Republicans Are Not the Party of No

The truth is SO SEXY!

Where’s The Money Coming From?

(Original HERE)

The “self-funding” health care bill (you know, the one that promises to tax your health insurance benefits, tax employers another 8% of their total payroll expenses, and burden the self-employed and contractors with another 2.5% income tax) is going to be nothing less than a modern day miracle. Why, you ask? Because almost half of the money allocated to it will come from savings realized from making Medicare and Medicare more efficient. These savings (which, according to all my sources, cannot be realized if we don’t move forward with this bill) will amount to cutting 7.6% of the combined Medicare and Medicaid budgets.

I’m no business expert (I have only owned one, operated another, and saved two more) but my gut tells me slashing organization-wide operating expenses by more than 7% just doesn’t happen without some very serious shake-ups. It might just be my conservative nature. Then again, I might also be paranoid after Medicare’s Board of Trustees announced in last year’s annual report that its hospital trust fund would be bankrupt in 2017. I might be a bit cynical since Medicare is rather notorious for price fixing and then paying doctors and hospitals only a fraction of what a procedure is worth. I might be slightly confused by the fact that Medicaid’s budget isn’t exactly a federal program and that states are forced to share in the burden of it’s budgeting.

Okay, so I’m more than a little confused. Follow me on this and maybe someone will be able to help clear this up. Medicare and Medicaid costs are spiraling out of control. The budget can’t keep up with those costs. The programs, today, pay far less money for services received than the free market would normally dictate. The federal government doesn’t control even half of the Medicaid budget.

… but we’re going to cut 7.6% of the budget for those programs in “savings.”

I don’t get it. I honestly don’t. I can’t understand it. If I understood what you were proposing to me, I would shut up. If you could point to the programs and say, “Okay, this is going. This we’re going to stop offering to people making X amount a year. We’re going to retire these planes from service. We’re going to move everyone to a new office. We’re going to cut payments for Y. We’re going to…”

See, if you could say that, I’d get it. I would be able to say, “somewhere there’s a plan for all of this.” But I can’t, because there isn’t a plan on God’s green earth that could possibly make the budget fairies come down from the moon and make those numbers work. I went looking for it in the text of the bill, only to find this. It’s an exact quote from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s (they’re the ones who’ve authored HR3200) website. According to them, HR3200:

Expands Medicaid. Individuals and families with incomes at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level will be eligible for an expanded and improved Medicaid program. Recognizing the budget challenges in many states, this expansion will be fully federally financed. To improve provider participation in this vital safety net – particularly for low‐income children, individuals with disabilities and people with mental illnesses – reimbursement rates for primary care services will be increased with new federal funding.

Improves Medicare. Senior citizens and people with disabilities will benefit from provisions that fill the donut hole over time in the Part D drug program, eliminate cost-sharing for preventive services, improve the low-income subsidy programs in Medicare, fix physician payments, and make other program improvements. The bill will also address future fiscal challenges by improving payment accuracy, encouraging delivery system reforms and extending solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.

It boggles the mind. Democrats are telling us that they’re going to secure almost $450 billion by defunding Medicare and Medicaid while federally financing an expanded Medicare that covers more people, increases the amounts paid for services, increases subsides to low income earners, and pouring more money into the Medicare trust fund.

It. Won’t. Happen.

There is just no way. That logic is absolutely insane. The people who push it are either liars, retarded, or complete whack jobs. It should be painfully obvious to everyone that their plan won’t work. You don’t save money by spending money. The world just doesn’t work that way.

Here is my challenge to the people who claim HR3200 will be self-funding: Assuming the bill only costs $900 billion, itemize the various plans you have for funding the project and outline exactly how this bill will be paid for. For extra credit, explain to me why these cost-saving measures can only be made by passing HR3200 or why you’ve decided to squander tax payer dollars by ignoring these fixes until now.

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

By TERRY JONES, INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY (Original article here)

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors’ own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration’s claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

How the Public Option Healthcare Becomes Universal Healthcare

This is the new drum for the Public Option.

Am I missing something here? Option A, Option B, Option C, and then the Public Option. Well, sounds like capitalism, right? I now have 4 options to chose from!

