From Politico.com: A great explanation about healthcare and rights.
Health is not a right. It is a personal responsibility. Healthcare is not a right. It is a commodity. Health insurance is not a right. It is a financial risk management tool. Those who try to equate the Constitutional right of 'life' with health, health care, health insurance have got it completely wrong. The Constitution does not guarantee that the federal government will provide you with life. Instead it guarantees that the federal government will not take life away from you. Unless the government has done something to your health that resulted in the loss of your life, then you have no claim against the government, or a right to its monies (which come from taxes).
Showing posts with label universal healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label universal healthcare. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Phyllis Schlafly on Obamacare- Why It Is Wrong
Ten New Reasons Why Obamacare Can Still Be Killed
by Phyllis Schlafly January 1, 2010
New reasons emerge almost daily as to why Obamacare can and must be defeated.
1. The American people oppose Obamacare by almost 2 to 1 in the latest CNN poll. Other polls show lopsided opposition to passing either the Senate or House health-care bill.
Public opinion is against the bill because of its obscene costs in higher taxes, burdensome debt, anti-freedom mandates, rationing, and reduced care for seniors. The American people have awakened to the fact that Obamacare is transformational legislation that will drag us against popular will into European-style Socialism.
2. The Democrats' double-counting of Obamacare's financial benefits has been exposed as a colossal lie. Harry Reid told the Senate that his bill strengthens our future by both "cutting our towering national deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years" AND "strengthening Medicare and extending its life by nearly a decade."
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) refuted that assertion. CBO said the claim that Obamacare would provide these benefits simultaneously "would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position."
3. Obamacare is unconstitutional because of its mandate that all individuals must carry "approved" health insurance, and all businesses must give health insurance to their employees whether or not the company can afford it. "Universal" coverage will be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service with power to punish those who don't have such a plan.
Constitutional lawyers point out that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance as a condition of living in our country because personal health insurance is not "commerce." The CBO wrote that "a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action"; the Supreme Court has never upheld any requirement that an individual must participate in economic activity.
4. Since the Senate bill imposes sharp limits on health-insurance companies' ability to raise fees or exclude coverage, it likely will force many of them out of business. Obamacare is unconstitutional because it violates the Bill of Rights protections against takings without just compensation and deprivation of property without due process of law.
5. Other Obamacare provisions blatantly legislate racial and other forms of discrimination. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent two letters to the President and congressional leaders warning about the obnoxious requirements for racist and sexist quotas.
The Senate bill requires that "priority" for federal grants be given to institutions offering "preferential" admissions to minorities (race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and religion). Institutions training social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, behavioral pediatricians, psychiatric nurses, and counselors will be ineligible for federal grants unless they enroll "individuals and groups from different racial, ethnic, cultural, geographic, religious, linguistic, and class backgrounds, and different genders and sexual orientations."
6. Obama's claim that "everybody" will now be covered creates few winners but lots of losers. Universal health insurance will be achieved by forcing young people to pay the additional costs (insurance for the youngest third of the population would rise by 35 percent), and by restricting and rationing care for the elderly.
7. According to Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post, the "wild card is immigration." From 1999 to 2008, 60 percent of the increase in the uninsured occurred among Hispanics, and Obama's refusal to close our borders will make this problem more costly every year.
8. Obamacare gives Medicare bureaucrats the power to ration health care by forcing doctors to prescribe cheaper medical devices and drugs. In the recent case of Hays v. Sebelius, the court ruled that Medicare doesn't have the right to make this rule, but Obamacare takes jurisdiction away from the courts to hear any appeal from decisions of the new Medicare Commission.
The "stick" applied to primary-care doctors is imposing financial penalties if they refer too many patients to specialists. The "carrot" is financial rewards to doctors who give up small practices and consolidate into larger medical groups or become salaried employees of hospitals or other large institutions.
9. The Senate bill contains at least a dozen of what can be described as bribes. Senator Mary Landrieu received a $300 million increase in Medicaid funding for her state (known as the Second Louisiana Purchase), and Senator Ben Nelson received $100 million permanent exemption for Nebraska from the costs of Medicaid expansion.
10. The Senate bill even has a four-page section artfully written to enable ACORN to get federal health-care grants. This section describes grant recipients as "community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups" having "existing relationships ... with uninsured and underinsured consumers."
by Phyllis Schlafly January 1, 2010
New reasons emerge almost daily as to why Obamacare can and must be defeated.
