After reading my column from last week, my sister asked, “Will someone please explain to me how we are supposed to save money when Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are going broke, and we are going to cover 32 million more people? Why don’t I understand this?” She is certainly not alone in finding it difficult to understand how health care reform can reduce the deficit. In fact, a recent Rasmussen poll reveals that a whopping 81% of Americans believe the reform will cost more than the CBO projections. Since every other large entitlement program has mushroomed in size and cost, it’s no wonder Americans are skeptical about this one.
It’s easy to see how reform is going to cost us – the government will subsidize the premiums of many of those buying insurance and will add many more to the Medicaid rolls. It’s not so easy to understand the saving part. Frankly, I don’t think the Democrats have done a very good job of explaining it in terms that ordinary folks like me can understand. I’ve been doing my own research online and found a recent Newsweek article that attempted to explain it in five easy steps.
First, the formation of health insurance exchanges should create more competition among insurance companies. Now any good capitalist knows that competition results in better quality and lower prices. I get that. But I really didn’t know what the exchanges would be and how they would work, so I’ve been looking that up as well. My understanding is that the exchanges will be created by individual states, and states can decide to join together to create regional exchanges if they choose. The exchange will simply be marketplaces managed and regulated by the government. They will consist of private insurance companies that desire to be a part of the exchange. It stands to reason that companies would want to participate because that is where most customers would go to buy insurance. It will have a web site where various policies and prices can be compared Theoretically, the companies will seek to offer better coverage at lower prices to get your business. Companies within the exchange will have to meet certain standards of coverage.
Obama admits that not everyone will have lower-cost premiums as a result of the exchanges. Some people now have low-cost plans that have high deductibles and not-so-great coverage, because that is all they can afford or want to pay for. They will be required to buy better insurance under the new legislation and can expect to pay more as a result. If they earn less than 400% of the poverty level, that higher cost will be offset by government subsidies to help pay for their premiums. People who make more than that will pay more for their insurance; the CBO projects premiums will increase 10 – 13%.
There is considerable question as to whether the exchanges will actually work as they are intended. Massachusetts already has an exchange like the ones that will be created nationwide beginning in 2014. The state also has some of the highest insurance costs in the country.
A second means of saving money will be the Independent Medicare Advisory Board. One reason Medicare continues to cost so much is that Congress does not have the political will to cut benefits. The advisory board will do it for them. It will be made of 15 members appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. IMAC will write proposals for limiting Medicare’s costs. These measures will go into effect automatically unless Congress votes to reject them, and if they do, they must find another way to cut costs by the same amount. The idea is to make it easier for tough decisions to be made. Obviously, older adults may find this worrisome. Young people, on the other hand, may be tired of paying so much for the elderly and welcome the change.
A third method of controlling costs is called “bundling.” Right now, doctors get paid for each service they provide – every office visit, procedure or test. The more they do for a patient, the more money they stand to earn. It’s easy to see how greed might enter the picture here. With bundling, doctors would get paid one price to treat a condition for a certain period of time. If you have diabetes, you pay a set price for treating it for a year. It would no longer be in the doctor’s interest to prescribe more procedures. Fewer procedures means fewer insurance claims, thereby lowering costs for everyone – theoretically. Of course, it would now be in the doctor’s interest NOT to order procedures, and it remains to be seen if this will result in poorer care.
Fourth, the so-called “Cadillac” plans offered by some employers will be taxed a hefty 40%. The idea is to discourage employers from offering such plans. That would mean fewer people seeking medical services that are no longer covered. That would lower demand, and lower demand leads to lower prices.
Finally, the government will now have a huge stake in keeping costs down, since it will be subsidizing so much of health care. If they fail to do so, they will have to face angry voters who are upset about rising deficits and/or higher premiums. Of course, the fact that they have already been on the hook for Medicaid and Medicare has not resulted in keeping costs under control so far.
These measures should produce savings – we just don’t know how much. What we do know is that the CBO projects the cost of reform to be $940 billion dollars over the next ten years. Whether or not we can really offset those costs and actually cut the deficit remains to be seen.
.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Pay or Save - Which will it be?
Well, for better or worse, the deed is done. On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Senate version of health care reform into law. Of course, the fight will continue as Congress debates whether or not to approve the House fixes to the bill. Meanwhile, the attorney generals of several states are filing law suits based on their belief that the bill’s requirement that everyone buy insurance is unconstitutional. Republicans talk of taking back the House and Senate come November, and then repealing the bill – highly unlikely as they would have to have a 3/5 majority to override a presidential veto. We are going to be hearing arguments about this for a very long time.
One of the most heated arguments revolves around whether or not this reform will save us money or send our deficits spiraling out of control. We’ve all heard the analysis from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office). It predicts the bill - with the House fixes – will save the federal government $138 billion from the years 2010 – 2019 and as much as $1.3 trillion over the next twenty years. If this is true, we should all be dancing in the streets! We just managed to insure 31 million more people AND save money. Trouble is, many people, and I’m one of them, find that a little too good to be true.