But who is paying for the Public Option so we can choose that? The Taxpayer. So that means that if you are paying for Option B, then you are actually paying for Option B AND the Public Option. Why are you paying for Option B if you are being forced to pay for the Public Option through taxes?

Any sane person will realize that financially speaking it is stupid to pay for Option X when you will always be paying for the Public Option. Right? So slowly, Option X will disappear and we will be left with only the Public Option.

Presto! We have our Universal Health Care. And the best part is with this plan… the government didn’t force Universal Health Care, you chose it by giving up your Option X health care… because the Public Option was better, right? Right. It is always better to get your opposition to slide over to your side by their own choice (even if it is a pseudo-choice) because they then cannot say that you forced them.

Seriously this is genius and if you listen to videos like this, then you will be duped.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Conversations with Socialist

Debating with Liberals has got to be the most difficult and stupidest thing I do. I think every time I debate them they end up going off on some tangent and then end up calling me a “kiddo” (among other things). Gee, so much for some intelligent debate!

SERIOUSLY. QUIT CALLING ME A KIDDO. It implies the fact that a kid is not wise or not intelligent enough to debate me like an adult. It pisses me off royally and it just shows that you cannot fully debate me on the issue and instead have to attack me personally. I have had at least 4 people on separate issues call me this and I am really getting tired of it.

I am going to paste a few debates that I’ve had for your enjoyment (some of them are actually ongoing…). All conversations have taken place on Facebook.

Original Post: W H A T ? ? ? http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/142522/texas_students_who_were_kept_away_from_obama_speech_will_be_bussed_to_see_bush_speak/

Kyle Huwer: Good. What makes Obama a better human being to listen to than Bush?
Meike Capps-Schubert: He can speek?
Meike Capps-Schubert: and contray to Bush and me he can build a full gramaticaly correct sentense in english , but I never was the president of the United States of America
Kyle Huwer: When you say, “he can speak” do you mean “he can speak well/eloquently/passionately”?
Cornelia Maier: More Republican bullshit…yeah, grammar is known to be Bush’s foe!!
Kyle Huwer: So when people desire their children to listen to one person over another, that is “Republican bullshit”?
Redjade InHungary: Now you wish to deny others the ability to have and express their own opinion because you may be offended?
Kyle Huwer: Who said I am offended? I am simply asking you, or anyone, to answer the question. Where did I say anything about denying others the ability to have and express their opinions?
Sigrid Knutson: Kyle, both Bush Sr & Reagan gave the same kind of speech to children when they were president. Bush Jr did not choose to do this. So, the question becomes, “what makes Bush Sr & Reagan okay to listen to, but not Obama?”
Sigrid Knutson: I would assume that many of these Texas parents listened to Bush Srs speech to children when he was president.
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: Where did I say that we need to listen to Bush HW or Reagan over Obama?
Sigrid Knutson: @Kyle. You didn’t. I just turned your question around, after thinking that I answered your primary question.
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: So what was the point of you mentioning that GHWB and Reagan gave a similar speech?
Sigrid Knutson: Kyle, you asked, “What makes Obama a better human being to listen to than Bush?” I asked, “What makes Bush Sr & Reagan okay to listen to, but not Obama?” I’m sorry that you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this.
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: In normal conversation, when someone asks a question, you do not answer it with another question. Sorry that you do not understand that a question begs an answer, not a question. Answer mine and I will answer yours!
Sigrid Knutson: kyle kyle kyle. here all this time i thought you were a gal… turns out you are just another dude ♥
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: Are you avoiding the question or are you just taking the opportunity for a personal attack?
Sigrid Knutson: neither, kiddo :)
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: Then why did you NOT answer my question, still?
Sigrid Knutson: you make me weary, kiddo. you don’t want an answer. you still want a fight.
Kyle Huwer: I do want an answer. If you don’t want to answer my question, then fine. But don’t tell me that I want to fight when all I am doing is asking you to explain yourself so that I do not get anything wrong or put words in your mouth. And again, belittling with the “kiddo” talk. THANKS!