1. The American people oppose Obamacare by almost 2 to 1 in the latest CNN poll. Other polls show lopsided opposition to passing either the Senate or House health-care bill.
Public opinion is against the bill because of its obscene costs in higher taxes, burdensome debt, anti-freedom mandates, rationing, and reduced care for seniors. The American people have awakened to the fact that Obamacare is transformational legislation that will drag us against popular will into European-style Socialism.
2. The Democrats' double-counting of Obamacare's financial benefits has been exposed as a colossal lie. Harry Reid told the Senate that his bill strengthens our future by both "cutting our towering national deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years" AND "strengthening Medicare and extending its life by nearly a decade."
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) refuted that assertion. CBO said the claim that Obamacare would provide these benefits simultaneously "would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position."
3. Obamacare is unconstitutional because of its mandate that all individuals must carry "approved" health insurance, and all businesses must give health insurance to their employees whether or not the company can afford it. "Universal" coverage will be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service with power to punish those who don't have such a plan.
Constitutional lawyers point out that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance as a condition of living in our country because personal health insurance is not "commerce." The CBO wrote that "a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action"; the Supreme Court has never upheld any requirement that an individual must participate in economic activity.
4. Since the Senate bill imposes sharp limits on health-insurance companies' ability to raise fees or exclude coverage, it likely will force many of them out of business. Obamacare is unconstitutional because it violates the Bill of Rights protections against takings without just compensation and deprivation of property without due process of law.
5. Other Obamacare provisions blatantly legislate racial and other forms of discrimination. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent two letters to the President and congressional leaders warning about the obnoxious requirements for racist and sexist quotas.
The Senate bill requires that "priority" for federal grants be given to institutions offering "preferential" admissions to minorities (race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and religion). Institutions training social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, behavioral pediatricians, psychiatric nurses, and counselors will be ineligible for federal grants unless they enroll "individuals and groups from different racial, ethnic, cultural, geographic, religious, linguistic, and class backgrounds, and different genders and sexual orientations."
6. Obama's claim that "everybody" will now be covered creates few winners but lots of losers. Universal health insurance will be achieved by forcing young people to pay the additional costs (insurance for the youngest third of the population would rise by 35 percent), and by restricting and rationing care for the elderly.
7. According to Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post, the "wild card is immigration." From 1999 to 2008, 60 percent of the increase in the uninsured occurred among Hispanics, and Obama's refusal to close our borders will make this problem more costly every year.
8. Obamacare gives Medicare bureaucrats the power to ration health care by forcing doctors to prescribe cheaper medical devices and drugs. In the recent case of Hays v. Sebelius, the court ruled that Medicare doesn't have the right to make this rule, but Obamacare takes jurisdiction away from the courts to hear any appeal from decisions of the new Medicare Commission.
The "stick" applied to primary-care doctors is imposing financial penalties if they refer too many patients to specialists. The "carrot" is financial rewards to doctors who give up small practices and consolidate into larger medical groups or become salaried employees of hospitals or other large institutions.
9. The Senate bill contains at least a dozen of what can be described as bribes. Senator Mary Landrieu received a $300 million increase in Medicaid funding for her state (known as the Second Louisiana Purchase), and Senator Ben Nelson received $100 million permanent exemption for Nebraska from the costs of Medicaid expansion.
10. The Senate bill even has a four-page section artfully written to enable ACORN to get federal health-care grants. This section describes grant recipients as "community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups" having "existing relationships ... with uninsured and underinsured consumers."
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Baucus: Buy Your Health Insurance Or Go To Jail
It cracks me up every time I hear about Republicans spreading "false information" over Obama's healthcare proposals. Well here is one that isn't coming from the Republicans and it ought to be enough to scare anyone. Today ABCnews is reporting that when questioned about Max Baucus's bill and the provision for a $1,900.00 penalty for persons who do not buy health insurance the reply was jail time could be involved.
The latest spark is a letter that Thomas Barthold, the chief of staff to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, sent Thursday to Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.
Given that the health-care bill written by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus contains a $1,900 fee (or excise tax) for not buying health insurance, Ensign wanted to know what would happen if an American didn't pay the penalty.
In a handwritten letter, Barthold told Ensign that under an existing provision of the Internal Revenue Code, willful failure to pay a fine can result in being charged with a misdemeanor which could carry a penalty of up to $25,000, or up to a year in jail, or both. The handwritten letter was a follow-up to an answer that Barthold gave Ensign during Thursday's mark-up of the Baucus bill.
