President Obama says he wants Congress to put national healthcare reform legislation on his desk by the time the August recess begins. He is a man in a hurry. He is presiding over an administration that now has a significant ownership stake in two automobile companies and numerous financial institutions. He and his subordinates are devising plans to regulate private sector executive pay (for folks other than labor union officials). Now our new president wants to move more—if not all—of healthcare into the public sector. Our president is quite ambitious—but not necessarily prudent.
Of the many approaches to healthcare reform being drafted at the Capitol, the one that would have the most far-reaching consequences is the requirement that would mandate a “public option” to private health insurance. President Obama tries to cloak this major expansion of government with an aura of innocence by saying its only purpose is to keep private health insurance “honest.” The president can do that with the regulatory powers at the disposal of his administration. What is at play here is far more than “honesty.”
Another proposed feature of the healthcare reform legislation is a provision to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits. This proposal is designed to offset a portion of the cost of the new entitlement. What it will likely do is drive more individuals who currently have private insurance into the “public option.” The benefits would be taxed as ordinary income, which means Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes will apply to it—in addition to standard income taxes. Employers will have to pay their matching portion of the Social Security and Medicare taxes. That will push many employers closer to dropping health insurance coverage that is already a burden to provide.
President Obama has been careful not to claim that the “public option” will save money. To make such a claim, one would have to ignore years of experience with Medicare and Medicaid. The cost of these two programs continues to escalate explosively. Instead of paying for the rising costs by cutting other areas of the budget or raising taxes, the federal government continuously pays medical providers less to treat the indigent and the elderly. The “public option” will, no doubt, utilize that cost “control” measure as well as another—rationing care.
Long before the first vote is cast on national healthcare reform in this session of Congress, the public should demand that the House and Senate agree to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the cost of the program—and then clearly identify the funding source that will be used to pay for it. The projected budget deficit for the next fiscal year is already $1.8 trillion. Put another way, 41 cents of every dollar being spent in the next budget will be borrowed. Trillion-dollar budget deficits are projected for most of the next decade. What the country does not need is another multi-trillion dollar entitlement program to add fuel to the fire.
One of the largest contributors to rapidly rising health insurance costs is the fact that the cost of services and procedures is rarely known by consumers who have little say-so regarding the care they receive. Instead of moving more toward government mandated and operated healthcare, we should be moving rapidly in the other direction. Consumers of healthcare services—public and private—need the transparency of cost information, financial incentives, and personal empowerment to decide what works best for them. Throwing trillions of dollars more at a system modeled on failures just doesn’t make sense.
My ex-wife's brother's youngest has spina-bifida. He cannot change jobs due to losing his insurance. Taxpayers do pay for most of the costs of the operations she's had (they've spend a lot out of pocket as well. I've also heard of people losing their life savings due to one spouse or the other needing expensive care (often in their last year or two of life). Would I like to see this change? Not just "yes" but "hell yes." However, the Devil is in the details. We'll see what's put on the table. I see that the reliable Democratic Party campaign donors - the trial lawyers - will not have to "sacrifice' as tort reform is not on the table. That's all I need to know! I'm against Mr. Obama's proposal for that reson alone and hope it fails. Now .. when they want to 'do it right' .. then I will back it. Not until then however. Written by kpf
on 6/16/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The main problem with the private health insurance market is that it is designed to screw the customer. A health insurer will first try as much as possible to get legal standing to later screw the insured. If there is any type of pre-existing condition, the insurer just will not offer the policy - or, if any major claims would be made, the insurer will attempt to welch out on the claim via recission based on whatever the insurer can legally get away with. And then there is the endless nickel-and-diming, payment delays, and other bureaucratic BS. And then after all that, once an insured has made a big claim, the insurer simply raises the policy cost to some obscene level that gives the insured no option but to give up insurance.
I know all about this, as I had regular insurance coverage before my cancer diagnosis. I did everything legal to keep that coverage, but eventually it ran out, and I was offered to keep the insurance at $16K/yr! I did a little digging around, and I found out at the ghosts of Huey Long has set up a nice public hospital system for the indigent. As I am self-employed, it is fairly easy for me to meet the definition of indigence (at least in an instantaneous manner), so I just got my expensive health care paid for by the great taxpayers of Louisiana and the USA. YOU LOSE, TAXPAYERS!
Look into it - basically the LSU hospital system has a cap of 20% of income as the maximum out of pocket cost (and if the income is less than 200% of the poverty level, there would be NO cost!) All one would need to do is to have a bad income year after running up huge expenses (which probably would not be all that difficult as a person who would be that sick would probably be too sick to work much.)