Original Post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb8qG76L9jE

Kyle Huwer: This is stupid. This is absolutely PLAGUED with strawmen logical fallacies. GARBAGE!
Redjade InHungary: i think this is satire – but, ya never know these days!
Kyle Huwer: While it may be satire, does it not portray an idea that the “Conservatives” do not want anything socialized?
Redjade InHungary: huh Kyle?
Kyle Huwer: Satire means – to portray an idea in an “over the top” way as to make fun of it, correct?
Redjade InHungary: Not quite, satire usually means very close to the truth, but also absurd.
Kyle Huwer: I did not know that over the-top-meant “false.” Nevertheless…. So what is this video satirizing that is “close to the truth”?
Redjade InHungary: that Free Market fundamentalists are nuts. and there are many that do believe in privatizing the Fire Dept, it is not an exaggeration – just their portrayal. Maybe you dont like the joke, but since when do you expect humour to be accurate in anything? It’s humour, maybe not good humour, but it is humour.
Kyle Huwer: You know the funny thing… Here in Arizona right up the road from me in Scottsdale they have a privatized fire department and they – the people and the city – have called it a success. Whatdya know?!?! But hey, I’d be willing to hear some of this evidence/proof that free-market people are nuts…
Redjade InHungary: Kyle, I apologize for stepping on the big toe of your economic religion – but for most people in the world, the ‘Free Market’ is not ‘free’ and nor is it really a ‘market’ – it is usually associated with corruption and seen as something that is imposed on you. A democratic State running essential services like a Fire Dept or healthcare is the better option – and it works most of the time quite well.
Kyle Huwer: I just don’t appreciate being satirized and then called a nutjob for believing something. I agree, the free market is not free – it is socialized. America while it may claim to have a “free market” is not free at all. Zero. What we have is a pseudo free-market and you are right, it has a lot of corruption. However, that does not mean at all that we need to regulate it even more. Likewise, America is not a democracy. It is a Republic. However, it too is so molested that it is pretty much a democracy. While some services can be run sufficiently by the government – I will bet my life on it that a purely capitalist system can do it better, cheaper, and more efficiently. Guaranteed. Scottsdale alluded to above is proof…. Read More. If you want to give up % of your money to participate in government program XYZ, then do it, but don’t FORCE me into YOUR system. Is that too unfair to ask?
Redjade InHungary: Kyle – who is forcing you to do ANYTHING?
Kyle Huwer: If we have socialized medicine, can I opt out? Can I opt out of any of these public services (yes, even the fire department) if I want to?
Redjade InHungary: Kyle, if you have a child in your home and it is burning – YES, the big bad evil STATE should break into your home and save your child from dying. And because your home is on fire, other homes will also catch on fire, YES. and the examples go on… Why is that ‘libertarians’ only think the world is about me, me and me?
Kyle Huwer: How about I opt out of the fire department – and I take full responsibility for the loss of my child AND my neighbor’s home burning? My situation, my responsibility! What proof do you have that libertarians think it is about me, me, and me?
Redjade InHungary: sorry had to wash the dishes… ‘What proof’?
well, i used to be a Libertarian a long time ago – then I grew up and realized there is such a thing as society and civilization…. ‘me, me, and me’? Your replies are such an example.
Meike Capps-Schubert: Kyle – who is paying for your fire department ?
Kyle Huwer: @Redjade: So you = me? No, it does not work like that. My replies are nothing of your “proof.” So because I want to opt out of socialized programs, this is now all about “me”? And once again, “and then I grew up” yet another emotionally loaded statement. Are you implying that I am immature?
@Meike: Are you asking for the current payee or who is paying for MY fire department?
Meike Capps-Schubert: the fire department you are talking about in Scottsdale
Kyle Huwer: @Meike: The people that are covered by the fire department, are covered by the fire department. Who else would pay for it?
Meike Capps-Schubert: so the fire fighters work for free or pay for them selfs and their equitment ?
Kyle Huwer: @Meike: They are a business. So, they buy the equipment beforehand and then provide a service to their area. Are you confusing a paid public service with a free, free-market service?
Meike Capps-Schubert: WHO is paying their work they have to get payed from somewhere so who is paying it the companie? do people pay the companie after they put out a fire or how does that work – where does the money come from – what so hard to understand?
Sigrid Knutson: this is a joke… aimed at those against single payer health insurance.
Sigrid Knutson: and Kyle, please don’t comment.
Redjade InHungary: @kyle. I did a short amount of googling about your Capitalist Scottsdale Fire Dept. Here they are: http://www.ruralmetro.com Their web site says they provide Fire protect and other services to communities and the private sector (companies etc) – but NO MENTION of providing to individuals, like you.
This means that Tax Funded local governments make a decision For You and Hire Them and use Your Money that the government Took From You and you have No Choice!… This is certainly not a ‘pure’ socialized’ Fire Dept, but the principle that society needs to make social decisions to protect society is still upheld in the case you point to. Understand, comrade?
Kyle Huwer: @Meike: The people who are covered! There is nothing else to this idea Meike! The only difference between your system is that the private company can lose it’s contract if they act poorly. With the public option, they can do whatever they want and maintain their position.