It’s not that anyone doubts the integrity or reliability of the CBO. The problem lies in the fact that the CBO can only predict the cost of a bill based on the numbers and information given them by Congress. Does anyone doubt the integrity and reliability of Congress? (That was a rhetorical question!)
For example, there is the double-counting in the Congressional figures given to the CBO. Part of the legislation includes collecting tax for a new long-term care policy. That money is counted as revenue to pay for the cost of this bill. HOWEVER, the money will be needed down the road when people stop paying into it and instead draw it out as they go into nursing homes. The same money can’t pay for both that AND insuring 31 million new people!
Congress tells the CBO that it will recover much of the cost for health care by taxing those “Cadillac” insurance plans. That plan is so unpopular, however, that it has already been postponed until 2013. Labor Unions, which typically win these employer-provided plans for their members, will fight implementation of the tax. If the tax does go into effect, employers will almost certainly start providing lower-cost (meaning lower-coverage) plans to their workers to avoid the tax. I wouldn’t count on much revenue there. Likewise, high earners will fight additional taxes on their investment income. Even if enacted, revenue from that will depend on how the economy is doing, something no one can predict.
The CBO also assumes there will be large cuts in Medicare and reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. Politically, this would be very difficult to enact. Already, Congress is promising a $200 billion “doctor fix” to increase payments to doctors. This is not counted as part of future health care costs because it will be in a separate bill, and the CBO can only score the bill placed in front of it.
History teaches us that the costs of entitlement programs are greatly underestimated. When Medicare was signed into law in 1965, it was projected to cost around $9 billion by 1990. It turned out to be $67 billion – over seven times as much! And now it turns out that Social Security will be out of funds even sooner than we had thought.
The CBO estimates the cost of the current health reform legislation at around $950 billion dollars over a ten-year period. Congress has proposed cuts and policies that they say will more than offset that cost. The problem is that we have to count on all those cuts being made and the policies working the way they are supposed to. That is assuming a lot. Future legislation can prevent any or all of it from ever taking place.
To be fair, there are parts of this legislation which do hold promise for cutting healthcare costs and reducing the deficit – if they are implemented wisely. More on that in next week’s column.
One of the most heated arguments revolves around whether or not this reform will save us money or send our deficits spiraling out of control. We’ve all heard the analysis from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office). It predicts the bill - with the House fixes – will save the federal government $138 billion from the years 2010 – 2019 and as much as $1.3 trillion over the next twenty years. If this is true, we should all be dancing in the streets! We just managed to insure 31 million more people AND save money. Trouble is, many people, and I’m one of them, find that a little too good to be true.
It’s not that anyone doubts the integrity or reliability of the CBO. The problem lies in the fact that the CBO can only predict the cost of a bill based on the numbers and information given them by Congress. Does anyone doubt the integrity and reliability of Congress? (That was a rhetorical question!)
For example, there is the double-counting in the Congressional figures given to the CBO. Part of the legislation includes collecting tax for a new long-term care policy. That money is counted as revenue to pay for the cost of this bill. HOWEVER, the money will be needed down the road when people stop paying into it and instead draw it out as they go into nursing homes. The same money can’t pay for both that AND insuring 31 million new people!
Congress tells the CBO that it will recover much of the cost for health care by taxing those “Cadillac” insurance plans. That plan is so unpopular, however, that it has already been postponed until 2013. Labor Unions, which typically win these employer-provided plans for their members, will fight implementation of the tax. If the tax does go into effect, employers will almost certainly start providing lower-cost (meaning lower-coverage) plans to their workers to avoid the tax. I wouldn’t count on much revenue there. Likewise, high earners will fight additional taxes on their investment income. Even if enacted, revenue from that will depend on how the economy is doing, something no one can predict.
The CBO also assumes there will be large cuts in Medicare and reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. Politically, this would be very difficult to enact. Already, Congress is promising a $200 billion “doctor fix” to increase payments to doctors. This is not counted as part of future health care costs because it will be in a separate bill, and the CBO can only score the bill placed in front of it.
History teaches us that the costs of entitlement programs are greatly underestimated. When Medicare was signed into law in 1965, it was projected to cost around $9 billion by 1990. It turned out to be $67 billion – over seven times as much! And now it turns out that Social Security will be out of funds even sooner than we had thought.
The CBO estimates the cost of the current health reform legislation at around $950 billion dollars over a ten-year period. Congress has proposed cuts and policies that they say will more than offset that cost. The problem is that we have to count on all those cuts being made and the policies working the way they are supposed to. That is assuming a lot. Future legislation can prevent any or all of it from ever taking place.
To be fair, there are parts of this legislation which do hold promise for cutting healthcare costs and reducing the deficit – if they are implemented wisely. More on that in next week’s column.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Book Review: A Century Turns by William J. Bennett
This latest offering in a three-volume American history series by Bill Bennett, conservative pundit, author, and politician, covers the years from 1988-2008. Volumes I and II, entitled America: The Last Best Hope, describe the years from the discovery of America to the end of Reagan’s presidency. According to Bennett, teachers have built entire history curricula from these two books, and schools have added them to their supplemental reading lists. I have not read the first two volumes; in fact, I was unaware of their existence until I began reading A Century Turns. Thomas Nelson Publishing provided me with a complimentary copy of the book for the purpose of reviewing it. I began reading with three main questions in mind: 1. Would reading this book make me want to read the earlier volumes? 2. As a former history teacher myself, would I use these books for my curriculum or supplemental material? 3. Would Bennett’s conservative beliefs make the book overly biased?
