On our way to the public library this evening with my family, we passed by a very peaceful demonstration of approx 30 people in downtown Leesburg.  I noticed the signs for “Support Public Option” (or something very similar).  As I passed by the group and turned north on 15, I adamantly shook my head in disagreement.  That’s when I saw the other signs (most likely the opposite side of the sign I first saw), “Health Care for All”.  So, by expressing my disagreement with the public option, I am also displaying by my opinion AGAINST Health care for all? 

These two are obviously not synonymous; the public option has to do with insurance not the providing of health care.  No one ever states that anyone (with cash or without) can get health care from almost any emergency room across the country.  Regardless, the goal seems to be to link the Public Option with an emotion triggering idea such as “Health care for all.”  Anyone who opposes the public option surely opposes health care for all, right? Ummm….not really.

It’s the same emotional carrot that is dangled in front of the public when politicians/activists promote higher funding for educational programs; it’s FOR THE KIDS, you hate monger!   Sure does generate an emotional response.   I don’t want to be thought of as an uncaring unenlightened schnob that thinks that if you can’t pay for health care, then tough titties.  Who does?  And that’s the bitch of it.  It allows the debate to never talk about the basic fundamentals for each argument. 

In one corner, we have a group that believes that the government is the solution.  Government control is best; government knows best.  Through the government’s intervention, we can provide everyone healthcare.  Popular thoughts:  “Why doesn’t the other side care about the folks who are hurting and struggling; we’re a rich country so we should do something.  If it meant health care for all, I would pay more taxes.”  The rub:  By providing everyone healthcare, the only way to reduce cost (to even sustain this coverage) is to limit access.

In the other corner, we have a group that believes in limited Government.  The Government has its place for regulation and removing barriers to competition (if they actually do this, seems rare now a days doesn’t it?).  It’s only through competition that you can lower costs.  Besides if there more completion, there’s more options and more choices.  Popular thoughts:  “If the other side is so willing to pay higher taxes to provide health care for all, how many people’s health care are they currently paying for (my guess is zero)?  If I feel that I have a case against my insurance company, I can bring them to court.  I can’t bring my government to court if I suspect wrong doing, unethical behavior or otherwise.  How can a private company compete with the government?  Why doesn’t the government allow insurance companies to compete against each other across state lines?”  The rub:  It’s easy to give power to government and it’s hard to give people responsibility for their own well being.

Since these fundamentals do not readily fit on a sign that any person can hold on the corner of a street or in a town hall meeting, I guess we will never get down to brass tacks.

New York Times reports on a Veteran Affiars hospital that had over 79% error rate for one type of prostate cancer treatment.  That is, the hospiatl botched the treatment 92 in 116 tries.  In addition to the botched treatments…

“The team continued implants for a year even though the equipment that measured whether patients received the proper radiation dose was broken. The radiation safety committee at the Veterans Affairs hospital knew of this problem but took no action, records show.”

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (who I understand is THE authority for radiation treatment) was one agency who was supposed to oversee the radiation treatments.  Maybe the government can set up a new agency to protect us from itself.

Obama gave a speech today touting a “new beginning” (I don’t even want to know what that means) to the Muslim World.  It was, as usual, a great speech.  Understanding.  Mutual respect.  Freedom of religion.  Women’s rights.  Good stuff.  I was fine until this part: “Summit on Entrepreneurship.”  That’s where my eyeballs started to bleed. I began to wonder why Obama is such a fan of Entrepreneurship in the Muslim world.  Maybe he believes it’s a uniquely Muslim phenomenon.

Make no mistake.  The Government has staged a hostile takeover of three major facets of our nation’s economy:

First, our financial sector is already firmly in Government’s hands.

Second, our manufacturing and energy sector is on its way.  How?  Let me connect the dots:

• Government Bails out GM and Chrysler.–CHECK
• Government asks GM CEO (employee of GM for 30 years) to step down.–CHECK
• Government converts its GM and Chrysler assets into Preferred Stock (which means it has voting rights…it didn’t have to do that, it could have just issued bonds)–CHECK
• Government owns over half the voting rights of GM and Chrysler–CHECK
• THEN the Government send them into Bankruptcy (couldn’t have done that BEFORE owning them, that would be CRAZY).
• Government creates a brand new division of GM to build little munchkin cars that noone (currently) wants to buy.–CHECK
• Government Motors then decides to spin off Hummer, the most gas-guzzling of the gas guzzling cars to another company–in China–for a profit–CHECK.
• Government then begins pushing HARD an “energy” plan which would (by Obama’s own admission) drive gas prices WAY up–COMING SOON
• The people of the United States like good citizens are then encouraged even more (through EXTRA tax incentives on top of the ones that are already in place) to buy the little piece of junk munchkin cars–call it “The People’s Car”–because they can’t afford a gallon of fricking gasoline–GOD HELP US ALL.