The latest spark is a letter that Thomas Barthold, the chief of staff to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, sent Thursday to Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.
Given that the health-care bill written by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus contains a $1,900 fee (or excise tax) for not buying health insurance, Ensign wanted to know what would happen if an American didn't pay the penalty.
In a handwritten letter, Barthold told Ensign that under an existing provision of the Internal Revenue Code, willful failure to pay a fine can result in being charged with a misdemeanor which could carry a penalty of up to $25,000, or up to a year in jail, or both. The handwritten letter was a follow-up to an answer that Barthold gave Ensign during Thursday's mark-up of the Baucus bill.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Obama and Healthcare- Can We Afford Him?
Don't let your guard down with the Obama administration. They will get you when you're not looking.
Roll the tape back to the last election and promises. Remember when Obama stated he was going to let the George Bush tax cuts expire. Here's an articlethat talked about his promise and actions that he was about to take.
The obvious conclusion would be that we were paying less under George Bush than we would be under Obama. Look at this chart about the Federal Budget from 2004-2009. The first line item is individual income taxes. There isn't one year where actual or expected receipts were anticipated to go down. Some tax break, Obama.
If you are a proponent of the single payer system look at the line item, Medicare. From 2004 to 2009 expenditures are anticipated to rise by an astounding 60%. You will hear how Medicare's adminstrative rate is around 3% when private plans average close to 30%. However, when you look at the increase in expenditures in the Medicare program, how can the government convince its citizens that their healthcare proposal will save money?
Roll the tape back to the last election and promises. Remember when Obama stated he was going to let the George Bush tax cuts expire. Here's an articlethat talked about his promise and actions that he was about to take.
The obvious conclusion would be that we were paying less under George Bush than we would be under Obama. Look at this chart about the Federal Budget from 2004-2009. The first line item is individual income taxes. There isn't one year where actual or expected receipts were anticipated to go down. Some tax break, Obama.
If you are a proponent of the single payer system look at the line item, Medicare. From 2004 to 2009 expenditures are anticipated to rise by an astounding 60%. You will hear how Medicare's adminstrative rate is around 3% when private plans average close to 30%. However, when you look at the increase in expenditures in the Medicare program, how can the government convince its citizens that their healthcare proposal will save money?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Can We Really Afford Universal Healthcare?
Before I answer that question someone has to define the exact meaning of universal healthcare. In an attempt to open some eyes I want to post something from the Wall Street Journal. Are Amercians prepared to give more and more of their earnings to the federal government to subsidize its growing appetite for cash?
When Medicare was created in 1965, benefits were relatively limited and retirees paid a substantial percentage of the costs of their own care. But the clout of retirees has always led to expanding benefits for seniors while raising taxes on younger workers.
In 1965, Congressional actuaries expected Medicare to cost $3.1 billion by 1970. In 1969, that estimate was revised to $5 billion, and it actually came in at $6.8 billion. That same year, the Senate Finance Committee declared a Medicare cost emergency. In 1979, Jimmy Carter proposed limiting benefits, only to have the bill killed by fellow Democrats. Things have gotten worse since, and Medicare today costs $455 billion and rising.
Medicaid was intended as a last resort for the poor but now covers one-third of all long-term care expenses in the U.S. -- that is, it has become a middle-class subsidy for aging parents of the Baby Boomers. Its annual bill is $227 billion, and so far this fiscal year is rising by 17%.
The ironic thing with those figures. They almost add up to the bailout given to the financial institutions.
One of the biggest government expansion programs came under George Bush-Medicare Part D. What is America really prepared to afford? Correct me if I am wrong. Aren't those Iraq war costs that Obama campaigned against still occurring while George Bush is back in Texas?
When Medicare was created in 1965, benefits were relatively limited and retirees paid a substantial percentage of the costs of their own care. But the clout of retirees has always led to expanding benefits for seniors while raising taxes on younger workers.
In 1965, Congressional actuaries expected Medicare to cost $3.1 billion by 1970. In 1969, that estimate was revised to $5 billion, and it actually came in at $6.8 billion. That same year, the Senate Finance Committee declared a Medicare cost emergency. In 1979, Jimmy Carter proposed limiting benefits, only to have the bill killed by fellow Democrats. Things have gotten worse since, and Medicare today costs $455 billion and rising.
Medicaid was intended as a last resort for the poor but now covers one-third of all long-term care expenses in the U.S. -- that is, it has become a middle-class subsidy for aging parents of the Baby Boomers. Its annual bill is $227 billion, and so far this fiscal year is rising by 17%.
