The American people did not want socialized health care in the 90’s (promoted by Hillary Clinton) and they don’t want it now (promoted by President Obama). As you now know – this isn’t just about healthcare – there is a bigger agenda at work here. Everyone is beginning to realize this. People in America are waking up.
This quote from the article below says it all:
One woman prompted a standing ovation by telling Specter: "I don't believe this is just health care. This is about the systematic dismantling of this country. … I don't want this country turning into Russia, turning into a socialized country. What are you going to do to restore this country back to what our founders created, according to the Constitution?"
A standing ovation. Americans want what we’ve always wanted – freedom to choose our own way – and it does not matter what the issue is. We do not want anyone (including our Government) making our decisions for us.
The problem is that we no longer resemble our nation when it was founded. Most of our current leaders have no idea what our founding fathers created (a Republic where we all have inalienable rights) – so they don’t understand when we say we want to return to the nation that our founders created.
Instead, we get answers like this:
However, Specter also noted that overhauling the health-care system is about America taking care of all its people.
"In our social contract, we have provisions that see to it that you take care of people who need some help," he said.
Mr. Specter – the U.S. Constitution is not a ‘social contract’ – nor does it contain provisions that the U.S. Government should take care of everyone. Actually – it was created to do the opposite – to give us freedom to take care of ourselves. I admit – providing healthcare to everyone sounds good on paper (as many things do) – but in reality – it fails (as many things do once they face the harsh test of reality). It fails because you would force us to pay a bloated, wasteful, incompetent government to manage yet one more facet of our lives. You are, once again, taking away my right to choose based on a free market. Can a private enterprise that must play by the rules of finance (private healthcare) – compete with a massive entity that does not (our government)? Over time – government healthcare will become our only healthcare (regardless of what you tell us) - a healthcare system where decisions are made for us - a healthcare system that we do not want.
Do we think the government does a good job with what it already manages? No. Do we think a government that has repeatedly shown us that it cannot balance a budget and has driven us to the edge of financial ruin can somehow manage another bloated bureaucracy? No.
Should we help people Mr. Specter? Yes – we should. But that is my personal decision. I choose whether to give to my Church and charities, whether to help my family and my friends – whether to help someone who needs assistance. I choose what to do with my money. I do not want to give it to a huge bureaucracy and watch it vanish without any knowledge of how it is really being spent. Contrary to what you believe – my money is not yours to do with as you please. With all of the local, state and federal taxes I pay – I don’t want to give you any more of my money to mismanage. Not one dime.
I believe that most Americans feel the same way I do – which is why people are angry about this universal healthcare proposal. As Americans, we do not like to have anything shoved down our throats – and this is exactly what you are doing. I have read that most of the town hall meetings have been highly tense affairs – with lots of shouting and accusations. This may be a surprise to the people in Washington D.C. – but it’s not a surprise to me. You are slowly taking away our freedoms – and we’re now noticing. This isn’t just about healthcare Mr. Specter – it’s about the American people getting fed up with our incompetent leadership losing touch with the people who elected them.
The American people have been lied to – about many things over the past few years. We have been told repeatedly that all of these stimulus and bailout packages will revive our economy – but our economy continues to deteriorate. Many of us are now realizing that most of the ‘stimulus’ is going to big banks and corporations – not us. We see our government mismanaging our finances at the local, state and federal level – leading to massive deficits and budget cuts – which is accelerating our decline.
We have been lied to about the events of September 11, 2001. Many people have demanded an independent investigation of 9/11 (family members of those killed, many architects and engineers who view the events with a trained eye, many American citizens – thousands upon thousands of people). To date – we have received no response.
The majority of Americans opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – yet off we go to fight two wars. These wars are killing and injuring our sons, daughters, fathers and mothers. These wars are separating us from our families – straining our marriages, keeping us from our children. We don’t know when they will end. We hear lots of talk of pulling out of these countries – but we see no action.
Mr. Specter – we are beginning to understand that our government is no longer by the people – for the people. It now does what it wants – whenever it wants. It is now for those special interests that have money and power. It is no longer for us – it is for you – to do with as you please. Many of us are losing our jobs – we are being forced out of our homes – we are struggling to afford food to eat – and while we continue to struggle, we see you giving more money to failing banks and financial institutions. We see you approving $500 million for private jets so that our Congressional ‘leadership’ can travel the world. I’m sure traveling to the South Pole or Mongolia is nice – I’m just not sure why I’m paying for it.