@Sigrid: You bet I am going to reply…. I want an answer why this is “close to the truth” that Redjade alluded to! Are you trying to suppress my opinion?
@Redjade: Provide services to the COMMUNITY. Right, and who lives in the community? Individual citizens! So if you think that they do not care for individual citizens, then WHO are they caring for in the community – as you mentioned?… Also, Their mission statement includes, “Works within the communities we serve to build trust and promote the well-being of the CITIZENS.” Also, “Rural/Metro Corporation is a leading provider of emergency and non-emergency medical transportation services, fire protection and other safety-related services to municipal, RESIDENTIAL…”
Sigrid Knutson: An outraged citizens group in Scottsdale is looking to replace the private Rural/Metro Fire Department with a municipal fire department. The Committee to Protect Scottsdale and Our Firefighters claims Rural/Metro’s staffing and response are unacceptable and unsafe. http://www.allbusiness.com/finance-insurance/209222-1.html
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: No I do not need his name. So what is your point?
First off – I do not know where “here” is nor am I going to go snooping to try to find out where “here” is.
So you think that a public option that bills you is exactly what I am talking about? Where did I say that?
Sigrid Knutson:
Satire: Main Entry: sat·ire
Pronunciation: \ˈsa-ˌtī(-ə)r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough — more at sad
Date: 1501… Read More
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
about an hour ago
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: GREAT! If they are doing a horrible job, then get them out!
However, if we look at the date of that article, that was written in 2002! It is 7 years later and they are STILL providing service. Must have not been THAT bad. Right?
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: Are you just going to cut and copy or do you have a point?
Sigrid Knutson: When your opponent sets up a straw man, set it on fire and kick the cinders around the stage. Don’t worry about losing the Strawperson-American community vote.
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: Yes, strawman…. Are you doing homework or do you have a point? Quit cutting and copying and say what you want to say!
Sigrid Knutson: i’m 56. been around a few blocks. so have you. stop thinking everyone is out to get you. they are not.
Sigrid Knutson: ps… i don’t give a shit about fire depts OR strawmen. i care more about you as a person.
Sigrid Knutson: Kyle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTQfERb9HVk
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: If you do not want to debate, then why did you step into the ring? I am asking you to answer a few questions and you refuse to do so here, and on other posts. Why? You continually C&C stuff and never say your position. I am not going to guess your position, so say it and say it with conviction! I still have no idea what you are getting at with the straw man or the 2002 report. I am asking you, or anyone, to explain!… Also, if you know that I’ve “been around the block a few times” then why did you call me a “kiddo” in the other thread? That is offensive and for some reason my opponents always use that as a “nice” way to belittle me. Am I just a kiddo or am I an intelligent adult here, Sigrid?
Sigrid Knutson: you are younger than my sons. you had a hell of a time with your CO & your wife. i am guessing that you — like me — are angry at the world. so, your questions here are mundane to me. what you really need/want is a good fight & a good cry. go to the gym, climb a mountain. i should. i have not answered you — in the way you would like — cos to be honest, it bores me. however, you — as a person — do not.
Meike Capps-Schubert: so this if fun , but still does that mean they only put out the fires of the people who payed for their service- and what makes it better – do they use evian water linke in the video?
Kyle Huwer: @Singrid: What does me and my CO or me and my wife have to do with this debate here? I will answer for you – nothing at all. You do not know me apart from what little tidbits you have read here and there. I am not angry at the world. Are you kidding me? I am the most peaceful person you will ever know. Obviously I will stand up for my beliefs but I am far from wanting a FIGHT. I have asked you many times to answer questions to better give me an understanding and you continually tap-dance around them. If you are going to debate, then DEBATE. Don’t pussy-foot with me. Just to let you know, I am quite active both on a personal sense and on a community/political sense. I have quite a nice life…. If the conversation and/or issue bores you, then quit responding… Simple. And thank you for not belittling me by calling me a kiddo this time around! Means a lot.
Kyle Huwer: @Meike: I didn’t quite get what you are saying but I will try to respond.
I think you are misunderstanding the issue with the FD.
In a public service the FD will use the city resources AND be paid by the city by tax dollars. With the public service there is no contract….
With the private service the FD will also use the city resources AND be paid by tax dollars. With the private service, there is a contract and if they do not do their job or do it well enough, they could lose their contract/job.
So, with the public option it does not matter how good or bad they do. Since there are no standards for termination or contract end date, they can do whatever. With a private service they are being watched. If they do a bad job then they can lose their contract job to someone else. So as a result, it is in their best interest to do it cheaply and provide good service.
This is a summary. But maybe you can understand this. If not, ask.

