E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "The Lie Machine. GOP operatives are running a secret campaign to kill health care reform, and it's based on Karl Rove's old playbook. (rollingstone.com)".
Looking at the name of the reference source, I had some suspicions. I then checked "Rollingstone.com", and found what I had suspected. It is a leftist/socialist Internet rag filled with innuendo, name-calling and a complete absence of factual information. It is in the same category as the "National Enquirer", which we see at the checkout counters of supermarkets.
These people have a constitutional right to print whatever opinions they wish. The publication will appeal to the emotionalism of a segment of the population. Those of us who are less guided by emotion and more inclined to an analytical approach, have an obligation to keep the society on a logical track.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Distortions in Healthcare Proposals
Carol is an e-mail correspondent, with whom I have had semi-continuous contact. She has sent me a letter, on which I am commenting below.
Good morning, Carol.
I have read the letter from Citizens for Real Health Care Reform and a Public Option, which you sent me. I have attached a copy for other recipients of this e-mail.
The letter starts with an attempt to create a favorable emotional aspect to the " cause" by bringing in the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy. If you think about it, you may see that the intent is for you to embrace Public Healthcare, because Ted Kennedy did, and you respect his opinion. There is no room for private analysis of facts.
It goes on to say, "Myths, distortions, and bald-faced lies about President Obama's proposed health care reform have been cynically promoted by the insurance industry". This is a generally emotional statement. Perhaps we will see later in the letter some supporting facts.
The next paragraph says that millions of dollars in special interest advertising and the 24-hour news cycle have threatened reform efforts. Are there no millions of dollars spent in supporting government healthcare?
The letter asks you to submit a letter to the editor of your local newspaper today to make sure your neighbors know the cost-reducing FACTS about health care reform and the public option. If I were going to write such a letter, I would not be able to include the "cost-reducing facts". It doesn't say what they are in the "Citizens letter" to you.
Comments on the Wall Street Journal's poll:
1.) Stopping Health Care for the Elderly. This is not a true or false situation. Complete government control of health care allows government to do whatever it wishes. If it wishes to eliminate health care to the elderly, it can do so. If it wishes to double healthcare for the elderly, it can do that too. If you are not now elderly, you will eventually be. Do you want government to control your life destiny?
2.) Public Option. The letter says 54% of those polled FALSELY believe that health care reform would lead to a "government takeover of the health care system.". Who judges that this is a false belief? There are too many generalities in the statements. Healthcare reform as presently proposed by the Administration and in the House bills primarily include a government takeover of the healthcare system. However, reform does not necessarily mean that one condition. Other changes to the healthcare system would be desirable. As said in 1.) above, most people see that health care reform, as presently defined, would lead to a government takeover.
3.) Illegal Immigrants. The poll says 55% of Americans FALSELY believe President Obama's plan would extend health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants. Who says it's false? Here we have a play on words and timing. The Obama Administration has clearly indicated its policy to legalize all presently illegal immigrants in the US. As this may take place, the public is not deceived into recognizing that there will be no illegal immigrants in future. This will indirectly supply healthcare to immigrants who are now illegal but may not be illegal in the future.
The letter goes on to say again that you should submit a letter to the editor of your local newspaper now and make sure your neighbors know the choice-expanding FACTS about health care reform and the public option. It will be impossible to present all the facts of the healthcare situation related to reform and the public option. Even if you were able to do so, the newspaper editor and your neighbors would very likely be unable to come to a logical conclusion on action to be taken. Public decisions are mostly made from an emotional point of view supported by one or two perceived facts. That perception can easily be faulty, which is why our government was originally established as a Republic, wherein designated individuals have the responsibility to investigate issues, which the public has neither the time nor inclination to do.
The letter says the insurance industry lobby and political operatives who are subverting the truth want to erode support for the comprehensive reform we need to fix America's broken health care system. This is likely partially true. The converse is likely partially true, in that supporters want to subvert the truth in order to "support the comprehensive reform we need to fix America's broken health care system". One must question the backgrounds and motivations of every individual or group that takes a position on an issue. In support of their position, facts or likely outcomes are many times distorted through rationalization. A friend of mine, who works with the religious aspects of jail inmates, reports that more than 90% of the inmates claim they are innocent and victims of misguided justice. Justice can occasionally go wrong, but 90%?
