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.

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.

Flag Yourself for Suspicious Activity

Flag yourself.

I did.

Show that you do not agree with what is going on.

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.

Did Obama Lie About Health Care Deal?

A few weeks ago Obama pretty much said he made some sort of negotiating with the health care industry. I heard a lot of people rallying this point on Obama’s brow. FINALLY, someone up high is looking out for us. My first thoughts? Fooey! He didn’t do anything significant! If anything, he took us a step closer to universal health care. No bueno in my opinion. Come to find out, he really didn’t make any deals with them. The companies are still ramping their prices, just as they have before. Obama is a liar and the proof is below.

—-

When President Obama announced last week that he had worked out a deal with various health care “stakeholders” to reduce health spending 1.5% per year, most of the “news” media reported the event by parroting the White House talking points.

It would appear, however, that the Obama talking points diverge somewhat from the actual agreement. According to AHA President Richard Umbdenstock, our fearless leader misrepresented the consensus reached by the group:

The groups, he said, had agreed to gradually ramp up to the 1.5 percentage-point target over 10 years — not to reduce spending by that much in each of the 10 years.

Now, why would our President fudge the facts? Well, it’s nothing new. He’s been lying about health care since well before the election. He has, for example, repeatedly told whoppers about how much money EMR will save the system.

In this case, the obvious reason is that he wants to pretend his government takeover of healthcare is actually a perfectly reasonable bipartisan reform effort.  But this latest Obama whopper has caused a pretty serious rift within the lute:

Ominously for the Obama plan, the White House’s ham-handed use of the industry groups has made the industry nervous and caused the groups to start backing away.

The industry groups should be nervous. The One is obviously playing them for suckers, just as he did the chumps at Caterpillar. He did not, as claimed by the director of the White House Office of Health Reform,  misspeak.

He lied.

(Original here)

I am an Individual, Are You?

Everyone would tend to agree that what happened against the Jews (and others) by Nazi Germany to be an attrocity. It was at this time that humanity demonized a people and felt privledged to do what they pleased to them – enslave them, talk to them like dogs (actually, better then dogs), strip them of their posessions, and kill them at will.

And, we should remember these events as if they happened yesterday.

We should remember them because this same mindset continues today. The mindset that we can negate the fact that people are individuals. Today, it is called collectivism.

Think about it. During the general election we heard a lot about collectivism and individualism. Barack wanted to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. What about that 5%? Aw, screw em! They make too much anyways right? This is a fine example of collectivism – he essentially is saying “Mob rule, baby! Forget the rich, they can afford to pay more.” Of course, forget the fact that the “rich” already pay 96% of our tax burden while the bottom 50% of people pay <4%. It is the “rich” vs “everyone else” – collectivism folks.

How about Obama’s church pastor – Rev Wright – of which he listened to for years. (Yes, I am going here). In this church Barack heard how the white man is out to get the black man. Sure Rev Wright, there are some white people that hate you because you are black. However, I’m sure there are plenty of black people that would do the same to a white man. But not all white people are like this just like not all black people are like this. Honest! To put me, a white man, into this “black hater group” is dispicable. I happen to be friends with many black people – I was even out having fun out on the town with a few last night. They were fun individuals. Why is it OK for Obama to sit in on this [collectivist] racist garbage and be given a pass but if I happened to sit in on a church sermon where my white pastor said something about blacks that I would be a racist? Bologna.

Face it, the Left loves to bring race up. They brought it up against Clinton when she was running against Obama. And recently they brought it up with the Tea-Parties. Jane Garofalo said it best, “This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.” Nope Jane, it is about a bunch of individuals being tired of getting their money, their government, and their rights taken away. Guess what, the tea parties drew in all sorts of individuals – Democracts, Republicans, Independents, black, white, yellow, smart, ignorant, young and old. This is another fine example of the collectivist ideals – if you don’t tow line with us and Obama and our current politicians, then you are just a “teabagging redneck” or a “white power activist.”

Abortion? Well here, the individual life is less important then the collectivist group of “women” (even though, shouldn’t the choice be made by women and men, both before and after conception?). And who supports abortion (and thus does not support the individual life) – the Left.

Gun control? Take guns away from everyone and let the governement protect us. Don’t let individuals protect themselves because individuals are too incompetent to safely handle firearms. And who supports more gun control (and thus does not support the individuals right to protect themselves) – the Left.

Health care? Give the health care to the government. Don’t let individuals chose who they want to see. Don’t let individuals chose what procedures/operations they want to receive. And who supports Universal Health Care (and thus removes the privledge of doing what the individual wants to their body and by who) – the Left.

Unions? You can’t represent yourself, bucko. You need a Union to show your boss (of whom you work with every day) to come in and tell them how good you are doing! And who wants to make sure that Unions stay alive even when the workers don’t want them (and thus removes the individuals option to represent and vouch for themselves) – the Left.

And the list really goes on and on.

I know I’ve gone way far off base with the movie, but what I’ve said is something that just drives me nuts. I cannot stand collectivism. I don’t ever want anyone to put me in some group and judge me as such. I want everyone to meet me and decide what they think of me. The movie does a fine job of showing how bad collectivist ideas/actions are. Unfortunately, many people, like in the movie, don’t realize how bad it is until it directly affects them.

Wake up people. Be an individual. (And go watch the movie!)

Individual Health Care Will Be Ignored

The “stimulus” bill in Congress would fundamentally change the way health care is delivered to all Americans. It would hand over decisions about your care to a group of bureaucrats you won’t have the chance to elect.

The “stimulus” establishes a new government body to assess Americans’ health care and to make sure drugs and treatments “that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.” That’s how House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) described it. The words have changed, but the effect stays the same. Where is the outrage?