Mr. Specter, we do not care if Bank of America or Goldman Sachs fails. These are large institutions that took huge risks in order to chase after profits. They made horrible business decisions. In a truly free market – if you make colossal mistakes – it is quite possible that you will fail. If you fail – others step in to pick up the pieces. If the entire system fails – then maybe it’s time for a new system that doesn’t favor a small group of powerful interests. We understand this – why don’t you? You are taking my tax money and giving it to wealthy people who failed. It surprises you that I’m angry about this?
Mr. Specter, small businesses support approximately 70-80% of the jobs in America – yet everything you are doing (proposed healthcare taxes, healthcare requirements, access to loans/capital, etc.) is hurting small business. Based on your actions – it would appear that you are attempting to destroy small businesses while supporting large financial institutions and corporations. It surprises you that I’m angry about this?
Mr. Specter, I will warn you and our President that the American people are waking up. We are now realizing what you are trying to do – and we don’t like it. We will tolerate some things – but we will not tolerate the destruction of our freedom. We want less government – not more. We do not want you managing our businesses or our healthcare plans. We want you out of our lives as much as possible. We want a Republic where our rights are honored above all else and our government actually listens to us.
Mr. Specter, if you insist on taking away more of our freedoms - then you will force us to act. These town hall meetings are just the beginning. Maybe you think we’re soft and easily manipulated? Maybe we have been – but no longer. Do I need to remind you what has happened in the past to those who have threatened our freedom in America? This nation was founded because England tried to do – exactly what you are trying to do to us. We have never accepted oppressive government – and we won’t now. Continue to threaten our freedom as you are doing now – and we will unite - and stand against you. Make no mistake – we are not like you. We will not give in easily to socialism and global government. You are waking a sleeping giant.
Mr. Specter, if we allow you and our leaders in Washington D.C. to destroy this country – then everyone who fought and died to protect our freedom – will have died in vain. We can’t let that happen. We won’t let that happen.
We will truly unite under God. We will seek our creator and ask Him to forgive us for what we have become. We will seek knowledge and wisdom from Him – not you. We will ask for strength and courage from the Creator of the heavens and earth. We will put away our prejudices and our differences and we will stand - against you and the global elite.
Mr. Specter, we do not want healthcare reform – we want our freedom. We don’t want the government running our lives – we want to remain free to choose. We want to be free of this international banking cartel that is destroying our economy and our nation. We want strong leaders who will stare into the face of evil and not flinch – but stand for us. We want leaders who are honorable and listen to us – and act in our best interests – not in the interests of a small minority.
We want true leadership – and we’re not getting it.
jg – August 11, 2009
___________________________
Specter faces angry crowd at town hall meeting
CNN.com
Posted: August 11th, 2009 12:02 PM ET
LEBANON, Pennsylvania (CNN) — A hostile crowd shouted questions and made angry statements Tuesday at a town hall meeting on health care led by Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter.
At one point, Specter shouted into his microphone that demonstrators disrupting the proceedings would be thrown out.
"We're not going to tolerate any demonstrations or any booing," he said after one audience member shoved another making an unsolicited speech. "So it's up to you."
Many in the crowd identified themselves as conservative Republicans, with one man noting they had voted Specter to Congress before the senator changed parties earlier this year.
One woman prompted a standing ovation by telling Specter: "I don't believe this is just health care. This is about the systematic dismantling of this country. … I don't want this country turning into Russia, turning into a socialized country. What are you going to do to restore this country back to what our founders created, according to the Constitution?"
Specter responded by noting his support for the Constitution as a past chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on issues such as warrantless wiretaps.
"When you ask me to defend the Constitution, that's what I've been doing," Specter said.
However, Specter also noted that overhauling the health-care system is about America taking care of all its people.
"In our social contract, we have provisions that see to it that you take care of people who need some help," he said.
Several people asked if a health-care bill would mean taxpayer dollars would pay for others to get abortions. Specter responded that any measure passed by Congress would allow people to choose a plan that didn't cover abortions.
