely the main characteristic of the results of liberal legislation. Of course, this particular legislation was passed as quickly as possible, with as little concern for (or knowledge of) the actual content as possible. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, when this law results in the collapse of insurance companies, it will be explained as a private-sector failure that has to be corrected with a single-payer plan. That is what Obama and the liberals have wanted all along. Meanwhile, how dare any private sector employers question its effects?

[1] Byron York, “Democrats threaten companies hit hard by health care bill,” 03/28/2010, Washington Examiner.com.

[2] Viola Gienger, “AT&T, Deere CEOs Called by Waxman to Back Up Health-Bill Costs,” 03/27/2010, Bloomberg Business Week.


See copies of letters from Waxman to the executives here.

Photo: Dreamstime.com

Is Steny Hoyer Right? People Don’t Care about Process?

Is the process used in Congress to pass a law something people care about? Steny Hoyer doesn’t think so.

As has been publicized, supposedly against the wishes of Washington Democratic leaders, the House is considering using a convoluted and rather obviously unconstitutional plan referred to as the “Slaughter Rule.” It is named after Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), who proposed using it to approve the Senate health care bill (“deem it passed”) without voting on it. Only the desired changes would be voted on, then sent to the Senate.

As if “reconciliation” weren’t bad enough, this “Slaughter Rule” is infuriating to opponents of the bill, which would be a sizable majority of American likely voters, and the Republicans in Congress. There has been and will be a loud outpouring of righteous indignation over the cynical and possibly illegal methods being used. To the extent that citizens are paying attention, they largely oppose the reprehensible methods used and to be used in this sorry perversion of the normal process.

An Associated Press article reports that, defending the possible use of the “Slaughter Rule,” [t]he Maryland Democrat [House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer] also said the public didn't care about process but about results, and that the approach Democrats are weighing would result in enactment of President Barack Obama's landmark legislation to extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured and create new insurance market protections for nearly everybody else.” [1]
(Emphasis added).

Well, someone had better be caring about process. This administration and Congress are willing to throw out the Constitution and, apparently a lot of political careers, to give Obama this legislation. If they’re willing to seriously suggest, let alone use, such methods to get their fascist-socialist plans enacted, what comes next? Maybe President Obama could just issue an Executive Order? But I don’t want to give him any ideas.

Unprecedented
Democrats argue that the plan has been used before, mostly by Republicans. Brian Darling at RedState writes, “The fact of the matter is that there is no precedent for the House to pass a bill without a direct vote by using a budget reconciliation measure as a trigger and a means to pass ObamaCare. Nancy Pelosi’s potentially unconstitutional strategy to pass unconstitutional ObamaCare is without precedent nor justification.” [2]

“Slaughter Rule” Is Unconstitutional
If Democrats can do these things without effective opposition, our constitutional republic is in serious danger. I don’t think Americans are going to accept such lawlessness. If this bill is passed, or “deemed passed,” the Supreme Court is going to have a case (one or more) to feast upon, and probably shoot the whole thing down.

As The Wall Street Journal points out,
“This two-votes-in-one gambit is a brazen affront to the plain language of the Constitution, which is intended to require democratic accountability. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says that in order for a ‘Bill’ to ‘become a Law,’ it ‘shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.’” [3]

Accountability
Everyone who votes for the bill itself now, or for the “Slaughter Rule,” will be held accountable in November. These votes will not simply be forgotten. Voting for the “Slaughter Rule” will be as bad as, and probably worse than, voting for the bill. House Members who aren’t in a safe liberal district like San Francisco (Pelosi) will find the going tough in November if they vote Obama’s way.

I have to hope these desperate measures of the Democrats fail. This is one attempt at legislation that needs to buried and forgotten.



[1] Associated Press, “Dems defend plan to push health care through House without vote,” 03/16/2010, at New York Post online.

[2] Brian Darling, “ ‘Slaughter Rule’ Strategy Unprecedented,” 03/16/2010, RedState.com.


[3] The Wall Street Journal online, Opinion Journal, “The Slaughter House Rules,” 03/16/2010.


Photo: House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, official portrait.

These Benefits Will Hurt

What would “Health Care Reform” do for employment?
1. New federal payroll taxes. These taxes are paid partly by employers and partly by employees – at least in theory. They are all paid out of money earned by employees. They all increase the cost of employing people, thus are a disincentive to hiring. Taxes on “higher income earners” potentially hurt all workers, through job losses or lower pay.

2. New state taxes. States will have to deal with unfunded mandates to handle greatly increased Medicaid enrollment. The federal government will pay a lot of this, but by no means all (except maybe in Nebraska?)

3. Employer penalties for not providing insurance coverage. Diana Furchtgott-Roth explains:

Employers who don't offer health insurance and whose workers use tax credits to purchase insurance on the private market would be fined $2,000 per worker. For some firms this would create a substantial disincentive for hiring low-wage, unskilled workers such as teens, whose unemployment rate is now 26%, or adults without high school diplomas, who have a 15% unemployment rate. Other firms would be tempted to pay the penalty and get rid of the company health plan. [1]

Americans for Prosperity reports, “CBO estimates employers would opt to drop as many as 5 million workers from private insurance, and pay the fine instead of maintaining current coverage.” Employers with 50 or more employees would be required to provide insurance or pay the fee. [2] This is about the only way employers would see any reduction in costs.

Employers with more than 200 employees would automatically be required to enroll all employees in an insurance plan. [3] Thus some additional people might be covered, but this would likely result in layoffs or hiring freezes for many employers who aren’t already doing this.

4. Taxes “Cadillac” health plans. On this, unions would get a break. Also, this tax wouldn’t start until 2018. If Obama doesn’t want to introduce this tax now, it’s doubtful is successors would, either. [4]

5. New taxes on health insurance companies and drug manufacturers will discourage employment in those fields and raise costs and premiums.