The letter says that polls still show most Americans support President Obama's health care reform plan and the public option once they know the real truth. As I have before, real truth is a matter of perception combined with analysis. I suspect that if most Americans support Pres. Obama's Health Care Reform Plan, they do so on the basis of supporting Pres. Obama as a personality involving his charisma and his superb oratory skills. This is combined with his routinely repeated message of hope and progress, which is bound to appeal to every human being.
The letter asks you to submit your letter to the Editor. This is the third time they ask you to do this. Note that it does not say what specifics you should cover in your letter to the editor. It implies that they have given you enough emotional support, so that your "letter to the editor" will start with your support for the Obama Health Plan and follow with an emotional outburst of derogatory comments relating to the opposition. This would include mentioning "the powerful insurance industry crush efforts to reform health care in the past. We can't let them get away with it again". The letter then asks you for the fourth time to be sure to write such letter to the Editor.
Carol, since you are a researcher with analytical skills, I am sure my above suggestions to look into details may not be necessary. However, based on our previous communications, I suspect that your emotional approach clouds your technical capabilities and performance.
Good morning, Carol.
I have read the letter from Citizens for Real Health Care Reform and a Public Option, which you sent me. I have attached a copy for other recipients of this e-mail.
The letter starts with an attempt to create a favorable emotional aspect to the " cause" by bringing in the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy. If you think about it, you may see that the intent is for you to embrace Public Healthcare, because Ted Kennedy did, and you respect his opinion. There is no room for private analysis of facts.
It goes on to say, "Myths, distortions, and bald-faced lies about President Obama's proposed health care reform have been cynically promoted by the insurance industry". This is a generally emotional statement. Perhaps we will see later in the letter some supporting facts.
The next paragraph says that millions of dollars in special interest advertising and the 24-hour news cycle have threatened reform efforts. Are there no millions of dollars spent in supporting government healthcare?
The letter asks you to submit a letter to the editor of your local newspaper today to make sure your neighbors know the cost-reducing FACTS about health care reform and the public option. If I were going to write such a letter, I would not be able to include the "cost-reducing facts". It doesn't say what they are in the "Citizens letter" to you.
Comments on the Wall Street Journal's poll:
1.) Stopping Health Care for the Elderly. This is not a true or false situation. Complete government control of health care allows government to do whatever it wishes. If it wishes to eliminate health care to the elderly, it can do so. If it wishes to double healthcare for the elderly, it can do that too. If you are not now elderly, you will eventually be. Do you want government to control your life destiny?
2.) Public Option. The letter says 54% of those polled FALSELY believe that health care reform would lead to a "government takeover of the health care system.". Who judges that this is a false belief? There are too many generalities in the statements. Healthcare reform as presently proposed by the Administration and in the House bills primarily include a government takeover of the healthcare system. However, reform does not necessarily mean that one condition. Other changes to the healthcare system would be desirable. As said in 1.) above, most people see that health care reform, as presently defined, would lead to a government takeover.
3.) Illegal Immigrants. The poll says 55% of Americans FALSELY believe President Obama's plan would extend health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants. Who says it's false? Here we have a play on words and timing. The Obama Administration has clearly indicated its policy to legalize all presently illegal immigrants in the US. As this may take place, the public is not deceived into recognizing that there will be no illegal immigrants in future. This will indirectly supply healthcare to immigrants who are now illegal but may not be illegal in the future.
The letter goes on to say again that you should submit a letter to the editor of your local newspaper now and make sure your neighbors know the choice-expanding FACTS about health care reform and the public option. It will be impossible to present all the facts of the healthcare situation related to reform and the public option. Even if you were able to do so, the newspaper editor and your neighbors would very likely be unable to come to a logical conclusion on action to be taken. Public decisions are mostly made from an emotional point of view supported by one or two perceived facts. That perception can easily be faulty, which is why our government was originally established as a Republic, wherein designated individuals have the responsibility to investigate issues, which the public has neither the time nor inclination to do.