Result? Federal Government has taken over the energy industry and a huge chunk of the manufacturing sector–which narrows down further the ability for anyone to compete with the Government, therefore ENTREPRENEURSHIP in the energy and manufacturing sector goes away.  Noone can find a decent job that doesn’t involve dealing with the Federal Government.  And guess what…at the Government’s OWN admission, carbon emissions planet-wide doesn’t go down ONE BIT for decades…DECADES.

Next is Health Care:

• Government spends $19 billion on creating a system where doctors (many who are entrepreneurs) are bribed into putting their patients’ medical information on a DHHS managed database.–CHECK
• Government creates a “Nationwide Exchange” where people can compare plans…all of which will be forced to accept pre-existing conditions without exclusions.
• The private plans on the “Exchange” become too expensive, because (as happened in NY and other states) guaranteed issue results in noone buying insurance until they desperately need it…for a “pre-existing” condition.
• Government steps in to fix this “crisis” by creating a “Public Option” where tax-subsidized plan options are made available to compete with private plans…Those who can’t afford it are given a “hardship exemption” so they get it for free. (OH, and by they way, now it’s against the law NOT to get ANY coverage)
• Doctors (small business owners) who have stopped accepting coverage from Medicare and Medicaid will now be forced by law to do so, along with accepting “Public Option” patients.
• Finally, it becomes against the law to pay cash for medical treatment, because the DHHS can’t control it, so for “safety reasons” all transactions will be made through Government insurance coverage or maybe one or two (”bailed out”) insurance companies who will provide benefits to a few Government-owned companies in the Financial, Manufacturing, or Energy/Utilities sectors.

The result? The Federal Government has destroyed any aspect of Entrepreneurship in the Health Care sector and instead has full operational and informational control over your health care through the handy dandy DHHS database.  So whether you’re covered by a DHHS “public option” or benefits through a company (which will likely be owned by the Federal Government), your health care will be finely controlled by Bureaucrats in the Department of Labor and the DHHS.

Why am I telling you all of this?  What can we do?  They ignored us on the Financial sector, they’ve been ignoring and are continuing to ignore us on Manufacturing and Energy.  They will ignore us on Health Care as well.

I’m becoming more and more convinced that the only option left is for 37 states to call for another Constitutional Convention to create an amendment to clarify the tenth one.

But if that seems to extreme, at least understand this.  If we don’t act locally, starting RIGHT NOW…

Next is housing and education.  Then it’s all over…

Random thoughts on President Obama’s speech.

A little early for a State of the Union - like address, isn’t it?

Hillary is a camera hog.

Chris Dodd needs to be out of office, now.

“Short term gains were preferred over long term prosperity” Good.

Then the deluge, anti-low taxes, pro-regulation mantras.

Nothing new here folks. I wonder if one form of alternative energy is a wind farm in DC generated by Obama applause.

Democrats in Congress give themselves a standing ovation over passing the stimulus.

Extended unemployment benefits…ouch high unemployment to last for a while, eh?

Glad Obama gave props to Joe Biden. Nice.

More free loans for college, auto, homes, businesses…hmm isn’t this what got us in trouble in the first place.

Obama will refinance bad mortgages. Rick Santelli where are you?

A no “no strings attached” approach to bank bailouts. He’s right on the money here and the GOP stands up too on tis one. Ok, then guys don’t capitulate to the banks so easily from now on.

“It’s not about helping banks, it’s about helping people”. Ok if you have to say it then chances are you are doing the opposite. W said much the same thing, when he was helping out banks.

Dependence on foreign oil, health care, bad schools. Same old Same old.

A trillion dollar deficit, financial crisis and a recession…Ugh it’s true.