The shoving incident occurred early in the 90-minute session, when a man started shouting that he had been told by Specter's staff that he could speak, but he didn't get one of the 30 cards distributed to people allowing them to ask questions. Another man stood up and shoved the protester, and Specter approached the men shouting for calm.
"You and your cronies in government do this kind of stuff all the time," the protester shouted before leaving the hall. "I'm not a lobbyist with all kinds of money to stuff in your pockets. I'll leave you so you can do whatever the hell you do."
________________________________
AUGUST 11, 2009
Obama’s Tone-Deaf Health Campaign
Wall St. Journal
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
It didn’t take chaotic town-hall meetings, raging demonstrators and consequent brooding in various sectors of the media to bring home the truth that the campaign for a health-care bill is, to put it mildly, not going awfully well. It’s not hard now to envision the state of this crusade with just a month or two more of diligent management by the Obama team—think train wreck. It may one day be otherwise in the more perfect world of universal coverage, but for now disabilities like the tone deafness that afflicts this administration from the top down are uninsurable.
Consider former ABC reporter Linda Douglass—now the president’s communications director for health reform—who set about unmasking all the forces out there “always trying to scare people when you try to bring them health insurance reform.” People, she charged, are taking sentences out of context and otherwise working to present a misleading picture of the president’s proposals. One of her key solutions to this problem—her justly famed message encouraging citizens to contact the office at flag@whitehouse.gov if they got an email or other information about health reform “that seems fishy”—set off a riotous flow of online responses. (The word “fishy,” with its police detective tone, would have done the trick all by itself.)
These commentaries, packed with allusions to the secret police, the East German Stasi and Orwell, were mostly furious. Others quite simply hilarious. Ms. Douglass, who now has, in her public appearances, the air of a person consigned to service in a holy order, was not amused.
Neither has she seemed to entertain any second thoughts about the tenor of a message enlisting the public in a program reeking of a White House effort to set Americans against one another—the good Americans protecting the president’s health-care program from the bad Americans fighting it and undermining truth and goodness.
She intended no such outcome, doubtless. That this former journalist, now a communications director, failed to notice anything amiss in the details of that communiqué is a bit odd but not altogether surprising.
Crusades are busy endeavors, the enlistees in this one, like those in every undertaking of this White House, concerned with just one message. Which is that the Obama administration is in possession of vital answers to ills and inequities that have long afflicted American society (whether Americans know it or not), and that those opposed to those answers and that vision are cynics, or operatives of the powerful vested interests responsible for the plight Americans find themselves in (whether they know it or not), or political enemies bent on destroying the Obama administration.
It shouldn’t have been surprising, either, that the tone of much of the commentary on the town-hall protests was what it was. There was Mark Halperin for one, senior political editor for Time, bouncing off his chair, Sunday, in agitation over all the media coverage of this rowdiness—“a horrible breakdown of our political culture, our media culture” and so “bad for America,” as he told CNN’s Howard Kurtz. “I’m embarrassed about what’s going on, as an American.” The disruptions and coverage thereof distorted serious discussion, he explained. Mark Shields said much the same on Friday’s PBS NewsHour, if with less excitation, pointing out that these events were “not good for the democratic process,” and were a breakdown of civil debate.
There was no such hand-wringing over the decline of civil debate, during, say, election 2004, when cadres of organized demonstrators carrying swastika-adorned pictures of George W. Bush routinely swarmed about, and packed rallies. There was also that other “breakdown of our media culture,” that will dwarf all else as a cause for embarrassment, the town-hall coverage included, for the foreseeable future. That would be, of course, the undisguised worshipful reporting of the candidacy of Barack Obama.
That treatment, or rather its memory—like the adulation of his great mass of voters—has had its effect on this president, and not all to the good. The election over, the warming glow of those armies of supporters gone, his capacity to tolerate criticism and dissent from his policies grows thinner apace. His lectures, explaining his health-care proposals, and why they’ll be good for everybody, are clearly not going down well with his national audience.
This would have to do with the fact that the real Barack Obama—product of the academic left, social reformer with a program, is now before that audience, and what they hear in this lecture about one of the central concerns in their lives—his message freighted with generalities—they are not prepared to buy. They are not prepared to believe that our first most important concern now is health-care reform or all will go under.