The letter says the insurance industry lobby and political operatives who are subverting the truth want to erode support for the comprehensive reform we need to fix America's broken health care system. This is likely partially true. The converse is likely partially true, in that supporters want to subvert the truth in order to "support the comprehensive reform we need to fix America's broken health care system". One must question the backgrounds and motivations of every individual or group that takes a position on an issue. In support of their position, facts or likely outcomes are many times distorted through rationalization. A friend of mine, who works with the religious aspects of jail inmates, reports that more than 90% of the inmates claim they are innocent and victims of misguided justice. Justice can occasionally go wrong, but 90%?
The letter says that polls still show most Americans support President Obama's health care reform plan and the public option once they know the real truth. As I have before, real truth is a matter of perception combined with analysis. I suspect that if most Americans support Pres. Obama's Health Care Reform Plan, they do so on the basis of supporting Pres. Obama as a personality involving his charisma and his superb oratory skills. This is combined with his routinely repeated message of hope and progress, which is bound to appeal to every human being.
The letter asks you to submit your letter to the Editor. This is the third time they ask you to do this. Note that it does not say what specifics you should cover in your letter to the editor. It implies that they have given you enough emotional support, so that your "letter to the editor" will start with your support for the Obama Health Plan and follow with an emotional outburst of derogatory comments relating to the opposition. This would include mentioning "the powerful insurance industry crush efforts to reform health care in the past. We can't let them get away with it again". The letter then asks you for the fourth time to be sure to write such letter to the Editor.
Carol, since you are a researcher with analytical skills, I am sure my above suggestions to look into details may not be necessary. However, based on our previous communications, I suspect that your emotional approach clouds your technical capabilities and performance.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Pre-Existing Conditions
E-mail to Congress:
The health insurance companies have gotten a bad rap on the matter of "pre-existing conditions". With the almost universal complaint that health insurance companies do not cover pre-existing conditions, there seems to be no general understanding of what a pre-existing condition is and its relationship to insurance in general.
However, WikiAnswers has defined the situation as follows, "Medical insurance works the same way other insurances do- that medical insurance is to protect yourself in case something bad happens. You need to have coverage in place before something bad happens. An analogy is that just like you can't buy auto insurance after an accident to cover the cost of the accident, medical insurance only covers issues that arise unexpectedly after coverage has begun."
Notice the logic involved. However when healthcare is discussed, all manifestations of emotion related to anecdotal situations become involved. None of that really makes sense from a financial point of view.
Diabetics have a shorter life span than nondiabetics. Should life insurance companies not consider that a diabetic will have a shorter time to pay his insurance premiums and therefore pay less over his lifespan than a non-diabetic? If so, does that not penalize non-diabetics?
Assume another case, where a person has been smoking two packs of cigarettes for 30 years. He is now wheezing, has a slight pain in his chest and plans to see a doctor for the first time next week. However today, he is at my office applying for medical insurance. He has no pre-existing condition and presumably is not required to give me a record of his smoking activities. Must I insure him on the basis that I can't ask any questions or have him examined now by a medical doctor?
Take another example outside of the medical field. Let's say I have had five collision accidents in the past two years. My insurance company wants to drop me as a bad risk. Are they not entitled to do so? Let's also say that they have dropped me and I am now applying for insurance to a new company. Are they not entitled to know about my driving history and accident record? These are pre-existing conditions and by the same emotional atmosphere applied to health insurance, I should not be denied insurance by the new automotive insurance company.
It is obvious that denying insurance companies the right to consider pre-existing conditions is ridiculous. It's not only bad for the insurance companies. It's bad for more responsible members of society. It's also bad for the leeches in that it encourages them to not accept personal responsibility for their own actions. Collectively, it's bad for society.
May I strongly suggest that in any healthcare insurance legislation that you may consider, you do not make it mandatory for insurance companies to ignore pre-existing conditions.
The health insurance companies have gotten a bad rap on the matter of "pre-existing conditions". With the almost universal complaint that health insurance companies do not cover pre-existing conditions, there seems to be no general understanding of what a pre-existing condition is and its relationship to insurance in general.