Bold action and Big ideas. Hold onto your wallets. (Standing O for the GI Bill…natch)

New research funds for medical research…Standing O in the Broussard home!

Energy efficiency blah blah blah.

“We should not and will not protect them from their bad practices.” Again if you have to say that it means you are protecting them from bad decisions.

Free health care for children gets a standing O…more candy for everyone! A cure for cancer?

Whoa the free health care for children gets a bigger O than a cure for cancer! Socialized medicine talk.

Teddy Roosevelt called for health care reform? Really?

Half of college entrants do not finish. Ouch. Is it wise to give everyone free money for tuition if they won’t finish college?

Incentives for teacher peformance is a good idea. Why W couldn’t think of that when he pushed NCLB I’ll never know.

Standing O for Obama telling kids not to drop out of high school. How can you be against that?

Education reform from Edward Kennedy….wait a second didn’t he author No Child Left Behind…I’ve gone cross-eyed!

Parents need to take care of their kids…another standing O!

I love how he swerved from endless promises of spending to being a committed fiscal conservative. I think I got whiplash.

Protectionist alert. Hard to get these Chinese to buy our T-bills if we don’t use stimulus $s to buy their goods. Still I’m all for the protectionist streak in Obama.

Tax free universal savings accounts…sounds good to me.

Oh yeah there’s a war going on…It’d be nice if he were to say “wins”, instead of “ends”, but the way he says ends sounds like, “ins” which is close to “wins” without the W. Maybe he’s just avoiding the W at all costs. “Unyielding support”, sounds more classy than Bill Clinton ever was to our citizens in uniform.

A brief article on the history of why the healthcare system got to where it is, and why the McCain plan is actually the only one of the two (between his and Obama’s) that can truly accomplish anything:  by putting more control back in the hands of the consumer instead of simply shifting control from EVIL Insurance companies to the ALL-LOVING Federal Government.

Mr. Jacoby is very explicit in explaining the history of the problem:

During World War II, federal wage controls barred employers from raising their workers’ salaries, but said nothing about fringe benefits. So firms competing for employees at government-restricted wages began offering medical insurance to sweeten employment offers. Even sweeter was that employers could deduct those benefits as business expenses, yet employees didn’t have to report them as taxable income. For a while the IRS resisted that interpretation, but Congress eventually enshrined the tax-exempt status of employer-based medical insurance in law.

Result: a radical shift in the way Americans paid for medical care. With health benefits tax-free if they were employer-supplied, tens of millions of Americans were soon signing up for medical insurance through work. As tax rates rose, so did the incentive to keep expanding health benefits. No longer was medical insurance reserved for major expenditures like surgery or hospitalization. Americans who would never think of using auto insurance to cover tune-ups and oil changes grew accustomed to having their medical insurer pay for yearly physicals, prescriptions, and other routine expenses.

Now, I actually don’t agree with the part of McCain’s proposal that taxes employer-based coverage.  I’m more interested in parity (making sure that individuals get the same tax cut), than I am a punitive approach.  But it at least cuts at the core of the problem: the individual has been left out of the process for far too long.  It’s actually just a little too harsh.

I preferred the plan that President Bush proposed in a State of the Union address a few years ago (seems like so long ago), and that was a tax-credit (and a pretty sizable one, if I recall) for those participating in Consumer-Driven (High-Deductible) Health Plans.  That would have accomplished a lot as far as getting more control of costs back in the hands of the consumer without giving a Democratic contender ammunition to call the Republican contender a tax-hiker.

(Mirrored on gcfin.com.)

Many of the illegal immigrants leaving Great Britain are citing lack of sun and poor health care. I can’t think of anything else to add. Read it here.

This is an interesting site about Free-Market medicine.

I particularly like this article where David Gratzer (author of The Cure) explains what the real problem is, and why socialization is not the answer. It begs the question: if we ARE in a market-driven system, why is it that costs don’t go down like other high-tech fields? The answer is: we’re NOT in a market-driven system. And it’s tough to argue that a truly market-driven system definitely wouldn’t work. So shouldn’t we try it first?

A lot of the rest of the site has videos that dispel some myths about the current system…like the number of people that are uninsured by choice, and the extent of the safety net for those who don’t have a choice.