6. Taxes on investment income.

The Heritage Foundation states the following:

The new White House proposal to impose a Medicare tax on investment income would reduce demand for investment, which is the last thing that the economy needs right now. It would slow recovery, reduce employment opportunities, and hinder wage growth. [5]

The Heritage Foundation estimates that the White House plan would result in an average of 115,000 lost jobs per year, and reduce household disposable income by $17.3 billion per year (between 2011 and 2020). [6]

All these new taxes, about $493 billion [7], come at a very inopportune time, during an economic downturn. Even in better times, this plan could be expected to cause a downturn.

Heritage, again:

[T]he President's plan relies on deep cuts in Medicare payments to hospitals and other institutional providers. But the chief actuary of the Medicare program has said repeatedly that these cuts are not realistic because they would push many institutions into serious financial distress. Still, the Administration claims that hundreds of billions of dollars from these cuts will materialize from 2020 to 2030, thus justifying its claim of large deficit reduction during that time. But it is far more likely that the Medicare cuts and tax increases will never be sustained, even as the entitlement costs from the Obama plan soar.[8]

What would “Health Care reform” do for (to) consumers/workers?
All additional taxes to suppliers and providers must be passed on to consumers (or insurers), as must all upstream costs, including direct taxes, fines, fees, compliance expenses, etc. Also, consumers must purchase insurance or pay a $750 fine (tax). Failure to do so could result in jail time. Such a mandate is blatantly unconstitutional and against all U.S. tradition. And, this runs counter to Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on people making under $250,000 per year. Further, there is no serious attempt to deal with tort reform. And, there seems to be no real assurance concerning federal spending for abortions.

Where are these lower costs supposed to come from? Lower costs will be just for those who will get subsidies. The real cost of health care will increase and quality will be diminished.

Spending estimated at more than $2.5 trillion over a decade still won’t be covered by the large tax increases, so only in the Twilight Zone would this plan reduce the deficit. Even if the plan itself tended toward deficit reduction (which it doesn’t), federal spending on many other items would more than offset any expected deficit reduction. Counting on Obama’s “reform” to create jobs and reduce the deficit is like counting on the “stimulus” to end unemployment, only less certain.

Greatly increased bureaucracies associated with “exchanges,” oversight panels, etc. will lead to ever-increasing cost and loss of freedom.

The current entitlements of Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable, and young people today should not expect to benefit from these programs when they reach retirement age. To add new entitlements through “health care reform” demonstrates either woeful ignorance or a serious lack of concern about the future of our economy. This so-called “reform” would be destructive to employment and the economy as a whole.

These entitlements, added to already ever-increasing record deficits, threaten the stability of our economy. Perhaps members of Congress will think again before repeating their mistakes.


[1] Diana Furchtgott-Roth, “Obamacare 2.0 Is a Job Killer,” 02/23/2010, Real Clear Markets.


[2] and [3] AFP Blog, “The Ten Worst Provisions in Senate Health Care Bill,” 03/05/2010, Americans for Prosperity.

[4] James C. Capretta, “The President’s Health Reform Proposal: More Like $2.5 Trillion,” 02/24/2010, The Heritage Foundation.


[5] Karen Campbell, Ph D. and Guinevere Nell, “The President's Health Proposal: Taxing Investments Undermines Economic Recovery,” 02/25/2010, The Heritage Foundation.


[6] Ibid.

[7] Furchtgott-Roth, see [1].

[8] Capretta, see [4].

Photo: Official White House photo by Chuck Kennedy. Found at whitehouse.gov.

Special Tax Treatment for Special Taxpayers

Speaking of the “Health Care Reform” legislation:
“‘I guess this bill is only good if it doesn't apply to you,’ GOPAC Chairman Frank Donatelli said…. ‘If this bill is so good, why does everyone need an exemption in order to vote for it? ... We see the drug companies get a special deal. We see what happened in Louisiana and most notoriously Nebraska in the Senate where they got special deals. And now the unions get a special deal….’” [1]

Arm-twisting, bribery, intimidation, and special treatment are required for the Democrats to make progress on getting “health care reform” passed. It appears that the top Democratic leadership doesn’t much care about the specifics of the final bill as long as they can get the votes and satisfy powerful client special interests. The American people should get this kind of consideration, eh? Most are solidly against this “reform.” [2]

To go along with so many other unconstitutional and destructive Obama policies and proposals, they’ve added the little detail of exempting union members’ “Cadillac” health plans from the proposed heavy tax. People whose insurance is covered by a collective-bargaining agreement get an exemption. Not other citizens. Isn’t there something in the Constitution about the “equal protection of the law”? [3] There’s also an item about “titles of nobility,” and while this isn’t a title as such, Obama doesn’t mind treating certain “classes” of people like they’re privileged characters compared to the rest of us. [4]

Specifically, “The deal reached by unions and the White House would tax family insurance plans worth $24,000, up from the $23,000. The average employer-sponsored family plan cost $13,375 in 2009, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The deal also would delay the tax until 2018 for policies covering workers in collective bargaining agreements,” according to an AP article. [5]

Is this a sweetheart deal or what? It’s worth $60 BILLION [6] according to estimates, leaving that much to be made up in other ways (i.e., taxes). This will kill and bury Obama’s “promise” that families earning less than $250,000 a year would get no increase – “not one dime” – in taxes. Of course, that was pretty well gone anyway. What someone said of Clinton may go better for Obama: “He kept all the promises he intended to keep.” “Deficit-neutral”? Are you kidding?

And in typical Obama and Congressional Democrat fashion, this agreement was reached behind closed doors. Obama’s talk of “transparency” in government now has to be regarded as a joke. But not funny.

Meanwhile, as the Obama Administration and Congressional Democratic leadership are busy with this socialist program, complete with more unsustainable entitlements and plenty of new taxes, they claim to be concerned about unemployment – which they want to deal with by more and more spending. When these new taxes come on stream, they will deal a serious blow to employment and likely make for a double-dip recession, with little relief in sight. The deficit will increase as a result of new taxes, not decrease. The mounting deficits could put the dollar itself in serious trouble.

I hate to sound pessimistic. With a common-sense approach to the economy, big improvements could soon be made. But nothing the administration is doing seems to point in that direction. Union bosses needn’t worry, though. The administration will try to protect them, as long as it means union support for their unpopular and misguided policies.