Would I like to pay my own way and get a regular health plan? You bet, but I am not going to buy toilet paper coverage - I am only going to buy a good solid plan, and that is what the public plan is. Written by Uninsured
on 6/16/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I agree completely, the ignorant and greedy include those at all socio-economic levels, in both the private and public sector. We doomed to suffer - as did Humpty Dumpty - a "great fall." Hopefully we'll be able to put "the pieces back together again" from the lesson we learn (basically, that there is "no free lunch"). Written by kpf
on 6/15/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
It all comes down to ignorant, greedy voters. For the vast majority, if any politician fails to promise them a payoff, they vote for the other guy. Too ignorant to know where the money comes from, too ignorant to understand international economics. And what really magnifies the problem are politicians and their machines who campaign entirely on what the opposition did not give away to the voters. Until Americans see "voted against funding for ..." as a positive political action, we are doomed. Written by
on 6/15/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
David Brooks article in the Sunday TP is a sane and sober look at the future of our country due to the debt we've piled up beginning in the eighties and continuing today. Google "David Brooks" and "The Great Unwinding" - this is an issue that will not be a liberal/conservative issue when we all start to feel it's effects. Both political parties are guilty of the cowardice of not disappointing their constituencies by spending money that "doesn't exist" - the piper will have to be paid, sooner or ... or we can simply "bestow" our grandchildren with the gift of a trillion dollars in interest each year. Why do those who speak of the need to "invest" in our state's educational system make not a sound about the debt this country has? How much "investment" does funneling 800 billion in tax dollars towards interest payments each year provide? Quite a legacy we're leaving our children - really something to be proud of. Written by kpf
on 6/15/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The "right story is" to allow ANY private enterprise to fail - whatever the consequences may be. The people who lose their jobs there will get another job with a company that satisfies the consumer. Profit and loss are indicators of "giving the people what they want, at the price they are willing to pay." If the product isn't what people want - or if it is deemed too expensive by the God of economics (aka "the consumer") then it needs to fail. That way the publics money is ONLY being used for essential government services and businesses that are meeting consumer demand in both quality and price. Written by kpf
on 6/14/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Chicken farmers didn't bankrupt the processing plant. Union autoworkers with the help of democratic politicians bankrupted their employers. Written by
on 6/13/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that corporate welfare is corporate welfare. Taking care of the chicken farmers is OK but taking care of the auto workers is not? Look...all of the states play the same game and governors of both parties play it. But it does happen and if one is to say that it's OK to take care of one group then it's hard to see one can then turn around and condemn taking care of another group (keeping in mind that "welfare" to families was reformed in the Clinton years so that it isn't permanent). Written by The Real Story isq
on 6/13/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
if Nagin is the lesser of evils then what the heck is evil? Someone else would have been a worse embarassment to the city? How? Some of us never voted for him, somehow holding the quaint notion that competence matters in a mayor. There are no two ways about it: conservatives played a very significant role in both his original election and in his re-election, short-sightedly opting for the supposedly less liberal candidate as opposed to the candidate who probably would have done a better job for the city. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/13/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Nagin did manage to defeat more openly liberal (at the time) candidates with the support of conservatives. Simple case of lesser of many evils. But if he wasn't black, he'd have had no chance. Conservatives cannot elect a true conservative in New Orleans, because they are in such a minority. And with the vote-buying, voter-hauling, street-money organization in place in NO, poor democrats look forward to election day because of the attention and token gratuities that they can earn from candidates who laugh at them behind their backs. And as far as Foster Farms and corporate welfare, go to north Louisiana, and see how impoverished those rural parishes are for blacks and the vast majority of whites. The Foster Farms deal allowed an industry to survive - an industry that provides income to people, communities and parishes on the backs of farmers who do more hard work in a week than many New Orleans democrat dependents do in a year. Written by
on 6/13/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Since you only recognize the binary world of conservative/liberal this is probably wasted on you .... but anyway ... there are those of us who are against private businesses influencing government. Whether this influence is preferred contracts, legislation favoring a particular industry, government subsidies to industry, government price fixing for the benefit of industry, or government bailouts of failing industry; we are against all forms of government favoritism towards private enterprises. Both major political parties are for ALL of these things (in one form or another); free market (you wouldn't have a clue what that is, trust me on that) proponents are CONSISTENT about separation of government and the economy. The economy is what THE PEOPLE freely CHOOSE to spend their money on. WITHOUT government interference the only corporate entities that thrive are those who SATISFY the consumer. It is the ultimate form of "power to the people" - whereas corporate welfare, political payback to big corporate (or union) campaign contributors and bailouts is nothing other than government DEFYING the will of the people (as expressed in how they spend their money). I don't know where you get your "the poor" doesn't vote from, but the district I live in is 60% black, and rather poor. With the exception of Cao all the politicians in this district are black Democrats, so perhaps you are mistaken about the poor not voting. Nagin was reelected by his playing the race card, I don't think he was trying to attract white voters with his "Chocolate City" comment. Oh yeah, Nagin is a Democrat, is he not? Don't pass off Nagin as either "the conservative voter's choice" or as a fiscally responsible administrator as his crime camera shows he is not "running the city like a business" unless the "business" he is in is "funnel money into C-Ray's pockets." Nagin no more discredits "fiscal responsibility" then he discredits black Democratic politicians, the fact that he was "supposed" to be an honest alternative to Mark Morial's crooked administration doesn't discredit honest governance. Written by kpf