Now that I have finished the book, I can answer these questions. I do not feel the urge to rush out and buy the first two volumes and doubt if I will read them. It’s not that A Century Turns is bad. It’s easily read and would be interesting to anyone who wants to know more about the political history of the past twenty years. The book naturally focuses on politics, since Bennett was heavily involved in government himself during these years. He does occasionally veer off into popular culture and other events, but it seems like an afterthought when he does – it doesn’t flow smoothly in my opinion. As a history teacher and CNN junkie, I learned very little from reading this book that I didn’t already know. Like many history books covering a long period of time in a short volume, it is somewhat superficial. Anyone who has paid close attention to current events in recent history may enjoy being reminded of what they have seen on TV news, but it will not be new to them.
I don’t know about the first two volumes, but I cannot see building an entire curriculum from A Century Turns. It would, however, be a good reference book, and I would have no qualms about adding it to a reading list for my classes.
As for bias, I feel Bennett does a fairly good job of being objective in his reporting of events. He was part of the government during this time period and occasionally offers personal anecdotes. When he does offer his opinion, he makes it clear that he is doing so. Readers will have no doubt that Bennett is a conservative, but he doesn’t get preachy about it.
In conclusion, if you have not been that tuned into current events and would like to know more about the politics, government, and some popular culture of the past twenty years, you may enjoy this book.
Now that I have finished the book, I can answer these questions. I do not feel the urge to rush out and buy the first two volumes and doubt if I will read them. It’s not that A Century Turns is bad. It’s easily read and would be interesting to anyone who wants to know more about the political history of the past twenty years. The book naturally focuses on politics, since Bennett was heavily involved in government himself during these years. He does occasionally veer off into popular culture and other events, but it seems like an afterthought when he does – it doesn’t flow smoothly in my opinion. As a history teacher and CNN junkie, I learned very little from reading this book that I didn’t already know. Like many history books covering a long period of time in a short volume, it is somewhat superficial. Anyone who has paid close attention to current events in recent history may enjoy being reminded of what they have seen on TV news, but it will not be new to them.
I don’t know about the first two volumes, but I cannot see building an entire curriculum from A Century Turns. It would, however, be a good reference book, and I would have no qualms about adding it to a reading list for my classes.
As for bias, I feel Bennett does a fairly good job of being objective in his reporting of events. He was part of the government during this time period and occasionally offers personal anecdotes. When he does offer his opinion, he makes it clear that he is doing so. Readers will have no doubt that Bennett is a conservative, but he doesn’t get preachy about it.
In conclusion, if you have not been that tuned into current events and would like to know more about the politics, government, and some popular culture of the past twenty years, you may enjoy this book.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
What Can One Person Do?
Most of us have become so jaded by the propaganda dispensed from Washington, we no longer trust our leaders to tell it to us straight, or do what they say they will do. We hear so many versions of the “truth” we don’t know what to believe anymore. It’s tempting to wash our hands of it all, leaving it to the professional politicians to do what they will, for good or for ill. After all, we have busy lives. We elected these people to run the country for us so we could go about our daily business. Besides, one person can’t really make any difference, can he?
But we can’t avoid the consequences of our leaders’ actions. If they run our economy into the ground, you and I will suffer. So what can we do? I have ten suggestions:
1. Do your own thinking. No matter how much you like Glen Beck or James Carvell, don’t become a disciple of any mere mortal. Neither Hannity nor Colmes has cornered the market on truth. I may like some of the things Rush says, but I would consider it a condescending insult to be called one of his “ditto heads.” Don’t blindly follow any one political party; maintain your independence.
2. Educate yourself. Read widely from quality books, magazines, and newspapers rather than relying on biased TV and radio talk shows for all your information. Learn how government works. Study the basics of economics.
3. Do some fact-checking. Go to the source when you can. There are good web sites like FactCheck.org that analyze the words of politicians to see if they are true or false. Do some research on the issues. With the Internet at our fingertips, there is no excuse for ignorance.
4. Acknowledge your own biases and entertain the notion that you just might be wrong about some things. Truly listen to opposing arguments and be willing to change your mind if the evidence suggests that you should.
5. As a teacher, I used to tell my students that the truth is often in the middle. Be wary of extremists on either side. They are usually far more concerned with proving themselves right and their opponents wrong than they are with discovering the truth.
6. Don’t demonize those with whom you disagree. If we all stay entrenched in enemy camps, taking potshots at each other, nothing will ever be accomplished. There are good people who are conservatives. There are good people who are liberals. They just have different ideas of how our government should operate. Right or wrong, they are sincere in their beliefs. Most Americans truly love their country and want what is best for it. Can’t we meet on that common ground and start talking to each other in a civil manner?
7. Make yourself heard. You can write and call your representatives; it does make a difference. They listen to the constituents who care enough to pick up the phone and call to express their opinions. Write letters to the editor of your local paper. Attend meetings where issues will be discussed.