[1] Fox News.com, Major Garret and Trish Turner contributing, “Democrats Hammered for ‘Back-Room’ Deal with Unions on Health Care,” 01/15/2010, at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/15/democrats-hammered-room-deal-unions-health-care/

[2] Rasmussen reports that 36 percent of voters favor the plan, while 56 percent oppose it, including 44 percent who are “strongly opposed,”

[3] “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.

[4] Ibid, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States…”

[5] Erica Werner, Associated Press, “Obama, Democrats Make Closed-Door Deal With Labor Unions on Final Health Care Bill,” 10/15/2010, CNS News.com, at http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59869

[6] See [1] and [5].

Public domain photo from photos8.com

Are the Proposed Health Insurance Mandates Constitutional?

The Democrats’ plans to require Americans to purchase health insurance or else be fined or imprisoned is one of those rare issues that gets some government officials questioning it on constitutional grounds. Most issues are not questioned if they can attract enough votes to be passed. But this one is getting some constitutionality attention.

There have been a variety of opinions offered on how this requirement can be constitutionally justified. CNS News features several articles about it, mostly with Democrats claiming that Congress can do just about anything it wants to “promote the general welfare.” This assumes that whatever they decide will do that is OK. They refuse to think that the “general welfare” clause is a statement of purpose, not a blank check.

Others cite the Congress’ responsibility to regulate interstate commerce, but requiring people to buy a certain type of product falls outside that authority.

Here are some items at CNS News [1] (in bold) reflecting the Democrat’s inability to pinpoint where this constitutional authority is specifically found, but expressing the idea that it’s there somewhere (my comments not in bold):

“Sen. Bob Casey [D-Pa.]: Health Care Mandate Constitutional, But Not Sure If There’s ‘Specific Constitutional Provision’” You might try reading the Constitution some time, Senator.

“Sen. Nelson[D-Neb.]: Constitutionally, Congress Can Probably Mandate Health Insurance in ‘Same Place’ States Can Mandate Car Insurance” Three points to consider here:
First, a person can avoid the requirement to purchase auto liability insurance by not driving. Second, The required auto liability insurance covers only people other than the insured. Third, under the Tenth Amendment, states can impose requirements that are not specifically granted to the federal government or prohibited to the states. It is this amendment that calls into serious question the constitutionality of the entire health care legislation.

“Sen. Sanders [I-Vt.]: Constitutional Authority for Congress’ Health Insurance Mandate ‘Probably’ Same as Medicare” He also mentioned Medicaid and VA medical services. Medicare is actually on questionable constitutional grounds, but by now it is entrenched to the point that it is politically unlikely to be questioned very much. Medicaid operates through the states, giving it a little better standing. VA health care can be considered part of the federal government’s authority to provide for the military. But the government takeover under Obamacare has no constitutional warrant itself, and certainly the insurance purchase mandate has none.

As Mark Levin, author of the best-selling book Liberty and Tyranny, pointed out at a Washington rally on November 5, the Democrats aren’t really much concerned with the Constitution:



Fortunately, some of our elected representatives recognize the constitutional shortcomings of the health care proposals. For instance, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) argues against the insurance mandate on constitutional grounds:

“‘Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,’ he said. ‘This is not at all like car insurance. You can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance.

“‘This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies,’ said DeMint. ‘We’re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans.

“‘This is not liberty,’ he said. ‘It is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.’” [2]

Sen. Nelson said that since he’s not a constitutional scholar, he couldn’t answer the question about the constitutionality of the mandate. [3] I say, the constitution is written in such a way that a person does not have to be a constitutional scholar to understand it. On the other hand, President Barack Obama is supposed to be a constitutional scholar and he doesn’t seem to understand it very well.

[1] CNS News.com, Politics news stories headlines, 12/26/09 at http://www.cnsnews.com/news/categories

[2] Chris Neefus, “Sen. Nelson: Constitutionally, Congress Can 'Probably' Mandate Health Insurance In ‘Same Place’ States Can Mandate Car Insurance,” 12/24/2009,
CNS News.com, at http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59008

[3] Ibid.

On Health Care, White House Can’t Handle the Truth

The White House and Democratic Congressional leaders are apparently trying to “hit back twice as hard” against those who question or criticize their Obamacare plan. And they got a new target to strike at today: A study commissioned by insurance industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and prepared by accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, stating that private health insurance costs, instead of decreasing under health care reform, will rise significantly.

The report has sparked great concern in Sen. Baucus’s committee as well as the White House, coming one day before a key vote in the Senate Finance Committee. According to a Washington Post article, “‘Those guys specialize in tax shelters,’ said Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform. ‘Clearly this is not their area of expertise.’” [1]

An Associated Press article quotes as follows: “‘Distorted and flawed,’ said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass. ‘Fundamentally dishonest,’ said AARP's senior policy strategist, John Rother. ‘A hatchet job,’ said a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.” [2]

Also, “‘The misleading and harmful claims made by the profit-driven insurance companies are politicking for corporate gain at its worst,’ said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.” [3]

Pretty sharp words, but the report is potentially very damaging to President Obama’s plans for a reform that he said in his radio address has “unprecedented consensus” behind it, and those who oppose it are simply doing so for political purposes.

The study cites four provisions of the Baucus bill that would drive insurance costs higher:
“Insurance market reforms coupled with a weak coverage requirement, a new tax on high-cost health care plans, cost-shifting as a result of cuts to Medicare, and new taxes on several health care sectors.” [4]

The “insurance market reforms” refers to the requirement that insurance companies provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions with guaranteed-issue policies, and the “weak coverage requirement” refers to the less-than-desired “mandates and penalties on those who do not buy health insurance.” [5]

The study finds that, on average, because of these four provisions, the cost of private health insurance will increase by 26% between 2009 and 2013 under the current system and 40% if the provisions are implemented; 50% between 2009 and 2016 under the current system and 73% with the four provisions; 79% between 2009 and 2019 under the current system and 111% if the provisions are implemented. [6]

This translates to, for example, the average annual cost of coverage for a family of four, $12,300 today, would increase to $21,900 by 2019 under the current system with current inflation rates but, under the Baucus plan, it would increase to $25,900. [7]

According to the Heritage Foundation’s Foundry blog, “Lawmakers claim the bill would ‘save’ money, but that’s not true for those who have insurance. The only ‘savings’ would be to those who receive government-paid health care and subsidies at the cost of higher prices for everyone else. (Even if the legislation ‘reduced the deficit,’ it would do so by making citizens pay more, not by controlling government spending.)” [8]

The insurance companies had a tentative understanding with the White House and a willingness to accept the reform until the four provisions they object to became part of the Baucus bill. While the reform plan was disastrously bad anyway, the insurance companies had apparently received enough arm-twisting to agree to its basic provisions – until Baucus’s committee did its work. Anyway, we are fortunate that their commissioned study has pointed out the increased costs that otherwise might not have been mentioned.