Formatting was no preserved. I don’t have time to format it all… Meike lives in Germany. Redjade I would assume lives in Hungary. And I have no idea where Singrid lives but I think they live in Germany as well.

Reagan on Socialized Medicine

America’s Socialized Health Care

Health-care systems in most developed nations are in financial trouble. Health benefits are being cut back because of exploding costs. Degenerative illnesses such as diabetes and cancer are at epidemic levels in spite of new drugs and treatments. While doctors, politicians, and insurers blame each other, they rarely mention the real problem.

Skyrocketing costs are due to the structure of health care in all these nations. All are mainly socialized, including America’s. This means they operate as top-down bureaucracies, out of touch with people’s real needs. Almost no market forces are allowed to operate for rational decision-making and cost control.

Healthcare Plan Based on Economic Fantasy

As the healthcare debate rages on, there is one reality that even the proponents of this hostile takeover of healthcare by government cannot ignore — and that is money. The government simply does not have the money for a new, expansive, public healthcare plan. The country is in a deep recession that will deepen even further with the coming collapse of the commercial real estate market. The last thing we need is for government to increase and expand taxes to pay for another damaging, wasteful program. Foreigners are becoming less enthusiastic about buying our debt, and creating another open-ended welfare program when we cannot pay for what is already in place, will not help. Champions of socialized medicine want to tax the rich, tax businesses that already cannot afford to provide health plans to employees, and tax people who don’t want to participate in the government’s scheme by buying an approved healthcare plan. Presumably, all these taxes are to induce compliance. This is not freedom, nor will it improve healthcare.

There are limits to how much government can tax before it kills the host. Even worse, when government attempts to subsidize prices, it has the net effect of inflating them instead. The economic reality is that you cannot distort natural market pressures without unintended consequences. Market forces would drive prices down. Government meddling negates these pressures, adds regulatory compliance costs and layers of bureaucracy, and in the end, drives prices up.

The non-partisan CBO estimates that the healthcare plan will cost almost a trillion dollars over the next ten years. But government crystal balls always massively underestimate costs. It is not hard to imagine the final cost being two or three times the estimates, even though the estimates are bad enough.

It is still surreal that in a free country we are talking only about HOW government should fix healthcare, rather than WHY government should fix healthcare. This should be between doctors and patients. But this has been the discussion since the 60’s and the inception of Medicare and Medicaid, when government first began intervening to keep costs down and make sure everyone had access. The result of Medicaid/Medicare price controls and regulatory burden has been to drive more doctors out of the system — making it more difficult for the poor and the elderly to receive quality care! Seemingly, there are no failed government programs, only underfunded ones. If we refuse to acknowledge common sense economics, the prescription will always be the same: more government.

Make no mistake, government control and micromanagement of healthcare will hurt, not help healthcare in this country. However, if for a moment, we allowed the assumption that it really would accomplish all they claim, paying for it would still plunge the country into poverty. This solves nothing. The government, like any household struggling with bills to pay, should prioritize its budget. If the administration is serious about supporting healthcare without contributing to our skyrocketing deficits, they should fulfill promises to reduce our overseas commitments and use some of those savings to take care of Americans at home instead of killing foreigners abroad.