8. If you have children, talk to them about world and national events. Watch and discuss the news with them. Help them become involved citizens who care about the world beyond their personal lives.
9. Volunteer in your community to bring about changes you want to see. Be the difference. If you are so inclined, run for office or support someone else who espouses your views.
10. It should go without saying, but VOTE.
Maybe one person is limited in what he can do, but if a whole lot of us started doing these ten things, it WOULD make a difference!
But we can’t avoid the consequences of our leaders’ actions. If they run our economy into the ground, you and I will suffer. So what can we do? I have ten suggestions:
1. Do your own thinking. No matter how much you like Glen Beck or James Carvell, don’t become a disciple of any mere mortal. Neither Hannity nor Colmes has cornered the market on truth. I may like some of the things Rush says, but I would consider it a condescending insult to be called one of his “ditto heads.” Don’t blindly follow any one political party; maintain your independence.
2. Educate yourself. Read widely from quality books, magazines, and newspapers rather than relying on biased TV and radio talk shows for all your information. Learn how government works. Study the basics of economics.
3. Do some fact-checking. Go to the source when you can. There are good web sites like FactCheck.org that analyze the words of politicians to see if they are true or false. Do some research on the issues. With the Internet at our fingertips, there is no excuse for ignorance.
4. Acknowledge your own biases and entertain the notion that you just might be wrong about some things. Truly listen to opposing arguments and be willing to change your mind if the evidence suggests that you should.
5. As a teacher, I used to tell my students that the truth is often in the middle. Be wary of extremists on either side. They are usually far more concerned with proving themselves right and their opponents wrong than they are with discovering the truth.
6. Don’t demonize those with whom you disagree. If we all stay entrenched in enemy camps, taking potshots at each other, nothing will ever be accomplished. There are good people who are conservatives. There are good people who are liberals. They just have different ideas of how our government should operate. Right or wrong, they are sincere in their beliefs. Most Americans truly love their country and want what is best for it. Can’t we meet on that common ground and start talking to each other in a civil manner?
7. Make yourself heard. You can write and call your representatives; it does make a difference. They listen to the constituents who care enough to pick up the phone and call to express their opinions. Write letters to the editor of your local paper. Attend meetings where issues will be discussed.
8. If you have children, talk to them about world and national events. Watch and discuss the news with them. Help them become involved citizens who care about the world beyond their personal lives.
9. Volunteer in your community to bring about changes you want to see. Be the difference. If you are so inclined, run for office or support someone else who espouses your views.
10. It should go without saying, but VOTE.
Maybe one person is limited in what he can do, but if a whole lot of us started doing these ten things, it WOULD make a difference!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
An open letter to President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid:
I am writing this letter to help you understand the opposition to your healthcare reform, since your statements make it clear that you “just don’t get it.” Allow me to introduce myself.
I am not a right-wing nut case. I believe that you, President Obama, are an American citizen. I do not think you are the anti-Christ. Nor do I think that any of you are evil. You just have very different ideas about what this country should look like and how our government should work – different from mine and a lot of other people’s, that is.
I graduated summa cum laude from the University of Georgia, so I am not stupid. I taught high school government and economics before I retired last year, so I know a little about how our government works.
I do not believe your reform means that death squads will pull the plug on grandma. I fully understand that the public option in this reform bill is different from a government takeover of health care.
I am not lacking in compassion for the poor. I would like for every person to have access to adequate health care. I realize that there are inequities in our healthcare system that need to be addressed.
What I am is scared – and worried about the future of this country I love so much.
Why am I opposed to this bill? Simple – we cannot afford it. President Obama, you said so yourself; you said that the government has no money. Americans are still reeling from the $780 billion stimulus bill, the bail-out of the auto industry, and the record-breaking 1.2 trillion dollar deficit. Our economy may or may not be recovering from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, housing prices have fallen as much as 20%, and the jobless rate is still in the double digits. We are worried about our jobs and our investments. In the midst of all this, you propose that the government insure over 40 million people. Your suggestion that this could be done in a “budget-neutral” fashion would be laughable if the situation were not so serious. Absolutely nothing in the government’s past or present programs offers any hope of doing such a thing.
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the post office are broke or soon will be. With these great examples of government-run entitlements, why on earth should we trust you to run even more of our healthcare system? You are continually asked this question, and you continue to ignore it because you, of course, have no answer.
Given the government’s past performance, we have every reason to fear a bill with over 1000 pages of legalese few people, including our legislators, can read or understand. There’s just too much room for the devil to hide in the details. And we are not getting details. We hear lots of generalizations about what the reform must do, but very little specifics about how it will be paid for or how it will be administered. You expect us to support something when we don’t even know what it is.
We also feel that a bill of this magnitude, one that will affect all of our lives in matters of life and death, should not be rushed. And you are definitely trying to rush it through, because you feel that is the only chance you have of getting it passed. I want to know that experts from every part of the healthcare industry and the insurance industry have sat down together to talk about ways to reduce costs and make sure people receive the care they need. And I want those experts to come from different sides of the political spectrum so all viewpoints will be considered.