Obama mentioned several Republican current and former officials that support his plan, but it’s actually a far cry from “unprecedented consensus.” A majority of the American public, as represented by likely voters, oppose Obamacare. It’s doubtful that any Republicans will support the final bill. State officials who understand the mandated additional costs of Medicare that are to be imposed on them, can’t be enthusiastic about it, especially since most states are not in a strong position financially.

If the Democrats have their way, all these costs are going to be placed on Americans who have been through, and are still in, economic hard times. The Obama Administration does not mind burdening the taxpayers with heavy tax increases. Just think about cap and trade. A McClatchy article states that while the Congressional Budget Office says the $829 billion Baucus bill would reduce the deficit by $81 billion, the [CBO] report “‘masks who pays the bills. This package includes hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes and fees,’ said Sen. Charles Grassley, R- Iowa, the committee's top Republican.” [9]

As more of the truth emerges, the White House and Congressional Democrats are quite apprehensive if not plain scared. Which shows there’s some hope that Obamacare won’t become law.


[1] Ceci Connolly, “New Bill Would Raise Rates, Says Insurance Group.” The Washington Post online, 10/12/2009, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/11/AR2009101102207.html?hpid=topnews.

[2] Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press, “Dems scramble after warning from health insurers,” 10/12/2009, at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul_insurers;_ylt=AvqIoTjMnIT7NYbtqEfHhsSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNlbXZvYm5lBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDEzL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsX2luc3VyZXJzBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZGVtc3NjcmFtYmxl


[3] Ibid.

[4] PricewaterhouseCoopers, “Potential Impact of Health Reform on the Cost of Private Health Insurance Coverage,” October 2009, page E-1, at http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_pwc2.html

[5] The Foundry, “‘Reform’ Means You Pay More for Health Care,” The Heritage Foundation, 10/12/2009, at http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/12/%E2%80%9Creform%E2%80%9D-means-you-pay-more-for-health-care/.

[6] PricewaterhouseCoopers, see [4].

[7] The Foundry, see [5].

[8] Ibid.

[9] David Lightman, McClatchy Newspapers, “Partisan split likely in key Senate health care vote,” 10/12/2009, at http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20091012/pl_mcclatchy/3331544

Photo: Dreamstime

“Health Care Reform” vs. the Constitution and the Economy

Rasmussen: 44 percent favor, 53 percent oppose Obamacare as of September 10, 2009. [1]

Barack Obama is up against it on his “health care reform” project. His September 9 speech to a joint session of Congress highlighted several things (Obama’s words in bold):

1. His frustration with the lack of acceptance of the Democrat proposals in the HR 3200 draft and the ways to “pay for” this plan. I put those words in quotes because the program will not be paid for, if enacted, without massive additions to the deficit, despite Obama’s claims. First, $500 billion cannot be cut from Medicare without seriously affecting benefits and coverage. Second, the proposed sharp tax increases will slow the economy greatly, and actually decrease revenues to the government. He is less specific about this than any other aspect of the issue. To summarize:

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money — an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long-run….

The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term. [2] for all items in bold

But Senator Max Baucus’s paper on financing government health care tells a different story. There are numerous tax increases being proposed, from a federal excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages to tax increases on alcoholic beverages to raising tax rates on higher-income tax payers (not to mention letting the Bush tax cuts expire). In other words, large increases across the board. And, a great many more information reporting requirements. [3]

2. His so-called outreach to Republicans is not and has never been genuine. Sure, he’d like their votes, but he’s not interested in really considering their plans. If he were, he’d have been consulting with them all along. He has not. He calls his opponents liars. His denial of “death panels” cannot be believed. These panels will decide whether treatment is to be permitted, delayed or denied. Once government takes over, bureaucrats will decide who gets what.

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

3. His determination to include a “public option.” This entire “plan” (any plan so far written or discussed by Democrats) is a foot in the door for socialized medicine, and with or without the public option, turns control, if not ownership of the health care, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over to government. With the “public option,” it’s even worse. It will put private insurers out of business. The statement that only a 5 percent or so of Americans will be on this option cannot be believed. Nor can the statement that premium payments can sustain the public option. It just isn’t possible. Nor can the statement that people currently happy with their coverage can keep it. Bureaucratic regulations, formulas, and decisions will prevail once government takes over, “public option” or not. Government’s foot will be on the necks of insurance providers to the extent that many may go out of business before this program can take effect, if it is enacted. Then, look for actual government ownership of some large insurance companies. (They already own AIG).

No one would be forced to choose it [the “public option”], and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.
Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.

4. Obama wants his health care signature issue passed at the expense of helping the economy. Obama does not care about the economy improving. He’s purposefully allowing it to deteriorate. If this is not true, Obama is a complete idiot. And he isn’t. The Obama government is doing nothing that can help the economy. The must know this and be approving of it. They do not care about creating jobs. With more people in economic hardship, more people will look to government. Full recovery is “many months away.” When he’s out of office? He “will not let up” what? Pork-barrel spending? Business takeovers? Bailouts?

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.

It would be more accurate to say that the Administration, Fed, and Congress have come close to pushing the economy over the cliff (and may yet), than to say that they have pulled it back from the brink. If they had refrained from the economically ill-advised bailouts, auto takeovers, etc. the economy could be well into recovery by now, through the self-correction mechanisms the government has throttled. Obama states good goals here, but is doing nothing to help and plenty to harm.