The president has a problem. For, despite a great election victory, Mr. Obama, it becomes ever clearer, knows little about Americans. He knows the crowds—he is at home with those. He is a stranger to the country’s heart and character.
He seems unable to grasp what runs counter to its nature. That Americans don’t take well, for instance, to bullying, especially of the moralizing kind, implicit in those speeches on health care for everybody. Neither do they wish to be taken where they don’t know they want to go and being told it’s good for them.
Who would have believed that this politician celebrated, above all, for his eloquence and capacity to connect with voters would end up as president proving so profoundly tone deaf? A great many people is the answer—the same who listened to those speeches of his during the campaign, searching for their meaning.
It took this battle over health care to reveal the bloom coming off this rose, but that was coming. It began with the spectacle of the president, impelled to go abroad to apologize for his nation—repeatedly. It is not, in the end, the demonstrators in those town-hall meetings or the agitations of his political enemies that Mr. Obama should fear. It is the judgment of those Americans who have been sitting quietly in their homes, listening to him.
—Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.
Showing posts with label health care reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care reform. Show all posts
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief
The following is an article on Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel - health adviser to President Obama. Anytime I see someone in our government who believes something like this – I immediately think – the socialism train continues to move forward.
“Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs”
Wouldn’t it be in the best interests of society to help individual patients? Isn’t this why the Hippocratic Oath was created? What, exactly, does Dr. Emanuel mean when he says ‘the greater good of society’? The rest of the article gives us a few clues.
“In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs.”
Wow. I don’t know about you – but when I go to the Doctor – I prefer that the Doctor is focused on me – not ‘the greater good of society’. I don’t want anything that isn’t required – and I would hope that the Doctor would only do what was necessary (using his/her knowledge and expertise to determine the best course of action). I don’t want to go to the Doctor and wonder if I’m getting the care I need because the best course of action for me isn’t best for ‘society’.
‘But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care."’
I don’t believe Americans want Doctors ‘serving’ anyone or anything – least of all ‘society’ – and I feel reasonably confident when I say that I’m sure Doctors don’t want to ‘serve’ society. Let me translate - by ‘society’, Dr. Emanuel means our government. All of this socialism rhetoric is the same. We need to serve ‘society’, the ‘state’, the ‘greater good’, etc.
What we want is for our Doctor to give us an open and honest evaluation – and recommend a best course of action based on their expertise and some common sense. What we don’t want to hear is – ‘I can’t perform that procedure or administer that treatment because – in the long term – it’s not socially sustainable’. I don’t even know what that means. What nonsense.
‘Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going:’
I’ll translate again – Dr. Emanuel proposes that our government will dictate to our medical professionals how to treat individuals ‘in a way that keeps society going’. What does ‘keep society going’ mean? Let’s find out.
“Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."
The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).”
So, the health advisor to the President of the United States advocates a healthcare system that discriminates against the oldest and the youngest of us. It doesn’t matter what the condition is – or what may be required – if you are older or younger than the general population – you are at the end of the healthcare line. I imagine that the people who share Dr. Emanuel’s view must look at this issue with a coldness I do not possess. The question I would ask Dr. Emanuel is this – if his infant son or daughter needed an immediate heart operation to save their life – but couldn’t get it because of this system – what would he do? If his father or mother couldn’t get a needed operation to save their life because of this system – how would he feel then? Would that same cold intellect remain or would feelings interfere?
It’s easier to talk about healthcare discrimination from a 30,000 foot level – it’s much harder if we consider the real world consequences. If my son or daughter’s life was threatened, I’m afraid that the ‘greater good of society’ would take a backseat to my child’s health. In fact, my own life would take a backseat to the health of my child. We need to value everyone’s life – regardless of age, race, etc.
Knowing how the global elite operate and how they are pushing a socialist agenda forward around the globe – this type of healthcare discrimination rhetoric is only the start. If we allow this – it won’t stop there. Once you allow discrimination based on age – it’s a very small step to enact laws that prevent healthcare altogether to certain people - people who do not adhere to your unbiblical laws – who do not go along with your evil plans. Remember – those who do not have the ‘mark’ of this political beast – will not be able to buy or sell – or be part of the world system. A socialist healthcare system is going to be a piece of that system. I assure you – the global elite at the top of this socialist hierarchy will not have a problem getting healthcare. Once again – this isn’t simply about healthcare – it’s about control of the world’s population.