The leadership in Washington persists in a fantasy world of unlimited money to spend on unlimited programs and wars to garner unlimited control. But there is a fast-approaching limit to our ability to borrow, steal, and print. Acknowledging this reality is not mean-spirited or cruel. On the contrary, it could be the only thing that saves us from complete and total economic meltdown.

(link)

Forced Health Coverage

Excellent! Mandated (read: forced) health coverage, whether or not you want it or need it!

WASHINGTON – President Obama’s dream of dramatically remaking the nation’s health-care system is still a long way from reality. But if lawmakers can reach an accord, one thing is virtually certain: For the first time ever, every American would be required to carry health insurance.

The requirement, known as an individual mandate, is among the most far-reaching changes envisioned this year by those pushing for health-care reform. And it is one of the few common threads running through all three bills being considered in Congress, greatly increasing the likelihood it will survive the legislative process. Obama continued Tuesday to push lawmakers struggling with the large costs and scope of health legislation to move forward, pronouncing reform to be “closer than ever.”

Just as drivers must purchase auto insurance, the medical system of the future would put responsibility for health coverage first and foremost on every adult.

For the vast majority of Americans who have health insurance, the change would mean little more than submitting a form with their tax returns proving that the plan they carry meets certain minimum standards. Many of the nation’s 47 million uninsured people, however, would be required to purchase a health policy or face financial penalties, though waivers or discounts would be provided for lower-income Americans.

The concept is modeled after a requirement instituted in Massachusetts three years ago as part of that state’s broad health-care overhaul. And like the Massachusetts law, the individual mandate proposed by congressional Democrats would be paired with a much more controversial new requirement that nearly every employer contribute to the total cost of care.

‘More affordable for everyone’
“Without an individual mandate, you’re never going to get to universal coverage,” said Bradley Herring, a health economist at Johns Hopkins University.

Bringing everyone into the insurance pool — particularly young, healthy customers — spreads the risk and lowers overall costs. “That will make it more affordable for everyone,” Herring said.

Some proponents of a European-style, nationalized single-payer approach say an individual mandate places an unfair financial burden on lower-income consumers. Some conservative analysts argue that such a requirement forces individuals into an overpriced, underperforming health system.

Yet in a nation that prides itself on having freedom of choice, it is striking that such a wide and diverse coalition has formed around the individual mandate. Labor unions, economists, the medical industry, big business, some prominent Republicans and Obama all support the requirement, which has its roots in the conservative philosophy of self-reliance.

In the debate over Massachusetts’s measure, then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican with presidential aspirations, touted the approach as a “personal responsibility system.”

Ferocious lobbying
Hospitals, insurers and drug manufacturers — salivating at the prospect of up to 50 million newly insured customers — have lobbied ferociously for the federal provision.

Obama, after sparring last year with his Democratic presidential primary opponents over the concept, is a convert, as long as there are “hardship exemptions” for those least able to pay.

“I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was, the reason people don’t have health insurance is not because they don’t want it, but because they can’t afford it. And if you make it affordable, then they will come,” he said in a recent interview with CBS. “I’ve been persuaded that there are enough young, uninsured people who are cheap to cover, but are opting out. To make sure that those folks are part of the overall pool is the best way to make sure that all of our premiums go down.”

Nearly one-third of the uninsured in the United States in 2007 were between the ages of 19 and 29, and 42 percent were between 30 and 54, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. A fair number of young, healthy workers choose not to purchase insurance, believing they do not need it.

Advocates of universal coverage want to lure that group into the insurance pool because they tend to use fewer medical services and help keep premiums down. If only the sick buy coverage, premiums will be high. And visits to emergency rooms by uninsured patients increase premiums for the insured — by $1,000 per person per year, according to some estimates.

The Massachusetts experience with an individual mandate has provided a model, as well as some unexpected results.

“Massachusetts changed everything in the policy community and the political arena,” said Karen Ignagni, president of the industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans.