How’s this for an evaluation of the current economy? Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal, says the following:
“The most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll has 87% of the public somewhat or very dissatisfied with the economy. The unemployment rate is likely to go above 10% for all 2010. Whatever GDP growth may occur, there is no evidence of new-job creation. Gold's price has risen above $1,000, suggesting inflation is swimming below the economy's flat surface. China is stockpiling gold and worrying out loud about the weak dollar. A U.N. panel said this week the world should abandon the dollar as the world's anchor currency.” [4]

Oh, and Obama vaguely mentioned tort reform, not too convincingly. Also, it is worth noting that at one point the President was laughed at. Also, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) called out “You lie!’ when the President claimed that illegal immigrants wouldn’t be covered. Democrats were indignant, although they had done similar things to G.W. Bush not many years ago.

To conclude:
1. Obama’s health care preferences have not changed. What he wants is universal, single-payer health care and sees a transition period from our present system to his preferred system. Check out the following video, which I am re-using.



2. He ignores the fact that the economy is much more pressing issue for Americans than health care. When will the American people start to realize that Obama is purposefully destroying the American economy. If he wanted to actually improve it, it wouldn’t be that difficult. Yet we’re supposed to accept his statement that “many more months” of hardship lie ahead.

3. Republicans still need to oppose this to the maximum extent and filibuster it if possible. Whatever plan is brought forward for a vote, with or without the “public option,” represents a complete government takeover of health care-related industries. What Obama laid out in his speech is classic fascism. It is unconstitutional. And it seriously erodes Americans’ liberty. But that’s just the beginning. Cap and trade is next. Then forced unionism, unrestricted abortion, etc., etc.

4. I wish Rep. Joe Wilson the best. He at least was telling the truth. Obama wasn’t.

[1] Rasmussen Reports, “43% Favor President’s Health Care Plan, 53% Oppose,” 09/10/09 at http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/44_favor_president_s_health_care_plan_53_oppose

[2] “Full text of President Obama’s speech on health care reform,” The Associated Press, Stars and Stripes online edition, Wednesday, September 9, 2009, as prepared for delivery and provided by the White House. At http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=64685

[3] At http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/051809%20Health%20Care%20Description%20of%20Policy%20Options.pdf

[4] Daniel Henninger, “It’s Still the Economy, Stupid,” at The Wall Street Journal online Opinion Journal 09/09/09, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574402584266716204.html

Items [3] and [4] were cited and linked to at rushlimbaugh.com and discussed on the Rush Limbaugh program on September 9 and 10 respectively. See transcripts at the website.

Photo: dreamstime.com

Obamacare Is Fascist and Then Some

Fascism is variously defined, but in essence it is close rule by the state over business and industry and citizen activity. Fascism hates self interest and capitalism and insists on citizen participation at the expense of self interest, and corporatism by which the state controls, if not takes title to, the main industries of the nation. Following this form, President Obama (like all the radical leftists) greatly disdains the private sector, and the wealthy who have had commercial success. Their wealth and income are fair game for confiscatory taxation in the interest of redistributing the wealth, mostly to the government. The laws of economics cause these methods to lead not to national prosperity, but instead toward poverty and want, but that is considered less important than getting the program established and persuading (or coercing) people to get on board with it. We’ll worry about jobs, etc., later, perhaps.

From this fascist mindset, we get the Obamacare proposed legislation. Never mind that the people do not want this law, which was attempted to be passed under cover of darkness without public scrutiny (only public pressure prevented that and allowed public debate and discussion). Never mind that people are satisfied with their admittedly imperfect insurance coverage and health care. Obama and the Democrats are determined to ram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people. The proposed plan requires virtually universal participation. People know that the so-called “myths” the Administration claims to be fighting reflect the realities of their plan, assuming it resembles the House bill.

Obama has great distaste for the private sector (but a taste for acquiring or directly controlling major parts of it), in this case the insurance industry, health care providers, and drug manufacturers, whom he proposes to punish with this legislation. His political allies, the trial lawyers and unions will be rewarded. But beyond all the political paybacks, the Obamacare concept contains well-known and soundly rejected (by the public) provisions, and, as we are seeing, less well-known provisions that add even more to its offensiveness in terms of lost liberty.

A CBS News blog called Taking Liberties has an article by Declan McCullagh, that points out some features of the 1,000-plus-page bill (HR 3200), such as

“Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and ‘other information as is prescribed by’ regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for ‘affordability credits.’” [1]

Other sections provide that the IRS must disclose tax return information and the Social Security Administration may obtain tax return information for purposes of the plan. So it’s good-bye to income tax privacy within the health care system. [2]

Also, despite the Administration’s protestations to the contrary, death panels or their equivalent will be part of Obamacare. Government-rationed care cannot be avoided under this type of plan. One of Obama’s top advisors on health care is Rahm Emanuel’s brother Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who, as I have previously cited, is an advocate of doctors considering “the community,” instead of the patient first, and stop providing so much costly care to elderly or disabled people. This is nothing other than eugenics. This goes beyond mere fascism to something even more sinister.

Almost as an afterthought, there is also $10 billion additional bailout cash for the UAW to pay for early retirees’ union-backed health insurance claims. Again, Obama rewards his political allies. U.S. Rep. David Bonior (D-MI) says the amount will have to be supplemented. Already, the Federal bailout of the auto industry has cost $110 billion. How much more bailout money do they think we need to provide? This money is not primarily about health care, it’s more about a political payoff.

Benito Mussolini’s motto was “Everything in the State; nothing outside the State; nothing against the State.”

Mussolini wrote, for example:
“We were the first to state, in the face of demo liberal individualism, that the individual exists only in so far as he is within the State and subjected to the requirements of the state and that, as civilization assumes aspects which grow more and more complicated, individual freedom becomes more and more restricted.” (To the General staff Conference of Fascism, in Discorsi del 1929, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 280). [3]

This mirrors Obama’s attitude toward government power and his disdain for individual self interest and anyone or any organization that opposes expanding government power and controls. Thus it is not hard to understand Obama’s affinity for dictators like Chavez and Ortega. He wants to exercise that kind of power, only on, of course, a much larger scale. He wants everyone devoted to his fascist program and not their own individual interests. He talks about protecting and improving life for the middle class, but his plan will destroy the middle class through unemployment, taxation, and fiscal recklessness. He adds insult to injury by apologizing for America at every opportunity and trying to give the impression that before he came along, America was always the bad guy in the world.