The ironic thing with those figures. They almost add up to the bailout given to the financial institutions.
One of the biggest government expansion programs came under George Bush-Medicare Part D. What is America really prepared to afford? Correct me if I am wrong. Aren't those Iraq war costs that Obama campaigned against still occurring while George Bush is back in Texas?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Is the Grass Really Greener? A Look at International Health Care Systems
President Obama seems hell bent on reforming health care. It is the only industry not looking for a bailout but he wants to mess with it. If our healthcare system is so bad why do people fly to this country for treatment?
Cato Institute scholar Michael Tanner says that
“Obama will certainly find the politics of health-care reform to be tough. But getting the policy right may be an even harder job.”
Listen to his presentation on health care systems around the world by
clicking here.
Universal coverage did not equate with universal access to healthcare.
Universal coverage was actually very hard to come by.
Even those that got close to 100% coverage did not neccesarily mean you had access to healthcare Many of them actually had significant waiting lists or significant lack of access.
Co-payments in France are between 10 and 40 percent.
It's rationed because there is not enough funding in the system
Cato Institute scholar Michael Tanner says that
“Obama will certainly find the politics of health-care reform to be tough. But getting the policy right may be an even harder job.”
Listen to his presentation on health care systems around the world by
clicking here.
Universal coverage did not equate with universal access to healthcare.
Universal coverage was actually very hard to come by.
Even those that got close to 100% coverage did not neccesarily mean you had access to healthcare Many of them actually had significant waiting lists or significant lack of access.
Co-payments in France are between 10 and 40 percent.
It's rationed because there is not enough funding in the system
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Choice, Competition, Accountability and Personal Responsibility
From ladydi5319
Universal healthcare = socialist healthcare = communist healthcare = no healthcare.
Wake up America! Do you people really want the government to decide what care you will (or in most cases-WILL NOT)receive?
Universal healthcare = socialist healthcare = communist healthcare = no healthcare.
Wake up America! Do you people really want the government to decide what care you will (or in most cases-WILL NOT)receive?
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Obama- The Government Cannot Spend Into Recovery
Obama and the Democrats are facing harsh criticism over the Porkulus Spendulous plan. Monkeying with the economy is like monkeying with nature. You may effect something but it may not be the desired effect you were hpoing would happen.
In this article by John Stossel he writes Washington never changes, no matter who's in power. Give a gang of politicians a chance to spend our money, and they will spend it -- the more the better. An economic downturn is hog heaven; for now they have a justification to spend big time: "economic stimulus." Anything and everything can be proposed as long as it can be said to "inject money into the economy" and "create jobs."
Even if the spending could give the economy a jolt, at what price? I don't mean the legislation's overt price tag. I mean the production lost because the money borrowed by the government won't be available for private investment aimed at satisfying consumers (http://tinyurl.com/a94gd4). Do we want politicians directing how scarce resources are used? I'd rather have those decisions made by entrepreneurs who must please consumers or go bankrupt.
It's perfectly clear that the recession is a license for politicians to do what they've wanted to do all along.
We should be suspicious when politicians, economists and the media declare a "consensus" and marginalize dissent (http://tinyurl.com/8cffuo). President Obama says, "There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."
That's not true. Last week, the Cato Institute ran a full-page newspaper ad (http://tinyurl.com/djudcy) signed by more than 200 economists, including Nobel laureates stating:
"We the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's 'lost decade' in the 1990s ... Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."
Let's hear no more about "everyone" agreeing that politicians can spend the economy into recovery.
Obama had two times at bat with his speeches but they failed to woo Wall Street.
Also cited for the drop was a lack of details in the president's Tuesday night speech when the president sternly told the nation that the country has come to a "day of reckoning" on the economy but would emerge stronger than ever.
Doreen Mugavero of Mugavero Lee & Co. called the president's speech "optimistic spin."
"It was a very good feeling for Americans and did a lot for confidence," Mugavero said. "However, the economic data continues to erode and things are not going to happen no matter how optimistic he is."
Barrocky Road states that the stimulus will jumpstart the spending to bring about recovery. However, the next speech is about raising taxes to fund universal healthcare.
Here is the fallacy in that plan. President Barack Obama will propose a combined $634 billion in upper-income tax increases and cuts to government health spending over 10 years to fund a new program aimed at getting health coverage to all Americans, a senior administration official said Wednesday. Ten years is a long time. Legislation can change in a heartbeat. He won't even be in office the last two years.