However, WikiAnswers has defined the situation as follows, "Medical insurance works the same way other insurances do- that medical insurance is to protect yourself in case something bad happens. You need to have coverage in place before something bad happens. An analogy is that just like you can't buy auto insurance after an accident to cover the cost of the accident, medical insurance only covers issues that arise unexpectedly after coverage has begun."
Notice the logic involved. However when healthcare is discussed, all manifestations of emotion related to anecdotal situations become involved. None of that really makes sense from a financial point of view.
Diabetics have a shorter life span than nondiabetics. Should life insurance companies not consider that a diabetic will have a shorter time to pay his insurance premiums and therefore pay less over his lifespan than a non-diabetic? If so, does that not penalize non-diabetics?
Assume another case, where a person has been smoking two packs of cigarettes for 30 years. He is now wheezing, has a slight pain in his chest and plans to see a doctor for the first time next week. However today, he is at my office applying for medical insurance. He has no pre-existing condition and presumably is not required to give me a record of his smoking activities. Must I insure him on the basis that I can't ask any questions or have him examined now by a medical doctor?
Take another example outside of the medical field. Let's say I have had five collision accidents in the past two years. My insurance company wants to drop me as a bad risk. Are they not entitled to do so? Let's also say that they have dropped me and I am now applying for insurance to a new company. Are they not entitled to know about my driving history and accident record? These are pre-existing conditions and by the same emotional atmosphere applied to health insurance, I should not be denied insurance by the new automotive insurance company.
It is obvious that denying insurance companies the right to consider pre-existing conditions is ridiculous. It's not only bad for the insurance companies. It's bad for more responsible members of society. It's also bad for the leeches in that it encourages them to not accept personal responsibility for their own actions. Collectively, it's bad for society.
May I strongly suggest that in any healthcare insurance legislation that you may consider, you do not make it mandatory for insurance companies to ignore pre-existing conditions.
Business Cooperation with the Obama Administration
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. Health Care Overhaul Divides Business and Its Traditional GOP Allies. Business is parting from its traditional allies in the Republican Party on health care as companies and big corporate lobbyists lend tentative support to a congressional overhaul that conservative lawmakers staunchly oppose. The rift mirrors a similar divide on other issues, including immigration and climate change, where many companies have backed legislative action that Republican lawmakers oppose. (wsj.com)".
This is bad news for "liberty". If we take this at face value, business has decided to play ball with the Obama Administration. It is difficult to conceive why business trusts Obama Administration, but apparently it does. Business apparently does not realize that complete government control can mean the eventual demise of private business.
I have no particular objection to the business community deserting the Republican Party on healthcare issues and other matters. The Republicans have in general shown their inability to comprehend anything of significance. Fortunately, we have a Congress, which is hopefully more independent and with greater ability to predicting outcomes of power than is the business community. Please do your best to maintain a non-dictatorship.
EIN News says, "U.S. Health Care Overhaul Divides Business and Its Traditional GOP Allies. Business is parting from its traditional allies in the Republican Party on health care as companies and big corporate lobbyists lend tentative support to a congressional overhaul that conservative lawmakers staunchly oppose. The rift mirrors a similar divide on other issues, including immigration and climate change, where many companies have backed legislative action that Republican lawmakers oppose. (wsj.com)".
This is bad news for "liberty". If we take this at face value, business has decided to play ball with the Obama Administration. It is difficult to conceive why business trusts Obama Administration, but apparently it does. Business apparently does not realize that complete government control can mean the eventual demise of private business.
I have no particular objection to the business community deserting the Republican Party on healthcare issues and other matters. The Republicans have in general shown their inability to comprehend anything of significance. Fortunately, we have a Congress, which is hopefully more independent and with greater ability to predicting outcomes of power than is the business community. Please do your best to maintain a non-dictatorship.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Pres. Obama's Government-Run Healthcare
From Michael Connelly - Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source.
Here is a link to the Constitution:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.htm
And another to the Bill of Rights:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas
Carrollton, Texas
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source.
Here is a link to the Constitution:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.htm
And another to the Bill of Rights:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas
Sen. Cornyn's Comments On Baucus Health-Care Proposal
Here is what Sen. Cornyn had to say concerning the Baucus health-care proposal. I am advising Sen. Cornyn that he is "right on the money" and will have my vote in the next election. I am also suggesting to Sen. Cornyn that he take the necessary steps to consolidate with other fiscally responsible Senators, whether they be Democrats or Republicans, in defeating the Baucus proposal, HR 3200, and anything similar.