Can his charisma hypnotize enough people long enough for him to accomplish his agenda? So far, we’re still America. We won’t be the same America if Obamacare, cap and trade, and other statist (and unconstitutional) laws are implemented. And it will take generations to restore what will have been lost.


[1] Declan McCullagh, “Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data,” 08/26/09, found at
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml
(cited at http://www.drudgereport.com).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Benito Mussolini, “The Doctrine of Fascism,” Appendix 7. Co-written with Giovanni Gentile. Found at http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm.
This website which seeks to educate for the purpose of promoting democracy.

Illustration: Book cover found at http://specialcollections.library.wisc.edu/exhibits/Fascism/Images/FRY05.html

Are You Listening, Mr. President? Congress?

At a Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) town hall event in Philadelphia August 2, the crowd didn’t seem to be buying their presentation. Rush Limbaugh commented on this today, suggesting that this may discourage future town-hall-type events on this topic, and pointing out that Philadelphia is not exactly red-state conservative, but is predominantly union member country.



This event brings up several questions which have not been, in my view, satisfactorily answered:
1. Why is this so urgent that it can’t wait for more debate and discussion? If this is to take effect in 2013, why the big rush now? Can’t some time be devoted to examining these proposals?
2. Why is this government takeover the only approach to be considered?
3. Why should members of Congress ever be asked to vote on bills they have had little or no opportunity to read, and in some cases, bills that haven’t even been written yet? This is extremely offensive to any kind of democratic government, that our elected “representatives” would be willing to consider such a thing. A member who votes for a bill, having not read it or understood it, should not be in public office. Period.
4. If our officials know that about 80% of voters are satisfied with their current coverage, and don’t want to lose it, but know they would under Obamacare, why is the Administration and Congress trying to force this upon them?
5. If Medicare and Social Security are in financial peril, and Medicaid not doing so well either, why multiply this red ink millions of times over?
6. Why are we being told that we must provide coverage for 50 million more people, when probably no more than 10 million actually want or need help?

Obama’s popularity is fading fast, and he’s in a race to get his signature plan approved. But people are catching on to the deceptive tactics and massive danger involved. As Milton Friedman said, “The government’s solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.” That has probably never been more applicable than in this matter.

If their interest is really in providing health insurance coverage to needy people, there are several ways to do so without this immense destruction that’s being proposed.
1. Instead of job-destroying tax increases, offer tax incentives to employers who provide health care coverage to their employees.
2. Increase, not decrease, tax deductibility of medical expenses. Don’t ever tax health care benefits.
3. Encourage higher-deductible and catastrophic coverage for people who don’t need insurance coverage for routine doctor visits, etc.
4. Provide tax incentives to insurance companies (gasp!) for offering coverage for pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, it’s poor management for insurance companies to, as they say, “buy claims.” Nor is it equitable to force them to provide such coverage without compensation.
5. Don’t chase insurance companies out of Medicare. They’re a cost savings to the government in administering plans.
6. Encourage substantial tort reform to limit damage awards in malpractice actions.
7. Stop trying to manage everyone’s business or putting everyone into some bureaucratic pigeonhole for health insurance coverage.

Plus, there have been a number of excellent suggestions, but since some came from Republicans, they aren’t as likely to be considered.

I think the audience response at the Philadelphia town hall is likely to be repeated numerous times if there are any more opportunities. I hope someone in Washington, D.C. is paying attention. If not, they may be unemployed after their next election campaign.

Another Shot at Health Care “Reform” – Part 2 of 2

Continuing a presentation of facts and opinions about Obama's health care “reform” and my reasons for opposing it (Also see Part 1).

7. The main issue is loss of freedom. Government is supposed to protect our liberty, not take it away. This consideration alone is enough reason to reject Obamacare. By writing about other aspects of the issue, I do not want to give the impression that I am willing to accept the premise that socialized healthcare ought to be considered for our country. But still, we may learn from the experiences of other countries.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." — Benjamin Franklin [1]

The proposed “reforms” are very intrusive and would affect virtually everyone.
A. Control of our own body is a very fundamental right; are we willing to allow the government to take title to our body? They would end up with physical and decision-making control over our physical body. This is slavery.
B. Health care is one of the most intimate personal things a person deals with. The entire process and information about it should be treated with respect, privacy, and great care. All this is in danger under government insurance. Also, there is no reason to suppose that information uncovered through health care would not be used for other things the government is interested in. Especially this government.
C. CNN Money, hardly a bastion of conservatism, recognizes five rights that will be lost:
1. Freedom to choose what’s in your plan
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
5. Freedom to choose your doctors [2]

8. Government Health Care and Insurance We Have Now
a. Military b. Veterans’ c. Medicare d. Medicaid
These are well established, and to a great extent, fall under government’s legitimate functions, and were set up under presidents who, while possibly liberal, were not out to destroy and rebuild the political and social structures of America, as Obama is, and were not seeking dictatorial control, as Obama is.

9. Comparing Foreign Countries’ Health Care with Our Own
Proponents of government health care in the U.S. can point to data that shows or appears to show that European or other foreign countries’ health care leads that of the U.S. in various categories. But there are some cautions to bear in mind. Various factors can make such comparisons misleading.

The U.S. is a comparatively wealthy country and spends more for health care because we have more to spend. And if we have funds available, we are willing to spend for better insurance and better care. Also, the actual costs for government-insured health care in other countries are higher than reported as government outlays as a percentage of GDP, since significant costs are hidden and passed to non-government entities as administrative costs and taxes. Also, there’s the fairly true maxim that you get what you pay for.