I am tired of the back-and-forth arguments that only touch the surface of this debate. You keep telling people they can keep their insurance. I heard you. I KNOW that is what the bill says. The question you do not answer is, will our insurance policies still be available to us after all this reform takes place? Will insurance companies be able to meet your requirements and compete with the public option? And what will happen to our premiums when insurance companies are forced to cover preexisting conditions?
You argue that costs will be brought down by cutting out waste. Well, for crying out loud, if all that waste could be cut so easily, why haven’t we already done that? We all know that Medicare is wrought with fraud, but no one has been able to stop it. More government insurance will just mean more fraud as unscrupulous people rush to take advantage of “free” money.
You say that Medicare can be reduced by “reallocating” money, but you never explain what that means. Can you blame people for thinking that means less care for old people? What else could it mean?
It is very unwise to dismiss me and others like me as “angry mobs” orchestrated by Republican leaders and FOX News. Of course these town hall meetings are organized; aren’t all meetings? No one forces people to attend; they come because they are concerned. The fear and anger people express at these meetings is genuine, and if you don’t know that, you really are living in a bubble up there in Washington. I hear it everywhere I go – stores, restaurants, and doctors’ offices. It comes up at every social gathering. In fact, I have never seen an issue galvanize public opinion the way this one has. You can listen to us now, or listen to us at the polls come the next election.
Here is what I want: Slow down. See if there are other ways to address inequities without so much government control or expense. Work together with the Republicans. This is so important that we truly need a bipartisan plan. Find ways to bring down medical costs, since these rising costs are what will break the system eventually, whether it is public or private. Do everything in your power to take the politics out of this; stop the rhetoric. Tell us the truth; we can handle it. Please listen to our concerns.
Sincerely,
Paula Canup, Hayesville, NC
I am not a right-wing nut case. I believe that you, President Obama, are an American citizen. I do not think you are the anti-Christ. Nor do I think that any of you are evil. You just have very different ideas about what this country should look like and how our government should work – different from mine and a lot of other people’s, that is.
I graduated summa cum laude from the University of Georgia, so I am not stupid. I taught high school government and economics before I retired last year, so I know a little about how our government works.
I do not believe your reform means that death squads will pull the plug on grandma. I fully understand that the public option in this reform bill is different from a government takeover of health care.
I am not lacking in compassion for the poor. I would like for every person to have access to adequate health care. I realize that there are inequities in our healthcare system that need to be addressed.
What I am is scared – and worried about the future of this country I love so much.
Why am I opposed to this bill? Simple – we cannot afford it. President Obama, you said so yourself; you said that the government has no money. Americans are still reeling from the $780 billion stimulus bill, the bail-out of the auto industry, and the record-breaking 1.2 trillion dollar deficit. Our economy may or may not be recovering from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, housing prices have fallen as much as 20%, and the jobless rate is still in the double digits. We are worried about our jobs and our investments. In the midst of all this, you propose that the government insure over 40 million people. Your suggestion that this could be done in a “budget-neutral” fashion would be laughable if the situation were not so serious. Absolutely nothing in the government’s past or present programs offers any hope of doing such a thing.
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the post office are broke or soon will be. With these great examples of government-run entitlements, why on earth should we trust you to run even more of our healthcare system? You are continually asked this question, and you continue to ignore it because you, of course, have no answer.
Given the government’s past performance, we have every reason to fear a bill with over 1000 pages of legalese few people, including our legislators, can read or understand. There’s just too much room for the devil to hide in the details. And we are not getting details. We hear lots of generalizations about what the reform must do, but very little specifics about how it will be paid for or how it will be administered. You expect us to support something when we don’t even know what it is.
We also feel that a bill of this magnitude, one that will affect all of our lives in matters of life and death, should not be rushed. And you are definitely trying to rush it through, because you feel that is the only chance you have of getting it passed. I want to know that experts from every part of the healthcare industry and the insurance industry have sat down together to talk about ways to reduce costs and make sure people receive the care they need. And I want those experts to come from different sides of the political spectrum so all viewpoints will be considered.
I am tired of the back-and-forth arguments that only touch the surface of this debate. You keep telling people they can keep their insurance. I heard you. I KNOW that is what the bill says. The question you do not answer is, will our insurance policies still be available to us after all this reform takes place? Will insurance companies be able to meet your requirements and compete with the public option? And what will happen to our premiums when insurance companies are forced to cover preexisting conditions?
You argue that costs will be brought down by cutting out waste. Well, for crying out loud, if all that waste could be cut so easily, why haven’t we already done that? We all know that Medicare is wrought with fraud, but no one has been able to stop it. More government insurance will just mean more fraud as unscrupulous people rush to take advantage of “free” money.
You say that Medicare can be reduced by “reallocating” money, but you never explain what that means. Can you blame people for thinking that means less care for old people? What else could it mean?
It is very unwise to dismiss me and others like me as “angry mobs” orchestrated by Republican leaders and FOX News. Of course these town hall meetings are organized; aren’t all meetings? No one forces people to attend; they come because they are concerned. The fear and anger people express at these meetings is genuine, and if you don’t know that, you really are living in a bubble up there in Washington. I hear it everywhere I go – stores, restaurants, and doctors’ offices. It comes up at every social gathering. In fact, I have never seen an issue galvanize public opinion the way this one has. You can listen to us now, or listen to us at the polls come the next election.