A sister site, On the Fence Films, has a video about a brain surgery patient from Ontario which illustrates the flaws in a single-payer system.  Many of the arguments for “rationed care” simply comes to this:  only poor people are important, and those with jobs and money should have to wait just like everyone else.  Tell that to this gentleman.  The dirty truth is…even a poor person in the U.S. with no “coverage” would have better “access” than this middle class family in Ontario.  And our private system would eat the bill.

I remember during some townhall forum where “normal people” (i.e. handpicked by Dan Rather or the like) asked questions to GOP and the Democratic candidate. This may have been in 2004. Bush said that the biggest concern for the average American small business owner was taxes. The questioner said that his biggest concern as a small business owner was health care, and what was government going to do to make it easier. I noted back then that health care is a tax policy issue, and that Bush for all his ham-fistedness had it right. Ramesh Ponnuru highlights this fact in Time.

That’s how we ended up with the health-insurance system we have now, based on employers. You get a tax break if you get your insurance through your job. If you get a raise and use it to buy your own insurance instead, you have to pay taxes on that money. (Ditto if you use your raise to pay doctors directly.) Almost everyone takes the tax break. The market for insurance bought by individuals is, as a result, small and stunted, which is all the more reason to stay in the employer system.

Good news for common sense, and good job by the citizens of Oregon to look past simplistic populist rhetoric. WSJ notes the important lesson here for Arnold Schwarzenegger and the 2008 election.

There are political lessons here, in case anyone in Washington is paying attention. Voters are rightly concerned about health care and would like everyone to have insurance, but they realize that government programs are very expensive. Americans also don’t seem to want to pay for health-care reforms directly through higher taxes. That accounts for the reliance by politicians on the easier sell of tobacco taxes, and it also explains why Congress has disguised the real cost of its Schip contraption with a $30 billion budget gimmick. (No thanks to GOP Senators Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley.)

Here’s my step-by-step take on HillaryCare. I’ve been putting it off for two reasons:

1) I’m busy trying to make money damnit.
2) I found the “plan” so confoundedly confusing and poorly written that I just didn’t know where to start. To be honest, I actually was taken aback by the lack of sophistication in the details.

So here you go. Unfortunately, my commentary is almost as poorly organized as the original work…but, well, I’m not running for President:

“Affordable: Unlike the current health system where insurance premiums send people into bankruptcy, the plan provides tax credits for working families to help them cover their costs. The tax credits will ensure that working families never have to pay more than a limited percentage of their income for health care.”

Insurance premiums have never bankrupted anyone. Medical costs have, though. Medical insurance premiums calculated as a percentage of income is ABSOLUTELY the most inefficient economic model I’ve ever heard of.

“Available: No discrimination. The insurance companies can’t deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.”

States have tried this. In these states, the health insurance market is completely gone, now. People wait until they’re sick to get coverage. If you’re going to go 100% guaranteed issue, don’t pretend that you’re going to keep it private.

“Reliable: It’s portable. If you change or lose your job, you keep your health care.”

Believe it or not, this is true with individual health insurance. Isn’t that odd?

“If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren’t currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums.”

This is a myth. So you can keep your current plan. Sure, but you’re going to get free money to sign up for the “good” plan the government offers. It doesn’t say anything about letting you use said tax credits to pay for insurance you want.

“Good for small business: Small businesses are the engine of new job growth in the U.S. economy but face bigger challenges when it comes to providing health care for their employees. Hillary would give tax credits to small businesses that provide health care to their workers to help defray their coverage costs. This will make small businesses more competitive and help create good jobs with health benefits that will stay here in the US.”

Completely contradictory to the portable concept. Lifting the financial burden from the backs of small businesses is great, but keeping administration of medical coverage in employer’s hands would not improve the situation.

“Reins in insurance companies–Insurance companies won’t be able to deny you coverage or drop you because their computer model says you’re not worth it. They will have to offer and renew coverage to anyone who applies and pays their premium. And like other things that you buy, they will have to compete for your business based on quality and price. Families will have the security of knowing that if they become ill or lose their jobs, they won’t lose their coverage.”

This is complete poppycock, especially the “compete” part. Insurance companies allowed the honor of participating will be at the mercy of Government subsidies and not the will of the patient and their money, so where is the incentive for them to “compete?” Simultaneously subsidizing group coverage and individual coverage is just weird. The security is knowing you will be bailed out by the government, when a better idea is to have individual coverage in the first place so you’re not dependent on a job for coverage.