Socialized systems have been subject to physicians’ strikes because they usually pay doctors a great deal less than doctors can earn in America. The ways these systems try to hold down costs include lower pay for medical personnel, refusal to purchase certain expensive medicines, waiting lists for treatment, refusal or delays of certain treatments. And so on.

Some show longer life spans than the U.S. has, but in America, when accidents and homicides are taken into account, we have some of the best life span numbers. Many people (tens of thousands) do come to the U.S. for medical treatment. A couple of notables include former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (heart surgery) and Canadian MP (and champion of the Canadian health care system) Belinda Stronach (breast cancer surgery). Many of those who come to America are rich enough to pay directly. [3] It is also true that a good many Americans go abroad for treatment. Medical tourism is a growing industry. India, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore and others are able to offer common surgeries and other treatments at a fraction of the U.S. costs.

As for infant mortality, in the U.S., more low birth-weight babies are brought to term than in other countries. “Some of those low birth-weight babies die soon after birth, which boosts our infant mortality rate, but in many other Western countries, those high-risk, low birth-weight babies are not included when infant mortality is calculated.” [4]

While the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 37th overall in healthcare, the ranking was strongly influenced by political considerations not directly related to health care. The Cato Institute reports that WHO rated the U.S. first in “responsiveness to patients’ needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, and confidentiality.” [5]

There has been a history of mostly successful outcomes in these systems. However, the fact that socialized systems have shown some success in foreign countries does not mean that we need them here. They certainly have their drawbacks.

The Heritage foundation reports: “As Philippe Maniere explains, France’s health care system faces an impending crisis. His overview here offers America’s health care reformers some valuable lessons.
“Lesson #1: Universal coverage does not mean universal access to quality care. In France, health care is non-negotiable. It is simply unacceptable that a person should suffer from the lack of care. Although people should have access to some form of health care coverage, the results of France’s guarantee is a cash-strapped system riddled with abuse.
“Lesson #2: Making across-the-board price cuts on pharmaceuticals to save money can have adverse effects. In France, such cuts tend to restrict research and development and to reduce the availability of cutting-edge drugs, while other areas of medicine requiring significant reform are overlooked.” [6]

Trends suggests that the countries with the most direct government controls have the most problems, and the least problematic are those where private insurers participate significantly and market forces are allowed to operate.[7] Switzerland, notably, “has the least paternalistic health care system in Europe. It is the only country in Europe with a health care system that is based totally on private insurance.” [8]

There are interesting and informative comparisons of European and Canadian health care plans, and while we may learn something from them, it would be illegal and not beneficial for the federal government to take control.

10. Who Doesn’t Have Health Care Coverage?

a. People who are able and willing to buy the best cars, TV’s, phones, etc, but won’t purchase health insurance because they consider it less important. About 17.8 million people whose household income is over $50,000 do not have health insurance. [9]

b. Low-income families who qualify for Medicaid or S-CHIP but have failed to apply.

b. People who are in the United States illegally (approximately 8 million). They are not entitled to free health insurance. Emergency treatment is already provided, and some get coverage through their employers. [10]

c. People who currently have some type of high-deductible coverage but are somehow counted as uninsured. They don’t need any help with this, and typically could afford whatever coverage they want.

d. People who are truly needy and unable to purchase insurance. Government could focus on help for them through Medicaid changes, insurance premium help, or other means, through the states, for much less cost than the proposed overhaul.

Conclusion
Government can help the needy to get insurance coverage and good health care without wrecking and rebuilding the current system.

Hopefully, this misguided attempt at “reform” will be defeated and won’t show up again for another decade or two. On the positive side, people are thinking about, and sometimes thinking through, the issues related to health care and health care insurance. It can be improved and upgraded by common-sense measures that would be acceptable to most Americans.

Notes:
[1] Quoted at goodreads.com
[2] http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/index.htm (cited at rushlimbaugh.com)
[3] Michael D. Tanner, “The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World,” Policy Analysis No. 613, 03/18/08, at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272, page 5
[4] Ibid., page 4
[5] Ibid.
[6] Robert E. Moffitt, Ph. D., Philippe Maniere, et al, “Perspectives on the European Health Care Systems: Some Lessons for America.” The Heritage Foundation, Lecture #711, 07/09/2001, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL711.cfm
[7] Tanner, Executive Summary.
[8] Moffitt, Maniere, et al.
[9] “Deconstructing the Uninsured,” RSC Policy Brief at http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/pb_042808_uninsured.doc
[10] Ibid.

Obama Cares So Deeply About … What?

Must we learn the hard way what Barack Obama’s intentions are? It should be painfully obvious by now that he is not particularly concerned with helping the economy. I think, rather, he’s trying to destroy it. And has “success” in his sights. Obama’s goals involve seizing as much power and control as possible, and redistributing as much wealth as possible. Once a good majority reaches non-taxpayer status, the remaining citizens can have their wealth taxed away to support the great fascist program. And there will be a majority willing to re-elect Barack, Biden, and their Congressional helpers. At least that’s what they seem to think.

1. The $800 billion dollar stimulus has thus far helped nothing. It is noted that only a small fraction of it has been spent so far, but it would be just as well, better even, if no more were spent at all. Now they’re talking Son of Stimulus which won’t help either, except for whatever benefit can be gained from pork projects and bridges to nowhere.

2. Cap and trade, if approved will be the biggest drain ever on our economy, not to mention our freedom. It will effectively “cap” any chance for economic recovery, probably for as long as it is in effect. As Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) observed, it could be called a stimulus bill for India and China. They are not going to allow these mindless restrictions and economy-destroying taxes, because they are trying to build their economies rather than tear them down.

The current employment situation is bad and getting worse. With cap and trade, we will see depression-era unemployment numbers and a steady exit of businesses to other countries, simply because they can no longer afford to stay in business here. Many of the ones that can’t move will simply shut down. Or maybe the government will take them over.

And all this activity, with its massive bureaucracy won’t help the climate one bit. The world of cap and trade is truly a fool’s paradise.