Here is what I want: Slow down. See if there are other ways to address inequities without so much government control or expense. Work together with the Republicans. This is so important that we truly need a bipartisan plan. Find ways to bring down medical costs, since these rising costs are what will break the system eventually, whether it is public or private. Do everything in your power to take the politics out of this; stop the rhetoric. Tell us the truth; we can handle it. Please listen to our concerns.
Sincerely,
Paula Canup, Hayesville, NC
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Insurance companies - do they deserve to die?
Normally, I write my own material. Sometimes, however, I find an article that already says exactly what I wanted to say! I am reprinting one here from Investors Business Daily, a newspaper my father subscribes to. It explains the situation with insurance companies better than I ever could.
Real Debate Is Individualism Vs. Collectivism
By ROBERT TRACINSKI | Posted Tuesday, August 11, 2009 4:20 PM PT
The goal of the Democrats' plan for health care reform is coming more and more out into the open: They want to eliminate health insurance.
This is the line of attack the Democrats have chosen as they've gone into the August recess:
Private health insurance companies are evil, and big government is here to save us from them.
According to the New York Times, President Obama is planning an "August offensive against the insurance industry." It is "a campaign of increasingly harsh rhetoric" that is "intended to drive home the message that revamping the health care system will protect consumers by ending unpopular insurance industry practices, like refusing patients with pre-existing conditions."
That part about pre-existing conditions gives the game away. Health insurance companies refuse to cover pre-existing conditions for the same reason that you can't insure your automobile after you crash it.
Insurance is a form of financing for the unexpected and unpredictable. It is not a mechanism to force somebody else to pick up the tab for expenses you have already incurred.
Do the Democrats even understand what insurance is? Insurance is a form of financing. It is a contract under which a health insurance company agrees to pay for medical bills that could run into the tens of thousands of dollars, if you are hit by a bus or are diagnosed with cancer, so that you don't have to pay for those bills out of your income or savings.
So let's ask the question the left never asks: How is it possible for an insurance company to pay for these giant medical bills?
Welfare, Not Insurance
For every person who needs open-heart surgery or chemotherapy, there have to be a certain number of other people who are paying their premiums but haven't gotten seriously ill. If the insurance company has gotten its calculations right, the expenses for any one person's catastrophic care are balanced out by the premiums other people pay "just in case."
You can see how Obama's demands undermine all of these calculations. To ask insurance companies to cover a patient after the tumor is diagnosed is to ask them to take on a known expense. Combine that with another of the president's demands — that insurance companies can't charge higher rates for those who are at higher risk of getting sick.
So if insurance companies have to take on a known expense and can't charge a higher rate for it, how are they going to pay for it? By raising everyone else's premiums, redistributing their wealth to the new freeloaders.
This isn't insurance, it's welfare. And that's the whole point.
Government regulations and enormous government spending have already distorted the health care market for decades, but the current legislation is the coup de grace. Its whole point is to force insurance companies to act as if they are government welfare agencies.
And when the insurance companies collapse under that artificial burden, the government will drop the pretense and have the welfare agencies, under the banner of the "public option," take over.
Don't be fooled by labels. The "public option" is not insurance, because it is deliberately designed not to balance premiums against risk.
Precious Right
And instead of choosing how much coverage you are willing to pay for, everyone is forced into a plan designed by an Orwellian "Health Choices Commissioner." When you get sick, you don't have a contract with a private company that you can enforce. You are dependent on benefits that are doled out uniformly to everyone by the government.
There are no independent individuals in this system. It is designed to make everyone dependent on the collective will of the government — which can decide to reduce your care or pay less for it when costs spiral.
The Democrats oppose health insurance because it's based on an opposite idea: that people are independent individuals who should be expected — and have the right — to pay their own way. It is a system in which people decide what level of coverage they want and how much they are willing to pay for it, and insurance companies balance an individual's premiums against his health risks.
Paying your own way is a demanding responsibility, but it is also a precious right that few people want to give up. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and when it comes to health care, our lives depend on being able to call the tune.
Will we be independent individuals with some control over our own fate — or will we be cogs in the collective, forced to be dependent on government for the most important needs of our lives?
Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com.
.
Real Debate Is Individualism Vs. Collectivism
By ROBERT TRACINSKI | Posted Tuesday, August 11, 2009 4:20 PM PT
The goal of the Democrats' plan for health care reform is coming more and more out into the open: They want to eliminate health insurance.
This is the line of attack the Democrats have chosen as they've gone into the August recess:
Private health insurance companies are evil, and big government is here to save us from them.
According to the New York Times, President Obama is planning an "August offensive against the insurance industry." It is "a campaign of increasingly harsh rhetoric" that is "intended to drive home the message that revamping the health care system will protect consumers by ending unpopular insurance industry practices, like refusing patients with pre-existing conditions."