Read this response from a comment on the Wall Street Journal site. So this is the second tax on the so called "Rich". I am in this tax bracket and I also make over $250k Between the tax on the rich he announced last week to cut the deficit in half and the new health care tax, I currently employ about 100 people. I don't have a vacation home, jet or travel the world all of the time. I am just a hard working entrepreneur that gives over $300k a year to run charity for dental sealants to poor kids right here in the USA. I will have no choice to let some of my employees go and/or cut a great deal of my charity work. So much for stimulating the economy. Why should I work so hard any more??
Don't get me wrong. There would be nothing more that I would like to see than the economy turn around. However, temporary jobs will mean a temporary solution.
I am looking at houses in Florida going for a fraction of what they would fetch in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Look at the ending bid on this stunning home. Even at this rock bottom price it will take longer than three years to pay it off. When the stimulus runs out so do the jobs. At it may be sooner than that because the money he will use to pay for the stimulus jobs will compete for money the private sector needs to run its business. And it is those businesses who will create the long lasting jobs, not the government.
In this article by John Stossel he writes Washington never changes, no matter who's in power. Give a gang of politicians a chance to spend our money, and they will spend it -- the more the better. An economic downturn is hog heaven; for now they have a justification to spend big time: "economic stimulus." Anything and everything can be proposed as long as it can be said to "inject money into the economy" and "create jobs."
Even if the spending could give the economy a jolt, at what price? I don't mean the legislation's overt price tag. I mean the production lost because the money borrowed by the government won't be available for private investment aimed at satisfying consumers (http://tinyurl.com/a94gd4). Do we want politicians directing how scarce resources are used? I'd rather have those decisions made by entrepreneurs who must please consumers or go bankrupt.
It's perfectly clear that the recession is a license for politicians to do what they've wanted to do all along.
We should be suspicious when politicians, economists and the media declare a "consensus" and marginalize dissent (http://tinyurl.com/8cffuo). President Obama says, "There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."
That's not true. Last week, the Cato Institute ran a full-page newspaper ad (http://tinyurl.com/djudcy) signed by more than 200 economists, including Nobel laureates stating:
"We the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's 'lost decade' in the 1990s ... Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."
Let's hear no more about "everyone" agreeing that politicians can spend the economy into recovery.
Obama had two times at bat with his speeches but they failed to woo Wall Street.
Also cited for the drop was a lack of details in the president's Tuesday night speech when the president sternly told the nation that the country has come to a "day of reckoning" on the economy but would emerge stronger than ever.
Doreen Mugavero of Mugavero Lee & Co. called the president's speech "optimistic spin."
"It was a very good feeling for Americans and did a lot for confidence," Mugavero said. "However, the economic data continues to erode and things are not going to happen no matter how optimistic he is."
Barrocky Road states that the stimulus will jumpstart the spending to bring about recovery. However, the next speech is about raising taxes to fund universal healthcare.
Here is the fallacy in that plan. President Barack Obama will propose a combined $634 billion in upper-income tax increases and cuts to government health spending over 10 years to fund a new program aimed at getting health coverage to all Americans, a senior administration official said Wednesday. Ten years is a long time. Legislation can change in a heartbeat. He won't even be in office the last two years.
Read this response from a comment on the Wall Street Journal site. So this is the second tax on the so called "Rich". I am in this tax bracket and I also make over $250k Between the tax on the rich he announced last week to cut the deficit in half and the new health care tax, I currently employ about 100 people. I don't have a vacation home, jet or travel the world all of the time. I am just a hard working entrepreneur that gives over $300k a year to run charity for dental sealants to poor kids right here in the USA. I will have no choice to let some of my employees go and/or cut a great deal of my charity work. So much for stimulating the economy. Why should I work so hard any more??
Don't get me wrong. There would be nothing more that I would like to see than the economy turn around. However, temporary jobs will mean a temporary solution.
I am looking at houses in Florida going for a fraction of what they would fetch in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Look at the ending bid on this stunning home. Even at this rock bottom price it will take longer than three years to pay it off. When the stimulus runs out so do the jobs. At it may be sooner than that because the money he will use to pay for the stimulus jobs will compete for money the private sector needs to run its business. And it is those businesses who will create the long lasting jobs, not the government.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
A Democrat With A Sensible Republican Approach To Healthcare
In a perfect world there would be perfect solutions. Coming from the healthcare world it is known that 40 different healthcare systems exist on this planet. Not one of them is perfect.