3. Health care and health insurance should not be the domain of the federal government when it comes to replacing private services. What is being proposed must lead to a single-payer government-controlled program with government eventually becoming the provider. If the government controls the insurance, they in effect control health care. The proposed plans seem to be comprehensive, placing all activity under some kind of government scrutiny if not direct control. As Mark Steyn pointed out on today’s Rush Limbaugh Show, an inefficient and unfair private system is far better than an inefficient and unfair government system, because under a private system, you can go somewhere else, but under a public system, you have to go where and when they tell you.

In health care, we are dealing with the most personal and intimate information. It has traditionally received a degree of privacy, protection, and choice. We may be about to give that up for a government system that has physical and decision-making control over our bodies. That is a serious and probably permanent surrender of freedom.

And people are worried about the government taxing our employer-provided health care benefits? That’s only a minor worry in the whole picture, but it is a problem. They’ll eventually be taxed out of existence and everyone will be on government health insurance, forcibly if necessary. “Competition” will be a forgotten concept in the health insurance field. Insurance companies will have to take up some other line of business. All of which is fine with Obama.

The hated pharmaceutical industry will be pressured to provide cheap medicine, which means they’ll have less money and less incentive to develop new medicines.

Oh, and cost? If you have some kind of coverage now, you will be paying more, since you’ll also be paying for a lot of other people’s insurance.

If you want to get treated for, say, a broken arm, you’ll be told when and where, probably put on a waiting list, restricted on any high-tech examining procedures (whatever your doctor might want to do), and all your records will be online for all and sundry to examine if they have the slightest connection with your medical care. Come to think of it, the North Koreans would probably be able to access it as well, along with your Social Security Number, etc., expert hackers that they are. If you’re old or chronically ill, look out for long delays and frequent denials of treatment.

Conclusion
The same folks that brought you Fannie and Freddie and FEMA are ready to offer you climate-saving cap and trade, plus cost-cutting health care insurance. And if you believe that, they might be willing to sell you a bridge somewhere in Brooklyn. Snake oil doesn’t sound all that bad by comparison.

Illustration: “Business Is Business”
From Squibs of California, Or, Every-day Life Illustrated by Palmer Cox, fig. 3, p. 171. This image is in the public domain. Found at http://books.google.com/books?id=Ri8PAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA17&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4

The Coming Healthcare Insurance Showdown

Since my last post, I’ve considered renaming my blog “The Alarmist,” but I suppose that would be counterproductive. Barack Obama is strenuously pushing his agenda along, with ’way too much cooperation and indulgence from the public, many of whom still think Barack will help them get free health insurance, get back at those bad guys who’ve been cheating them, make their mortgage payments, etc. Will it be only after some of his major programs are implemented that the truth will be apparent?

The hot topic right now is health insurance. Obama denies that what he is suggesting is a Trojan horse for socialized medicine. He’s right. It is socialized medicine. How can the U.S. be in favor of any of the proposed plans? Consider:


SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CURRENT SITUATION:
1. Most Americans are content with their current healthcare. According to the CBS News-New York Times poll of June 20, 77% are satisfied with the quality of their own health care, and 50% are satisfied with the cost. [1]

2. About 15% of the 47 million uninsured in America are illegal immigrants. This would be about 7 million people. [2] They would be included in Obama's plan.

3. According to a June 20 CBS News-New York Times poll, a majority of Americans say they would be willing to pay higher taxes in order for everyone to have healthcare coverage, but when it gets to specifics, say, $500 more in taxes, or higher premiums for themselves, the numbers drop off to a minority. Most are concerned that their own health care quality could get worse with government involvement, and that access to care will be limited. So there are serious concerns, yet most people want everyone to be covered, as long as they themselves don’t have to pay too much. Throughout the poll, Republicans are much less desirous of having government participation than are Democrats. [1]

Many people could provide their own health insurance but choose not to. Also, emergency care is available whether a person can afford it or not.

SOME OBSERVATIONS:
1. Obama presents this as a “crisis.” The healthcare system is “broken.” This must be accomplished now, before the Congressional recess. In fact, it is far from being a crisis, but implementing any of the proposed Democrat plans will bring it to a crisis.

2. Democratic sponsors were startled by the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the cost: About $1 trillion over 10 years, while providing health insurance to only 16 million (not 47 million) additional people. This cost would supposedly be covered by new taxes on sugary beverages, income for people earning above $200K, employer-provided benefits, and Lord knows what else. Add this to the already endless debt on things already in motion. It can never be paid – not in this lifetime!

3. In the above-cited poll, a majority thought Government could do a better job of “holding costs down,” by which they must have meant costs to the new recipients of coverage, and not costs as a whole. Obama has the nerve to say this will somehow help reduce healthcare costs when in fact it will place a very heavy burden on taxpayers present and future and provide comparatively little in return.

4. The government, if a public plan is implemented, will “hold down” costs by rationing care. The result will be long delays, denials of treatment, greatly diminished healthcare quality.

ARE OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS BEING TRUTHFUL?
Check the following video from YouTube. It was posted on The Heritage Foundation’s website.:



This healthcare deception is so obvious it strains common sense not to understand it as another step in the great fascist program of Obama. Once the Federal Government takes charge of healthcare, we are into full-blown socialism. It’s just a matter of a few details, which may take a little time, as Obama said.

Government insurance will not “compete” fairly with private insurers, it will put them out of business. When you have a government service with unlimited demand and no need to post a profit, you have endless cost for a program that will turn out to be severe rationing. And government control of a very important aspect of our lives.

FURTHER IMPLICATIONS
And healthcare is just the beginning. Once we are on that road, it will be very hard to change course. We trust them with our healthcare? We trust them to take over more and more of the private sector? We trust them to regulate every aspect of daily life? They’re already at work, pushing individuality and private enterprise to the margins and replacing them with government plans with mandatory participation and no end to the cost. Are we ready for that? I’m not!

I’ve said before that this is the defining issue for Republicans. If they fail to solidly oppose this and filibuster it if possible, then I might have to concede that a third party is not unthinkable. But we have some good people in the GOP. God help them.

Notes:
[1] “Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option,” CBS News.com, 06/20/2008, at
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/opinion/polls/main500160.shtml

[2] Richard Wolf, “Rising health care costs put focus on illegal immigrants,” USA Today, 01/22/2008, at http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_N.htm