ACS
"Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is bipartisan recognition that our health care system needs reform. Health care costs have more than doubled for American families over the last decade.
Seniors are counting on Medicare - but that program is underfunded by more than three times the national debt. Medicaid imposes huge costs on state taxpayers and delivers poor outcomes to patients.
Our current government health care programs are riddled with nearly $90 billion a year in waste, fraud, and abuse.
Fear of lawsuits encourages defensive medicine - which increases America's health care bills by up to 9 percent every year.
And millions of Americans lack health insurance.
We agree on the need to fix the system - and so we should focus on common-sense solutions that we can all support:
Making private coverage affordable to more people;
Realigning incentives for providers to focus on value instead of volume;
Creating incentives for patients to live healthier lives;
And cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in our current entitlement programs.
These areas of agreement should be the foundation of a bipartisan approach. Instead, a more partisan proposal is before us today. This proposal would make many of our current problems worse.
Here are my fundamental concerns:
Continues Washington's Spending Spree
This proposal would increase government spending by $1.6 trillion over 10 years. The $856 billion price tag is misleading. When you start the clock in 2013 - the first full year of implementation - the spending goes way up. The American people are tired of government spending - and Washington continues to ignore their voices.
Increases the Costs of Private Insurance
Several studies have shown that middle class families will see higher premiums because of the new taxes in this proposal. Premiums in the individual market would go up by 10%, according to one study. Small group insurance premiums would jump by up to 15% in Ohio - and up to 25% in California - according to another study.
Takes Money Out of Medicare
This proposal takes $409 billion out of the Medicare program - which is underfunded by $38 trillion. Any "savings" found in Medicare should be dedicated to making that program solvent.
This proposal also cuts $125 billion out of Medicare Advantage - which would break President Obama's promise that Americans can keep the health plans they have.
Expands Medicaid
Medicaid already imposes huge costs on state taxpayers - and crowds out education, law enforcement, etc.
The Texas Health and Human Service Commission estimates that this proposal would:
Increase Texas Medicaid costs by more than $20 billion over 10 years;
Expand the number of Texans on Medicaid by 2.5 million people.
Medicaid delivers poorer health outcomes than private insurance - and costs more than $30 billion a year in waste, fraud, and abuse.
New Taxes on Families and Businesses
This proposal includes nearly $350 billion in new taxes - not including the individual and employer mandates. Raising taxes is not the way to create jobs.
For individuals and families:
The proposal imposes a new tax on those who do not abide by the individual mandate. This new tax is as much as $950 per year for an individual - and $3,800 per family.
The White House says this isn't really a tax - but if it's not a tax, than why is the IRS empowered to collect it?
For businesses:
The employer "free rider" provision is a huge burden.
One grocery chain in Texas estimates that this provision would cost them $10 million in new taxes.
Most economists agree that employer mandates have the effect of reducing wages and crippling job growth. When you put all the taxes and mandates together, the total bill over the next 20 years is more than $2 trillion - according to the Senate Budget Committee.
Defers the Tough Choices
This proposal only includes a one-year fix for physicians' payments under the Medicare program. The cost of future fixes is not included. This proposal outsources the future of our seniors health care to an unelected government board. This board could reduce access to medical care with very limited Congressional review.
Not Serious About Tort Reform
On medical liability reform, this proposal includes only a "Sense of the Senate" resolution. And that resolution is only a suggestion to states that they consider taking action.
There is no enforceable language on tort reform in the proposal.
With respect, Mr. Chairman, this proposal has major flaws. I plan to offer several amendments that will address some of those flaws. But I should be honest: this proposal taxes too much and grows government too much - and I am not optimistic that a few amendments will be able to change that."
ACS
"Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is bipartisan recognition that our health care system needs reform. Health care costs have more than doubled for American families over the last decade.
Seniors are counting on Medicare - but that program is underfunded by more than three times the national debt. Medicaid imposes huge costs on state taxpayers and delivers poor outcomes to patients.