In a very interesting piece appearing in the Wall Street Journal today Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee writes a great article about a solution he orchestrated in his state in an attempt to address the problem of the uninsured.
He pens the following: What I realized was this: Everyone proposing solutions or criticizing unfairness was doing so from the comfortable vantage point of having good health insurance. While we work to build a better system, wouldn't it also be responsible to find a way to get something -- not a perfect solution, not even a long-term solution -- into the hands of the more than 46 million uninsured Americans who don't share our good fortune?
We need a national health-insurance solution, but isn't it sensible in the meantime to make sure everyone has a basic health plan before we give a few more people a perfect but expensive one?
CoverTN, which began in 2006, is a health-insurance plan for those who are self-employed, or who work for small businesses that can't afford a traditional policy.
It is not free health care. Rather it is a limited plan with shared costs. In devising this plan, we didn't start out the usual way -- by defining what benefits we wanted -- but instead set how much we wanted to pay. And then we began a competitive-bidding process to see how much health care we could buy. We initially set the amount we would pay at an average of $150 a month, and split the responsibility for that premium three ways. The company would be responsible for $50, the individual for $50, and the state for the final $50.
The bidding was vigorous. It was ultimately won by BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee with a benefit package that meets a great many -- not all -- of the real needs of the uninsured at a cost far below conventional plans.
At these premium levels -- less than half of what a conventional plan might cost -- the benefits are limited. But the benefit structure is also different than in a conventional plan. Most limited plans achieve their savings with high front-end deductibles, requiring a person to spend often thousands of dollars out-of-pocket before benefits kick in. But when we asked our customers -- uninsured Tennesseans -- what they actually wanted, we found that they were most interested in some help with the more common things; a doctor's visit, prescriptions, a short hospital stay.
CoverTN emphasizes covering these front-end costs. It features free checkups, free mammograms and $15 doctor visits without deductibles, for example. And it achieves its savings on the back end, with relatively low limits on hospital stays and an overall $25,000 benefit limit in any one year. It does not cover truly catastrophic events.
This makes medical sense. Good access to a doctor and a drugstore when you first have a problem can avoid a lot of cost and heartache later.
Tom Daschel's writings so far are not in this direction. He wants to create the same type of bureaucracy known as Medicare and Medicare Part D. Ask any senior who navigated the Medicare Part D maze about the experience. Each and every year seniors have to search for a plan. It is an exercise in futility.
Obama would do himself a favor if he took a good look at this Tennessee plan. So would the Democrats in Pennsylvania. One last quote from Bredesen, "This fall we added some benefits: The number of primary care visits doubled from six to 12, for example. Best of all, we added them without increasing rates. When did you last hear of a health-insurance plan whose annual update was a benefit improvement but no rate increase?"
Another fair and balanced piece.
In a very interesting piece appearing in the Wall Street Journal today Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee writes a great article about a solution he orchestrated in his state in an attempt to address the problem of the uninsured.
He pens the following: What I realized was this: Everyone proposing solutions or criticizing unfairness was doing so from the comfortable vantage point of having good health insurance. While we work to build a better system, wouldn't it also be responsible to find a way to get something -- not a perfect solution, not even a long-term solution -- into the hands of the more than 46 million uninsured Americans who don't share our good fortune?
We need a national health-insurance solution, but isn't it sensible in the meantime to make sure everyone has a basic health plan before we give a few more people a perfect but expensive one?
CoverTN, which began in 2006, is a health-insurance plan for those who are self-employed, or who work for small businesses that can't afford a traditional policy.
It is not free health care. Rather it is a limited plan with shared costs. In devising this plan, we didn't start out the usual way -- by defining what benefits we wanted -- but instead set how much we wanted to pay. And then we began a competitive-bidding process to see how much health care we could buy. We initially set the amount we would pay at an average of $150 a month, and split the responsibility for that premium three ways. The company would be responsible for $50, the individual for $50, and the state for the final $50.
The bidding was vigorous. It was ultimately won by BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee with a benefit package that meets a great many -- not all -- of the real needs of the uninsured at a cost far below conventional plans.
At these premium levels -- less than half of what a conventional plan might cost -- the benefits are limited. But the benefit structure is also different than in a conventional plan. Most limited plans achieve their savings with high front-end deductibles, requiring a person to spend often thousands of dollars out-of-pocket before benefits kick in. But when we asked our customers -- uninsured Tennesseans -- what they actually wanted, we found that they were most interested in some help with the more common things; a doctor's visit, prescriptions, a short hospital stay.