Once again we see that lies are trumpeted as the truth (below) to push an agenda. Standard operating procedure.
“Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."
This is untrue, though sadly it’s parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it’s an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel’s views.”
Before I decided to overhaul our healthcare system – I would start by researching the following things completely:
1. What is actually driving healthcare costs to astronomical levels? I would like to see how a hospital charges patients and their cost basis for the products and services they provide. A child of a friend of mine recently had outpatient oral surgery – no overnight stay. The price was over $10,000. Is it the products (anesthesia) or services (surgeon’s time) or both that are causing a bill this high? Are bills being excessively padded due to other people who cannot pay? How do pharmaceutical companies price drugs? Do they give any pricing consideration to high volume drugs or drugs that are crucial for some people – or do they exploit the system? I don’t know the answers – but if you want to really understand what’s happening – this is the place to start.
2. How much power and influence do healthcare insurance companies wield? Based on my own experiences – I would say – a lot. Are these companies actually trying to reduce costs and provide a needed service or are they using their power and influence to increase profits at the expense of the healthcare system? Why should we be at the mercy of a huge corporation when determining whether or not we should undergo a certain procedure or whether or not we should receive a certain type of care? Shouldn’t we have enough trust in our Doctors to let them make the decision based on our health and the most cost effective way to treat our problem? Do I trust a huge bureaucracy or my Doctor? Do these companies have certain lucrative contracts that funnel products and services to certain providers, suppliers, hospitals, etc. – that may be more expensive to us and provide substandard care? Why do we even need insurance for everything? I don’t have the answers – but someone who is really trying to solve this problem – should.
3. From what I read, malpractice insurance rates seem to be increasing by ridiculous amounts – which I’m sure is driving up costs for everyone in the system. How many malpractice lawsuits are filed each year? What are the reasons? Are the reasons valid? How much of the money from lawsuits goes to the plaintiffs versus the lawyers? Are there lawyers who specialize in this (That would tell us something – either the lawyers are simply profiting from the healthcare system or we have a tremendous amount of incompetent Doctors in the system)? The overriding question is – are we filing lawsuits because someone intentionally caused us harm – or are we simply chasing after money? If a doctor made an honest mistake – did the mistake cause significant harm requiring additional care and monetary assistance – or are we simply using the mistake to make some money?
4. To some extent, we need the ability to to manage our healthcare expenses ourselves. Most of us who have insurance – just do what we’re told – without looking for other, less expensive options. When given a prescription – do you ask if there is a less expensive option? When you need to go to the hospital (non-emergency) – do you compare prices? We typically don’t – because it’s almost impossible to get any type of idea what prices will be. This needs to change. In a truly free market – I should be able to compare prices and services and make my own decision.
5. What is the relationship between Doctors, hospitals and medical (pharmaceutical, medical equipment, etc.) companies? Are we prescribing more expensive medicine simply because we all make more money? What types of incentives are being offered to Doctors and hospitals by these companies? Are there monopolies in this business that are driving costs/prices much higher than necessary? Are the pursuit of profits driving up prices unnecessarily?
6. What would happen to our healthcare system if we all stopped eating so much fast food and processed foods and actually ate healthy, nutritional food? What if we stopped watching so much TV, stopped playing so many video games and spent time outside doing stuff with our friends and families?
You get the idea. Instead of hearing knowledgeable debate on these issues – all we ever hear is – the system needs to ‘change’, many Americans don’t have insurance, healthcare expenses are out of control, we are some of the most unhealthy people in the world, etc. etc.
What we should be asking is – why does the system need to change? Why do we need insurance for everything? Why are healthcare expenses out of control? Why, as a nation, are we unhealthy? Why don’t the people in Washington D.C. pushing for universal healthcare have the answers to these questions? No one seems to want to dig into the details and find out the real reasons for these things. No, that would require intelligence and hard work – we’d rather just change the system.
It seems to me that we all want better healthcare – but we’re not willing to do the things to be healthier (eat better, exercise) and we’re not willing to do our homework and find out the real reasons the current system is so expensive.