“Insurance and Drug Companies: insurance companies will end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness and ensure high value for every premium dollar; while drug companies will offer fair prices and accurate information.”

OK…as long as you simply stop calling them insurance companies. At what point did “insurance” not mean pooling and managing risk? Are we going to outlaw car insurance companies from discriminating against bad drivers?

“Individuals: will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible.”

This is their only responsibility? Not managing their health or helping manage usage or costs?

“Providers: will work collaboratively with patients and businesses to deliver high-quality, affordable care.”

How? Admittedly this is a problem. This will be solved by providers being assigned by the Fed instead of insurance companies? How is this “plan” going to make this happen?

Employers: will help finance the system; large employers will be expected to provide health insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage: small businesses will receive a tax credit to continue or begin to offer coverage.

This is exactly the direction that creates problems. This whole employer thing is just confusing. Why help employers fund it? Why not let them pay their employees more? When you can just let the individual fund it, and give them direct tax subsidies?

“Government: will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost.”

How would the government improve quality? Lowering administrative costs is only part of the battle. Slowing down increases in costs is the bigger problem.

“Provide Tax Relief to Ensure Affordability: Working families will receive a refundable tax credit to help them afford high-quality health coverage.”

I’m all for it. Define “high quality”. What is a “refundable tax credit?” Is the government going to get a refund?

“Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income: The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans.”

This is a little vexing. The credit will make people more price conscious about choosing plans? So is this an incentive to earn more or less?

“Create a New Small Business Tax Credit: To make it easier-not harder-for small businesses to create new jobs with health coverage, a new health care tax credit for small businesses will provide an incentive for job-based coverage.”

Incenting job-based coverage, still, is the wrong idea.

“Strengthen Medicaid and CHIP: The Plan will fix the holes in the safety net to ensure that the most vulnerable populations receive affordable, quality care.”

“Most vulnerable” is virtually everyone. Everyone is affected by the high cost health care. What we’re talking about here is the beginning of socialized medicine. Period.

“Launch a Retiree Health Legacy Initiative: A new tax credit for qualifying private and public retiree health plans will offset a significant portion of catastrophic expenditures, so long as savings are dedicated to workers and competitiveness.”

Admittedly, I don’t even know what that means.

“Most Savings Come Through Lowering Spending Due to Quality and Modernization: Over half the savings come from the public savings generated from Senator Clinton’s broader agenda to modernize the heath systems and reduce wasteful health spending.”

Modernizing only reduces costs temporarily (arithmetically). If over half the savings comes from this…then there is virtually no savings. The cost INCREASES (geometric…even exponential) are not due to lack of technology, but increased demand, and a lack of access to cost vs. quality demand by the consumer.

“A Net Tax Cut for American Taxpayers: The plan offers tens of millions of Americans a new tax credit to make premiums affordable-which more than offsets the increased revenues from the Plan’s provisions to limit the employer tax exclusion for health care and discontinue portions of the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000. Thus, the plan provides a net tax cut for American taxpayers.”

Classic. Tax the rich and give “health care” to the poor. A net tax cut…unless of course you pay the majority of the taxes.

“Making the Employer Tax Exclusion for Health Care Fairer: The plan protects the current exclusion from taxes of employer-provided health premiums, but limits the exclusion for the high-end portion of very generous plans for those making over $250,000.”

This is insane. Health Insurance, and health care, is not any more expensive for rich people than it is for poor people. It’s health that dictates rates, not income. This makes no sense. So rich people would get less tax incentives from buying health care. This keeps healthy rich people off the insurance rolls, because they’ll find a better place to shelter their money from taxes.

I’d rather her just come out and say, “Hey. Everyone is going to be on Medicare.” She can’t do that, though, because she would lose the social argument as well. Americans really don’t WANT the Government to control their healthcare, they’re just desperate to be able to afford it, so those who are big fans of Government-run healthcare are attempting to wrap a social argument with an economic rationale. It just won’t fly, though, because there IS no economic rationale for the U.S. converting to single-payer or socialized medicine. The only rationale that’s left at the end of the day is:

Everybody else is doing it.

And that’s simply not an economic argument…

HillaryClinton.com - American’s Health Choices Plan