That part about pre-existing conditions gives the game away. Health insurance companies refuse to cover pre-existing conditions for the same reason that you can't insure your automobile after you crash it.
Insurance is a form of financing for the unexpected and unpredictable. It is not a mechanism to force somebody else to pick up the tab for expenses you have already incurred.
Do the Democrats even understand what insurance is? Insurance is a form of financing. It is a contract under which a health insurance company agrees to pay for medical bills that could run into the tens of thousands of dollars, if you are hit by a bus or are diagnosed with cancer, so that you don't have to pay for those bills out of your income or savings.
So let's ask the question the left never asks: How is it possible for an insurance company to pay for these giant medical bills?
Welfare, Not Insurance
For every person who needs open-heart surgery or chemotherapy, there have to be a certain number of other people who are paying their premiums but haven't gotten seriously ill. If the insurance company has gotten its calculations right, the expenses for any one person's catastrophic care are balanced out by the premiums other people pay "just in case."
You can see how Obama's demands undermine all of these calculations. To ask insurance companies to cover a patient after the tumor is diagnosed is to ask them to take on a known expense. Combine that with another of the president's demands — that insurance companies can't charge higher rates for those who are at higher risk of getting sick.
So if insurance companies have to take on a known expense and can't charge a higher rate for it, how are they going to pay for it? By raising everyone else's premiums, redistributing their wealth to the new freeloaders.
This isn't insurance, it's welfare. And that's the whole point.
Government regulations and enormous government spending have already distorted the health care market for decades, but the current legislation is the coup de grace. Its whole point is to force insurance companies to act as if they are government welfare agencies.
And when the insurance companies collapse under that artificial burden, the government will drop the pretense and have the welfare agencies, under the banner of the "public option," take over.
Don't be fooled by labels. The "public option" is not insurance, because it is deliberately designed not to balance premiums against risk.
Precious Right
And instead of choosing how much coverage you are willing to pay for, everyone is forced into a plan designed by an Orwellian "Health Choices Commissioner." When you get sick, you don't have a contract with a private company that you can enforce. You are dependent on benefits that are doled out uniformly to everyone by the government.
There are no independent individuals in this system. It is designed to make everyone dependent on the collective will of the government — which can decide to reduce your care or pay less for it when costs spiral.
The Democrats oppose health insurance because it's based on an opposite idea: that people are independent individuals who should be expected — and have the right — to pay their own way. It is a system in which people decide what level of coverage they want and how much they are willing to pay for it, and insurance companies balance an individual's premiums against his health risks.
Paying your own way is a demanding responsibility, but it is also a precious right that few people want to give up. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and when it comes to health care, our lives depend on being able to call the tune.
Will we be independent individuals with some control over our own fate — or will we be cogs in the collective, forced to be dependent on government for the most important needs of our lives?
Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com.
.
Where I Stand
In yesterday’s blog, I made the comment that I was probably more moderate than many of my ultraconservative students. I thought I would explain exactly where I stand in today’s blog.
I do not wish to be a member of any political party. I consider myself independent, though I have voted Republican in every presidential election I have voted in – and that’s all of them since I turned eighteen. I am not inclined to join political action groups of any stripe, primarily because they are almost always more radical in their beliefs than I am.
I consider myself moderately conservative. As a Christian, I hold certain family values that are extremely important to me, and as a rule, Republicans have tended to uphold those values more than Democrats have.
I also value my freedom and feel that the less government control we HAVE to have, the better. However, I also know that some control is absolutely necessary for an orderly and functioning society. It is a matter of degree. It is not a question of all regulations or none at all, but a question of how much regulation is needed to provide for an efficient economy and a fair society. It is this belief that makes me more moderate than many.
I am a firm believer in capitalism and free enterprise, but I recognize the evils of unrestrained greed. Wall Street has demonstrated that quite well in the past decade. Clearly, more oversight and regulation could have prevented the housing debacle. The trick now is to institute enough control to prevent another crash without stifling growth. It won’t be easy, and it will require reasonable minds willing to work together and compromise to make it work.
I do not put stock in conspiracy theories. There are well-known and respected conservatives in the media who would reveal such nefarious goings-on if they did, in fact, exist.
I also get frustrated with people who see devils behind every tree. To them, everything the opposition does has some sinister meaning. For example, much has been made in the past week about the President asking people to forward emails to the White House if they contain criticism of his healthcare reform. Suddenly people are convinced that he is creating some kind of enemy list, red-flagging American citizens who need “watching.” A far more likely explanation is that he simply wants to know what people are saying so he can refute it, and that is exactly what he is doing with his “reality check” web site.
I do not hate Barack Obama. I do not think he is evil, nor do I believe he is the anti-Christ. That alone places me squarely to the left of many of my friends and family. I feel he is quite genuine in his liberal beliefs and honestly thinks he is changing this country for the better. I just don’t agree with him.
I do not get my kicks from bashing the President. I was appalled by the vitriolic hatred directed at President Bush by the left, and find it just as appalling when such hatred is directed at Obama. I still have the old-fashioned belief that we should respect the office even if we don’t respect the man himself.