Nothing in this world is easy. If we want to really solve this problem – we need to work hard to solve it – and not simply give political speeches about it laced with sound bites that may or may not be true.
What we don’t need – is a government ‘solution’ that will lead to even more bureaucracy.
jg – August 27, 2009
_______________________________________
AUGUST 27, 2009
Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief
Wall St. Journal
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.
The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative.
Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change."
True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."
In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: "Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs." (JAMA, May 16, 2007).
Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care." One sign of progress he sees: "the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible." (JAMA, June 18, 2008).
"In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources. There is no consensus about what substantive principles should be used to establish priorities for allocations," he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 19, 2002. Yet Dr. Emanuel writes at length about who should set the rules, who should get care, and who should be at the back of the line.
"You can't avoid these questions," Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview. "We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a 'God committee' to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions."
Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: "Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)
In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.
"However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby).
Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."
The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).
To reduce health-insurance costs, Dr. Emanuel argues that insurance companies should pay for new treatments only when the evidence demonstrates that the drug will work for most patients. He says the "major contributor" to rapid increases in health spending is "the constant introduction of new medical technologies, including new drugs, devices, and procedures. . . . With very few exceptions, both public and private insurers in the United States cover and pay for any beneficial new technology without considering its cost. . . ." He writes that one drug "used to treat metastatic colon cancer, extends medial survival for an additional two to five months, at a cost of approximately $50,000 for an average course of therapy." (JAMA, June 13, 2007).
Medians, of course, obscure the individual cases where the drug significantly extended or saved a life. Dr. Emanuel says the United States should erect a decision-making body similar to the United Kingdom's rationing body—the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—to slow the adoption of new medications and set limits on how much will be paid to lengthen a life.
Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."
This is untrue, though sadly it’s parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it’s an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel’s views.
Dr. Emanuel has fought for a government takeover of health care for over a decade. In 1993, he urged that President Bill Clinton impose a wage and price freeze on health care to force parties to the table. "The desire to be rid of the freeze will do much to concentrate the mind," he wrote with another author in a Feb. 8, 1993, Washington Post op-ed. Now he recommends arm-twisting Chicago style. "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda," he wrote last Nov. 16 in the Health Care Watch Blog. "If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."
Is this what Americans want?
—Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state.
“Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs”
Wouldn’t it be in the best interests of society to help individual patients? Isn’t this why the Hippocratic Oath was created? What, exactly, does Dr. Emanuel mean when he says ‘the greater good of society’? The rest of the article gives us a few clues.
“In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs.”
Wow. I don’t know about you – but when I go to the Doctor – I prefer that the Doctor is focused on me – not ‘the greater good of society’. I don’t want anything that isn’t required – and I would hope that the Doctor would only do what was necessary (using his/her knowledge and expertise to determine the best course of action). I don’t want to go to the Doctor and wonder if I’m getting the care I need because the best course of action for me isn’t best for ‘society’.
‘But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care."’
I don’t believe Americans want Doctors ‘serving’ anyone or anything – least of all ‘society’ – and I feel reasonably confident when I say that I’m sure Doctors don’t want to ‘serve’ society. Let me translate - by ‘society’, Dr. Emanuel means our government. All of this socialism rhetoric is the same. We need to serve ‘society’, the ‘state’, the ‘greater good’, etc.
What we want is for our Doctor to give us an open and honest evaluation – and recommend a best course of action based on their expertise and some common sense. What we don’t want to hear is – ‘I can’t perform that procedure or administer that treatment because – in the long term – it’s not socially sustainable’. I don’t even know what that means. What nonsense.
‘Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going:’
I’ll translate again – Dr. Emanuel proposes that our government will dictate to our medical professionals how to treat individuals ‘in a way that keeps society going’. What does ‘keep society going’ mean? Let’s find out.
“Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."
The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).”
So, the health advisor to the President of the United States advocates a healthcare system that discriminates against the oldest and the youngest of us. It doesn’t matter what the condition is – or what may be required – if you are older or younger than the general population – you are at the end of the healthcare line. I imagine that the people who share Dr. Emanuel’s view must look at this issue with a coldness I do not possess. The question I would ask Dr. Emanuel is this – if his infant son or daughter needed an immediate heart operation to save their life – but couldn’t get it because of this system – what would he do? If his father or mother couldn’t get a needed operation to save their life because of this system – how would he feel then? Would that same cold intellect remain or would feelings interfere?