Our current government health care programs are riddled with nearly $90 billion a year in waste, fraud, and abuse.
Fear of lawsuits encourages defensive medicine - which increases America's health care bills by up to 9 percent every year.
And millions of Americans lack health insurance.
We agree on the need to fix the system - and so we should focus on common-sense solutions that we can all support:
Making private coverage affordable to more people;
Realigning incentives for providers to focus on value instead of volume;
Creating incentives for patients to live healthier lives;
And cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in our current entitlement programs.
These areas of agreement should be the foundation of a bipartisan approach. Instead, a more partisan proposal is before us today. This proposal would make many of our current problems worse.
Here are my fundamental concerns:
Continues Washington's Spending Spree
This proposal would increase government spending by $1.6 trillion over 10 years. The $856 billion price tag is misleading. When you start the clock in 2013 - the first full year of implementation - the spending goes way up. The American people are tired of government spending - and Washington continues to ignore their voices.
Increases the Costs of Private Insurance
Several studies have shown that middle class families will see higher premiums because of the new taxes in this proposal. Premiums in the individual market would go up by 10%, according to one study. Small group insurance premiums would jump by up to 15% in Ohio - and up to 25% in California - according to another study.
Takes Money Out of Medicare
This proposal takes $409 billion out of the Medicare program - which is underfunded by $38 trillion. Any "savings" found in Medicare should be dedicated to making that program solvent.
This proposal also cuts $125 billion out of Medicare Advantage - which would break President Obama's promise that Americans can keep the health plans they have.
Expands Medicaid
Medicaid already imposes huge costs on state taxpayers - and crowds out education, law enforcement, etc.
The Texas Health and Human Service Commission estimates that this proposal would:
Increase Texas Medicaid costs by more than $20 billion over 10 years;
Expand the number of Texans on Medicaid by 2.5 million people.
Medicaid delivers poorer health outcomes than private insurance - and costs more than $30 billion a year in waste, fraud, and abuse.
New Taxes on Families and Businesses
This proposal includes nearly $350 billion in new taxes - not including the individual and employer mandates. Raising taxes is not the way to create jobs.
For individuals and families:
The proposal imposes a new tax on those who do not abide by the individual mandate. This new tax is as much as $950 per year for an individual - and $3,800 per family.
The White House says this isn't really a tax - but if it's not a tax, than why is the IRS empowered to collect it?
For businesses:
The employer "free rider" provision is a huge burden.
One grocery chain in Texas estimates that this provision would cost them $10 million in new taxes.
Most economists agree that employer mandates have the effect of reducing wages and crippling job growth. When you put all the taxes and mandates together, the total bill over the next 20 years is more than $2 trillion - according to the Senate Budget Committee.
Defers the Tough Choices
This proposal only includes a one-year fix for physicians' payments under the Medicare program. The cost of future fixes is not included. This proposal outsources the future of our seniors health care to an unelected government board. This board could reduce access to medical care with very limited Congressional review.
Not Serious About Tort Reform
On medical liability reform, this proposal includes only a "Sense of the Senate" resolution. And that resolution is only a suggestion to states that they consider taking action.
There is no enforceable language on tort reform in the proposal.
With respect, Mr. Chairman, this proposal has major flaws. I plan to offer several amendments that will address some of those flaws. But I should be honest: this proposal taxes too much and grows government too much - and I am not optimistic that a few amendments will be able to change that."
Monday, September 21, 2009
Carol on Healthcare Insurance
This is part of my ongoing e-mail conversation with Marxist Carol. In this issue, she is ostensibly addressing healthcare insurance, but as you will note below she deviates considerably from the subject. My comments are in italics. This is what Carol has to say,
Well, I have no intention of turning the world upside down but am smart enough to know that if a problem exists on a wide scale, it needs to be addressed. As such, a high activity level is present here to help out.
I presume you are referring to healthcare insurance. On a more general scale, I agree that we should address problems large and small, with priority given to large problems. However, addressing problems is a societal function, which can involve individuals, families, local communities, municipalities, states, and very finally the federal government I also like to t think that is the proper order in which to consider resolution of problems. In my home will judgment, this is not the time for the federal government to consider resolving what it considers to be a healthcare insurance problem. If the federal government is uncertain or even has a reasonable respect for the rights of individuals, it might ask questions and make suggestions.