CoverTN emphasizes covering these front-end costs. It features free checkups, free mammograms and $15 doctor visits without deductibles, for example. And it achieves its savings on the back end, with relatively low limits on hospital stays and an overall $25,000 benefit limit in any one year. It does not cover truly catastrophic events.
This makes medical sense. Good access to a doctor and a drugstore when you first have a problem can avoid a lot of cost and heartache later.
Tom Daschel's writings so far are not in this direction. He wants to create the same type of bureaucracy known as Medicare and Medicare Part D. Ask any senior who navigated the Medicare Part D maze about the experience. Each and every year seniors have to search for a plan. It is an exercise in futility.
Obama would do himself a favor if he took a good look at this Tennessee plan. So would the Democrats in Pennsylvania. One last quote from Bredesen, "This fall we added some benefits: The number of primary care visits doubled from six to 12, for example. Best of all, we added them without increasing rates. When did you last hear of a health-insurance plan whose annual update was a benefit improvement but no rate increase?"
Another fair and balanced piece.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The Twist On Universal Healthcare
Most Americans believe government can play a role in fixing the health care system. If you read the latest quips about universal healthcare the pundits will try to tell you private corporations would run health plans paid for by the U.S. government. In an effort to create a distinction Democrats and Paul Kanjorski are claiming that system is not a government entitlement program. Yet, that setup exactly mirrors the way Medicare dispenses healthcare today. Ask yourself this question- do you believe Medicare is a government program? The elderly already have virtually universal healthcare coverage due to Medicare.
It is only partially true to state that the United States does not have a national healthcare system similar to other nations around the world. With the introduction of Medicare Part D prescription programs governement now pays for approximately 45% of all healthcare expenses in America. This estimate includes funding for Medicare, Medicaid, workers' compensation, the Department of Veterans Affairs, public hospitals, and government public health activities. Thus, public funds directly pay for the health care of many people in the United States.
In the United States around 84.7% of citizens have some form of [here] health insurance; either through their employer (59.3%), purchased individually (8.9%), or provided by government programs (27.8%; there is some overlap in these figures).
In 1960 the percent of GDP that went to national healthcare expenditures was 5.2%. In 2005 that figure rose to 16%. In 1965 households paid 61 percent of national healthcare expenditures. Click Here In 1960 federal, state, and local government payments for healthcare services were 13.1% of their total budgets. In 2005 that figure rises to 40.4%. Out of pocket expenditures in 1960 were 55% however they decreased to just 15% in 2005. Government was paying 21.4% in 1960 but that figure has risen to 45%. When one looks at hospital expenditures out of pocket expenditures were 20.7% in 1960 and only represent 3.3% in 2005. Governments share was 42.2% and rose to 56.8% in the same time period. Private insurance remained fairly steady in the 35%+ area.
As one can see the government has played an ever increasing role in purchasing healthcare for the last 48 years. Now the Democratic battle cry is for universal healthcare. Congressman Paul Kanjorski is an avid supporter of universal healthcare. However when you read the issue he provides no details on how to accomplish his goal. With an ever increasing share of healthcare expenditures already absorbed by government the only way to attain his goal is to raise taxes. That solution is already a component of Obama's plan.
Despite this relatively high level of spending, the U.S. does not appear to provide substantially greater health resources to its citizens, or achieve substantially better health benchmarks, compared to other developed countries.
Only 15% of Americans lack health insurance in this country. While it is a significant burden to those without insurance the unacceptable rise in overall healthcare costs bears examination. If government and private insurance companies have been regulating the cost of healthcare for decades why is the cost of healthcare spiraling upward out of control?
If you think of healthcare in a global sense like oil you will find a striking statistic. Government healthcare expenditures have been growing much more rapidly than GDP in OECD countries (Organization For Economic Cooperation and Development). For example, between 1970 and 2002 these expenditures grew 2.3 times faster than GDP in the U.S., 2.0 times faster than GDP in Germany, and 1.4 times faster than GDP in Japan. The growth in healthcare expenditures has been rising globally as well. What is the common denominator in each of these cases? The price controls used by these governments are not working to contain costs. And universal healthcare as proposed would be more of the same.
The U.S. should be looking to the consumer as a conduit of change. Look at the price of lasik surgery today compared with its inception in 1990. A person can pay as little as $295.00 per eye. Competition due to total out of pocket expense on the part of the patient is the main reason for the significant decrease in the face of increasing healthcare costs.