It’s easier to talk about healthcare discrimination from a 30,000 foot level – it’s much harder if we consider the real world consequences. If my son or daughter’s life was threatened, I’m afraid that the ‘greater good of society’ would take a backseat to my child’s health. In fact, my own life would take a backseat to the health of my child. We need to value everyone’s life – regardless of age, race, etc.
Knowing how the global elite operate and how they are pushing a socialist agenda forward around the globe – this type of healthcare discrimination rhetoric is only the start. If we allow this – it won’t stop there. Once you allow discrimination based on age – it’s a very small step to enact laws that prevent healthcare altogether to certain people - people who do not adhere to your unbiblical laws – who do not go along with your evil plans. Remember – those who do not have the ‘mark’ of this political beast – will not be able to buy or sell – or be part of the world system. A socialist healthcare system is going to be a piece of that system. I assure you – the global elite at the top of this socialist hierarchy will not have a problem getting healthcare. Once again – this isn’t simply about healthcare – it’s about control of the world’s population.
Once again we see that lies are trumpeted as the truth (below) to push an agenda. Standard operating procedure.
“Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."
This is untrue, though sadly it’s parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it’s an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel’s views.”
Before I decided to overhaul our healthcare system – I would start by researching the following things completely:
1. What is actually driving healthcare costs to astronomical levels? I would like to see how a hospital charges patients and their cost basis for the products and services they provide. A child of a friend of mine recently had outpatient oral surgery – no overnight stay. The price was over $10,000. Is it the products (anesthesia) or services (surgeon’s time) or both that are causing a bill this high? Are bills being excessively padded due to other people who cannot pay? How do pharmaceutical companies price drugs? Do they give any pricing consideration to high volume drugs or drugs that are crucial for some people – or do they exploit the system? I don’t know the answers – but if you want to really understand what’s happening – this is the place to start.
2. How much power and influence do healthcare insurance companies wield? Based on my own experiences – I would say – a lot. Are these companies actually trying to reduce costs and provide a needed service or are they using their power and influence to increase profits at the expense of the healthcare system? Why should we be at the mercy of a huge corporation when determining whether or not we should undergo a certain procedure or whether or not we should receive a certain type of care? Shouldn’t we have enough trust in our Doctors to let them make the decision based on our health and the most cost effective way to treat our problem? Do I trust a huge bureaucracy or my Doctor? Do these companies have certain lucrative contracts that funnel products and services to certain providers, suppliers, hospitals, etc. – that may be more expensive to us and provide substandard care? Why do we even need insurance for everything? I don’t have the answers – but someone who is really trying to solve this problem – should.
3. From what I read, malpractice insurance rates seem to be increasing by ridiculous amounts – which I’m sure is driving up costs for everyone in the system. How many malpractice lawsuits are filed each year? What are the reasons? Are the reasons valid? How much of the money from lawsuits goes to the plaintiffs versus the lawyers? Are there lawyers who specialize in this (That would tell us something – either the lawyers are simply profiting from the healthcare system or we have a tremendous amount of incompetent Doctors in the system)? The overriding question is – are we filing lawsuits because someone intentionally caused us harm – or are we simply chasing after money? If a doctor made an honest mistake – did the mistake cause significant harm requiring additional care and monetary assistance – or are we simply using the mistake to make some money?
4. To some extent, we need the ability to to manage our healthcare expenses ourselves. Most of us who have insurance – just do what we’re told – without looking for other, less expensive options. When given a prescription – do you ask if there is a less expensive option? When you need to go to the hospital (non-emergency) – do you compare prices? We typically don’t – because it’s almost impossible to get any type of idea what prices will be. This needs to change. In a truly free market – I should be able to compare prices and services and make my own decision.
5. What is the relationship between Doctors, hospitals and medical (pharmaceutical, medical equipment, etc.) companies? Are we prescribing more expensive medicine simply because we all make more money? What types of incentives are being offered to Doctors and hospitals by these companies? Are there monopolies in this business that are driving costs/prices much higher than necessary? Are the pursuit of profits driving up prices unnecessarily?