I have been on many government private industry committees tasked with writing legislation on such subjects as alternative energy, the failure of the missile defense system (budgetary input), climate change, clean air, clean water, endangered species...and have also testified before Congress on some of the preceding subjects.
Congratulations for your assistance to the federal government on your activities. You imply that private industries were part of the committees in which you operated. If you will think about it, the presence of those private industries was in a subservient capacity. That is, they were either looking for money in the form of grants or reduced government restrictions on activities. Therefore, the general tone of each meeting was that you and your government associates were in a power position, which tended to create in your minds a superior attitude that you had the answers and could impose those answers at your will. This is the usual psychological development of those in power.
As to it being hard to get an education, yes, it is. Never did I receive one penny of support for my higher education from the family. It was all paid for initially by myself and, later, by scholarships.
Due to an early divorce in my family, work for pay started at age 7
(because I needed money for school, a bike, clothing, entertainment, etc).
As a Civil Rights worker and later involved in helping to stamp out
discrimination, many personal experiences created involvement at the national level. The redistribution of wealth was an effect; new
opportunities were the cause.
Thank you, Carol for the background information. We are all persons with opinions based upon our previous experience and observing others. I can easily see now where you have obtained your Marxist philosophy. Your background is very similar to that of Pres. Obama. I presume from the early divorce that you were raised by a single parent, probably your mother. Such system is always an economic hardship, and the single parent mother indirectly contributes to development of a feminist mentality antagonistic to normal male components of the real world. The absence of a father deprives a child of fatherly advice and economic stability. Double parents (male and female) have been effective in family developments for thousands of years. As we have recently deviated from the system, we have created for ourselves many social problems and I suspect you may be one of the victims.
Well, I have no intention of turning the world upside down but am smart enough to know that if a problem exists on a wide scale, it needs to be addressed. As such, a high activity level is present here to help out.
I presume you are referring to healthcare insurance. On a more general scale, I agree that we should address problems large and small, with priority given to large problems. However, addressing problems is a societal function, which can involve individuals, families, local communities, municipalities, states, and very finally the federal government I also like to t think that is the proper order in which to consider resolution of problems. In my home will judgment, this is not the time for the federal government to consider resolving what it considers to be a healthcare insurance problem. If the federal government is uncertain or even has a reasonable respect for the rights of individuals, it might ask questions and make suggestions.
I have been on many government private industry committees tasked with writing legislation on such subjects as alternative energy, the failure of the missile defense system (budgetary input), climate change, clean air, clean water, endangered species...and have also testified before Congress on some of the preceding subjects.
Congratulations for your assistance to the federal government on your activities. You imply that private industries were part of the committees in which you operated. If you will think about it, the presence of those private industries was in a subservient capacity. That is, they were either looking for money in the form of grants or reduced government restrictions on activities. Therefore, the general tone of each meeting was that you and your government associates were in a power position, which tended to create in your minds a superior attitude that you had the answers and could impose those answers at your will. This is the usual psychological development of those in power.
As to it being hard to get an education, yes, it is. Never did I receive one penny of support for my higher education from the family. It was all paid for initially by myself and, later, by scholarships.
Due to an early divorce in my family, work for pay started at age 7
(because I needed money for school, a bike, clothing, entertainment, etc).
As a Civil Rights worker and later involved in helping to stamp out
discrimination, many personal experiences created involvement at the national level. The redistribution of wealth was an effect; new
opportunities were the cause.
Thank you, Carol for the background information. We are all persons with opinions based upon our previous experience and observing others. I can easily see now where you have obtained your Marxist philosophy. Your background is very similar to that of Pres. Obama. I presume from the early divorce that you were raised by a single parent, probably your mother. Such system is always an economic hardship, and the single parent mother indirectly contributes to development of a feminist mentality antagonistic to normal male components of the real world. The absence of a father deprives a child of fatherly advice and economic stability. Double parents (male and female) have been effective in family developments for thousands of years. As we have recently deviated from the system, we have created for ourselves many social problems and I suspect you may be one of the victims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