The penalty for Massachusetts residents who do not carry health insurance was $220 in late 2007 and rose to about $1,020 this year. Still, relatively few residents have balked at the idea — and an additional 432,000 people have signed up for health coverage.

Today, less than 3 percent of Bay State residents lack health insurance, compared with about 16 percent nationwide.

Out of the 3.9 million people who filed taxes in Massachusetts in 2008, 86,000 paid the penalty, and 71,000 were exempted because they did not meet the minimum income levels.

One of the great surprises is how many more people — an additional 148,000 — have enrolled in plans offered through the workplace, most likely nudged by the individual mandate.

“It’s worked out better than I would have guessed,” said MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who serves on the board of the Massachusetts program. “We didn’t anticipate the increase in employer-sponsored insurance.”

Last year, the average price nationwide for health insurance purchased through an employer was $12,680 for a family plan and $4,700 for an individual, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

In Congress, lawmakers are weighing slightly different proposals. A bill being debated in the House this week would charge individuals a penalty of 2.5 percent of income above $9,000, up to the price of the average premium sold nationwide. The fines would begin in 2013.

A bill passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week would set the penalty at $750 per person. Individuals earning less than 150 percent of the poverty level, or about $16,245, would be exempt.

Negotiations are continuing in the Senate Finance Committee, where Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has argued for months that an individual mandate is central to achieving Obama’s goal of near-universal coverage and cost controls.

Stuart Butler, a vice president at the conservative Heritage Foundation, agrees that bringing everyone — especially young, healthy patients — into the risk pool would be advantageous.

But he advocates beginning with a voluntary “opt out” approach similar to automatic enrollment programs for retirement accounts. If policies are reasonably priced, he expects that few will turn down the coverage.

The challenge, said Butler and experts in Massachusetts, is designing a basic benefits package that is affordable. Writing a law that requires individuals to purchase something they cannot afford is “inhumane,” Herring said.

When Massachusetts approved its individual mandate, proponents of the new law braced for a modern-day Tea Party. It never materialized.

“I don’t see people revolting over having to have a driver’s license or insurance to drive a car,” Gruber said. “And we haven’t seen it with the mandate.” (link)

Important or interesting parts bolded by me. So this is what I get out of this whole idea. Regardless of who you are, regardless of what care you need, regardless of what you choose to do… you are going to have to enroll. What the article does not tell you is that there are plenty of people that are enrolled and that don’t use their coverage – like me. I am covered by a nice plan and go to the doctor probably once every five years. Hell, I don’t even take medicine – OTC or perscription – unless I am near my deathbed. I do not use my medical coverage and never really will. It is my individual and personal choice to not participate in the system – partly because I prefer eastern/homeopathic medicine over western medicine and also because I have faith in my body to naturally recover from whatever ailment.

Quite frankly, I am not sure why I have not opted out of my coverage and pocketed the money.

So, why should I be forced into remaining in a plan? The answer they give is that people like me will help lower the cost for everyone. I doubt it. Like I alluded to above, I doubt that I am the only one that has coverage and does not use it. Yet, the coverage remains the same. The real answer is that the government wants to play games with us. They want to control what we can and cannot do. What a better way to control us than to control our health? As the article says above, they will require some sort of minimum coverage. So what does that mean? They will take care of you if you have the flu, but not if you need emergency surgery to remove your appendix? Or maybe that cancer that just popped up, well, that isn’t included in the minimum… but hey, thanks for paying anyways, schmuck.

History has shown and continues to show that the only way to drive prices down and quality up is to do it through competition. You read it right – free-markets. I’m not talking about this molested “free-market” we have now either, I am talking about free free-markets. When people are directly exposed to the prices of a product or service, they are directly responsible for the demand (and indirectly, the supply).  This balance is what gives us progression of products and service, not the enforcement of government to participate.

Furthermore, multiple studies have been shown that there is a large amount of people that are uninsured, can afford it, they just don’t want to enroll. If you don’t understand what I just said, then go watch the videos on my old posts, “Who is uninsured in America?” and “Gillespie Plan: If you want health insurance, get some.”

Wake up America.

Healthcare is a Good, Not a Right

From: Ron Paul

Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.

First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a “right” to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.

Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middle man. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.

Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.

As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients. As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills. As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.

The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.

Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.