While humor is an acceptable way to make political points, many of the off-color jokes, especially the racial ones, directed at Obama are inappropriate. I don’t appreciate it when they show up in my email box. A good, clean joke is another matter. I happen to think that “Obamanation” is a very clever play on words.
I do think that Obama is much more liberal than the average American and, therefore, does not represent us well, even if we did elect him. (That can be explained by demographics and the anger towards Bush.) He also has no real experience in governing, and none whatsoever in business or the military. Because I believe a person CAN be judged by the company he keeps, I have serious concerns about many of his past associations. I cannot believe that he sat under the teachings of the radical Reverend Wright without being influenced by him. I know I would not stay in a church for over twenty years if I did not agree with the pastor on important matters. I also wonder how a man without big money and connections rose to the top of the Chicago political machine, which is historically one of the most corrupt governments in the United States.
I also do not feel that Obama can be trusted to do what he says he will do. He has already done a complete about-face on several issues. I think he has a very liberal agenda and will do whatever it takes to put it into action.
I, like many Americans, am frightened by the huge deficit Obama is creating. I love my country, but I am very, very worried about its future. We are naïve if we think that our economy cannot come crashing down – it can. And then who knows what would happen? I can’t even go there.
I do not like the way crucial legislation is being rushed through Congress. Issues such as healthcare reform are much too important to get wrong.
My final point is that we have very real and serious issues that need to be addressed in a reasonable fashion. The hatred, unfounded suspicions, and name-calling get us nowhere.
Let’s get past all that and start talking to one another, no matter what our political leaning.
I do not wish to be a member of any political party. I consider myself independent, though I have voted Republican in every presidential election I have voted in – and that’s all of them since I turned eighteen. I am not inclined to join political action groups of any stripe, primarily because they are almost always more radical in their beliefs than I am.
I consider myself moderately conservative. As a Christian, I hold certain family values that are extremely important to me, and as a rule, Republicans have tended to uphold those values more than Democrats have.
I also value my freedom and feel that the less government control we HAVE to have, the better. However, I also know that some control is absolutely necessary for an orderly and functioning society. It is a matter of degree. It is not a question of all regulations or none at all, but a question of how much regulation is needed to provide for an efficient economy and a fair society. It is this belief that makes me more moderate than many.
I am a firm believer in capitalism and free enterprise, but I recognize the evils of unrestrained greed. Wall Street has demonstrated that quite well in the past decade. Clearly, more oversight and regulation could have prevented the housing debacle. The trick now is to institute enough control to prevent another crash without stifling growth. It won’t be easy, and it will require reasonable minds willing to work together and compromise to make it work.
I do not put stock in conspiracy theories. There are well-known and respected conservatives in the media who would reveal such nefarious goings-on if they did, in fact, exist.
I also get frustrated with people who see devils behind every tree. To them, everything the opposition does has some sinister meaning. For example, much has been made in the past week about the President asking people to forward emails to the White House if they contain criticism of his healthcare reform. Suddenly people are convinced that he is creating some kind of enemy list, red-flagging American citizens who need “watching.” A far more likely explanation is that he simply wants to know what people are saying so he can refute it, and that is exactly what he is doing with his “reality check” web site.
I do not hate Barack Obama. I do not think he is evil, nor do I believe he is the anti-Christ. That alone places me squarely to the left of many of my friends and family. I feel he is quite genuine in his liberal beliefs and honestly thinks he is changing this country for the better. I just don’t agree with him.
I do not get my kicks from bashing the President. I was appalled by the vitriolic hatred directed at President Bush by the left, and find it just as appalling when such hatred is directed at Obama. I still have the old-fashioned belief that we should respect the office even if we don’t respect the man himself.
While humor is an acceptable way to make political points, many of the off-color jokes, especially the racial ones, directed at Obama are inappropriate. I don’t appreciate it when they show up in my email box. A good, clean joke is another matter. I happen to think that “Obamanation” is a very clever play on words.
I do think that Obama is much more liberal than the average American and, therefore, does not represent us well, even if we did elect him. (That can be explained by demographics and the anger towards Bush.) He also has no real experience in governing, and none whatsoever in business or the military. Because I believe a person CAN be judged by the company he keeps, I have serious concerns about many of his past associations. I cannot believe that he sat under the teachings of the radical Reverend Wright without being influenced by him. I know I would not stay in a church for over twenty years if I did not agree with the pastor on important matters. I also wonder how a man without big money and connections rose to the top of the Chicago political machine, which is historically one of the most corrupt governments in the United States.
I also do not feel that Obama can be trusted to do what he says he will do. He has already done a complete about-face on several issues. I think he has a very liberal agenda and will do whatever it takes to put it into action.
I, like many Americans, am frightened by the huge deficit Obama is creating. I love my country, but I am very, very worried about its future. We are naïve if we think that our economy cannot come crashing down – it can. And then who knows what would happen? I can’t even go there.
I do not like the way crucial legislation is being rushed through Congress. Issues such as healthcare reform are much too important to get wrong.
My final point is that we have very real and serious issues that need to be addressed in a reasonable fashion. The hatred, unfounded suspicions, and name-calling get us nowhere.
Let’s get past all that and start talking to one another, no matter what our political leaning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