on 6/13/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that Nagin won re-election with the strong support of the Couhig conservative crowd. Moreover, Nagin won election the first time around as the supposed outsider successful business pro-business reformer with the endorsement of the media, i.e. not exactly the stereotype poor person's candidate. Anyone is welcome to check the facts but again it's just the plain truth that people who are better educated and make more money along with older voters are the people who vote most regularly while poorer vote less regularly, ergo if Democrats are relying this bloc vote from the ghetto then that's a bad move for them. Conservatives can pretend otherwise all they want to, but corporate welfare does exist (see chicken plant in north Louisiana). Conservatives want to pretend, also, that health care reform is not needed? Fine, let them be unable to obtain employer-based health insurance and see how much it costs and whether they can even get it at all if they're older and how much it would cost if they themselves get sick. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/13/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
uh ... "Cracks" .. not "racks" Written by dag nab it
on 6/13/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Do we need to make changes in healthcare - yes. Do we need another "rush to judgment" affair similar to the 787 billion dollar "gotta do this right away" boondoggle? Certainly not. Both political parties provide benefits in the law to assist their campaign contributors at the expense of the taxpayer. As far as catering to the lower class being a fallacy - just check out the city of New Orleans. Who do you think elects the politicians in this city, white people making >$100K per year? The problem with government "entitlements" is that the rich can afford the added taxes, the poor will vote for it, but the middle class pays for it at great cost to their discretionary income (which becomes less and less as cost for their expenses - and the expenses of those they support on welfare increase). Keep in mind many taxes on the rich are passed on to consumers as increased costs on consumer goods. These "goods" - be it private industry products or government entitlements - are again easily afforded by the rich, are essentially "no cost" to the poor and almost completely paid for by the middle class. It is truly unfortunate Obama did not veto some of the "stimulus" spending. He has lost credibility as a fiscally responsible person. racks are forming in his own ranks. Good. This country needs to have some Democrats oppose this administration's irresponsible spending orgy. Written by kpf
on 6/13/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Your last post was finally accurate. All politicians buy votes with tax dollars. But at least with tax cuts for "the wealthy", Republicans buy votes with the taxpayers own money. Democrats must buy their votes with the dollars confiscated from those who actually pay taxes. And although I wish it were true that the uneducated did not vote, it is impossible to explain the political careers of Edwin Edwards, Bill Jefferson, Kathleen Blanco, Cleo Fields, Renee Gill-Pratt, David Duke, and hundreds more in Louisiana without acknowledging the effect of ignorance in the voting booth. Written by
on 6/13/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that getting the donations from the heavy-duty donors=winning elections. Every politico, left or right, Jindal or Foster or Obama or Landrieu or Vitter knows that score. If anyone wants to pretend that that isn't so, then they can bring it. It really does not matter who wins, the people that the right wingers seem to be characterizing as having all this power in fact get left out when the decisions get made. The Democrats are catering to the lower class? That's the silliest thing to contend. The truth is that the lower-class voters are the least likely people to go to the polls on a regular basis. Who does vote with regularity? People who are well-educated, who make more money and older people. Not exactly the stereotype Democratic contigent. That's why Bush had Medicare prescription drug benefits passed. Very expensive, yes. To cater to the senior-citizen voter. He knew that they go to the polls when no one else does. Ergo, someone can spew all day and all night about Democrats and vote buying but these are the facts. The GOP definitely knows how to do it and does it. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/12/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Oh yeah, the GOP knows that the multi-millionaire votes are the key to election victory. Definitely one of the largest demographic groups in the American electorate, right?? You liberal socialists like to claim that the tax breaks benefit the richest 1 or 2 or 5 percent of the population. How can buying 5% of the American votes win an election? Did those 5$ put George Bush in for two terms. Your math is just like Obama's. Or is it that the Democrats have indoctrinated dupes like you to further their plan to buy votes with the confiscated wealth of this tiny fraction of the population? Written by
on 6/12/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that the GOP is definitely guilty itself of vote-buying tactics, as in king-size tax cuts for the wealthiest voters, the CEO's who pull in one hundred times if not even more what the average worker does. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/12/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
That democrats have long sought this ultimate vote-buying transfer of wealth is a given. Once people who paid no taxes get tax "refunds" can't they use the windfall money that they never actually earned to buy insurance? Or do dubs come first? Written by
on 6/12/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Until you bring medical costs and staffing problems in line, you will find NO solutions.................... Logistics and Bivouac folks, Logistics and Bivouac folks - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Written by
on 6/12/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that the problem is in that with health insurance those who need it often find themselves either unable to afford it or at the whim of insurers not willing to offer a policy -- and then if they do need treatment they cannot afford pay for it without insurance. Insurers would rather sell coverage to younger, healthier people who might themselves be disinclined to purchase coverage but rather more inclined to save their monies. That there has to be reform is a given. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/12/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