The government should look to reform the tax treatment of health insurance payments and use health care tax credits to offset out of pocket expenses incurred to compensate consumer driven purchases of healthcare. Health insurance exchanges could also be established state by state to facilitate the consumer and small employer purchase of health insurance, private insurance at affordable rates through competition. Employers could be facilitators for their employees to have access to these insurance exchanges. Consumers would be able to look to small businesses as access points to the same exchanges. This avenue would transition away from the traditional model of employer sponsored health insurance.
Paul Kanjorski, that is how one starts to solve the health care crisis in this country. The babble on this issue contained at your campaign site only serves to demonstrate that your thinking is not forward looking but "people feel good" words. It is time to place forward thinking people like Lou Barletta in Congress if we are to pave a successful path for the future.
It is only partially true to state that the United States does not have a national healthcare system similar to other nations around the world. With the introduction of Medicare Part D prescription programs governement now pays for approximately 45% of all healthcare expenses in America. This estimate includes funding for Medicare, Medicaid, workers' compensation, the Department of Veterans Affairs, public hospitals, and government public health activities. Thus, public funds directly pay for the health care of many people in the United States.
In the United States around 84.7% of citizens have some form of [here] health insurance; either through their employer (59.3%), purchased individually (8.9%), or provided by government programs (27.8%; there is some overlap in these figures).
In 1960 the percent of GDP that went to national healthcare expenditures was 5.2%. In 2005 that figure rose to 16%. In 1965 households paid 61 percent of national healthcare expenditures. Click Here In 1960 federal, state, and local government payments for healthcare services were 13.1% of their total budgets. In 2005 that figure rises to 40.4%. Out of pocket expenditures in 1960 were 55% however they decreased to just 15% in 2005. Government was paying 21.4% in 1960 but that figure has risen to 45%. When one looks at hospital expenditures out of pocket expenditures were 20.7% in 1960 and only represent 3.3% in 2005. Governments share was 42.2% and rose to 56.8% in the same time period. Private insurance remained fairly steady in the 35%+ area.
As one can see the government has played an ever increasing role in purchasing healthcare for the last 48 years. Now the Democratic battle cry is for universal healthcare. Congressman Paul Kanjorski is an avid supporter of universal healthcare. However when you read the issue he provides no details on how to accomplish his goal. With an ever increasing share of healthcare expenditures already absorbed by government the only way to attain his goal is to raise taxes. That solution is already a component of Obama's plan.
Despite this relatively high level of spending, the U.S. does not appear to provide substantially greater health resources to its citizens, or achieve substantially better health benchmarks, compared to other developed countries.
Only 15% of Americans lack health insurance in this country. While it is a significant burden to those without insurance the unacceptable rise in overall healthcare costs bears examination. If government and private insurance companies have been regulating the cost of healthcare for decades why is the cost of healthcare spiraling upward out of control?
If you think of healthcare in a global sense like oil you will find a striking statistic. Government healthcare expenditures have been growing much more rapidly than GDP in OECD countries (Organization For Economic Cooperation and Development). For example, between 1970 and 2002 these expenditures grew 2.3 times faster than GDP in the U.S., 2.0 times faster than GDP in Germany, and 1.4 times faster than GDP in Japan. The growth in healthcare expenditures has been rising globally as well. What is the common denominator in each of these cases? The price controls used by these governments are not working to contain costs. And universal healthcare as proposed would be more of the same.
The U.S. should be looking to the consumer as a conduit of change. Look at the price of lasik surgery today compared with its inception in 1990. A person can pay as little as $295.00 per eye. Competition due to total out of pocket expense on the part of the patient is the main reason for the significant decrease in the face of increasing healthcare costs.
The government should look to reform the tax treatment of health insurance payments and use health care tax credits to offset out of pocket expenses incurred to compensate consumer driven purchases of healthcare. Health insurance exchanges could also be established state by state to facilitate the consumer and small employer purchase of health insurance, private insurance at affordable rates through competition. Employers could be facilitators for their employees to have access to these insurance exchanges. Consumers would be able to look to small businesses as access points to the same exchanges. This avenue would transition away from the traditional model of employer sponsored health insurance.
Paul Kanjorski, that is how one starts to solve the health care crisis in this country. The babble on this issue contained at your campaign site only serves to demonstrate that your thinking is not forward looking but "people feel good" words. It is time to place forward thinking people like Lou Barletta in Congress if we are to pave a successful path for the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)