6. What would happen to our healthcare system if we all stopped eating so much fast food and processed foods and actually ate healthy, nutritional food? What if we stopped watching so much TV, stopped playing so many video games and spent time outside doing stuff with our friends and families?
You get the idea. Instead of hearing knowledgeable debate on these issues – all we ever hear is – the system needs to ‘change’, many Americans don’t have insurance, healthcare expenses are out of control, we are some of the most unhealthy people in the world, etc. etc.
What we should be asking is – why does the system need to change? Why do we need insurance for everything? Why are healthcare expenses out of control? Why, as a nation, are we unhealthy? Why don’t the people in Washington D.C. pushing for universal healthcare have the answers to these questions? No one seems to want to dig into the details and find out the real reasons for these things. No, that would require intelligence and hard work – we’d rather just change the system.
It seems to me that we all want better healthcare – but we’re not willing to do the things to be healthier (eat better, exercise) and we’re not willing to do our homework and find out the real reasons the current system is so expensive.
Nothing in this world is easy. If we want to really solve this problem – we need to work hard to solve it – and not simply give political speeches about it laced with sound bites that may or may not be true.
What we don’t need – is a government ‘solution’ that will lead to even more bureaucracy.
jg – August 27, 2009
_______________________________________
AUGUST 27, 2009
Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief
Wall St. Journal
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.
The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative.
Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change."
True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."
In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: "Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs." (JAMA, May 16, 2007).
Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care." One sign of progress he sees: "the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible." (JAMA, June 18, 2008).
"In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources. There is no consensus about what substantive principles should be used to establish priorities for allocations," he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 19, 2002. Yet Dr. Emanuel writes at length about who should set the rules, who should get care, and who should be at the back of the line.
"You can't avoid these questions," Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview. "We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a 'God committee' to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions."
Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: "Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)
In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.
"However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby).
Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."
The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).
To reduce health-insurance costs, Dr. Emanuel argues that insurance companies should pay for new treatments only when the evidence demonstrates that the drug will work for most patients. He says the "major contributor" to rapid increases in health spending is "the constant introduction of new medical technologies, including new drugs, devices, and procedures. . . . With very few exceptions, both public and private insurers in the United States cover and pay for any beneficial new technology without considering its cost. . . ." He writes that one drug "used to treat metastatic colon cancer, extends medial survival for an additional two to five months, at a cost of approximately $50,000 for an average course of therapy." (JAMA, June 13, 2007).
Medians, of course, obscure the individual cases where the drug significantly extended or saved a life. Dr. Emanuel says the United States should erect a decision-making body similar to the United Kingdom's rationing body—the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—to slow the adoption of new medications and set limits on how much will be paid to lengthen a life.
Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."
This is untrue, though sadly it’s parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it’s an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel’s views.
Dr. Emanuel has fought for a government takeover of health care for over a decade. In 1993, he urged that President Bill Clinton impose a wage and price freeze on health care to force parties to the table. "The desire to be rid of the freeze will do much to concentrate the mind," he wrote with another author in a Feb. 8, 1993, Washington Post op-ed. Now he recommends arm-twisting Chicago style. "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda," he wrote last Nov. 16 in the Health Care Watch Blog. "If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."
Is this what Americans want?
—Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state.
Health 'Reform' Is Income Redistribution
Obama’s healthcare ‘reform’ is just one more way we are deceptively being moved to a socialist system of wealth distribution. We continue to pay more and more money to the government to redistribute as they see fit. Income taxes, social security, Medicare, all of the recent ‘stimulus’ and bailout packages, this proposed healthcare reform, etc.
This deception is always presented as something that must be done to ‘help’ us. The banking system is failing – so the government must now decide who gets help from our taxes. People can’t afford health insurance – so the government must somehow provide for them. Our auto industry is failing – so the government must take over. As government provides more and more ‘services’ – it continues to grow – taking more and more money out of the hands of private individuals and corporations. It will function for awhile – but eventually – the government will take such a large percentage of our income – the system will collapse on itself (couple this with the eventual collapse of our monetary system and you’ve got some catastrophic problems brewing). Government doesn’t create wealth and inspire us to take risks and work hard. Government destroys wealth (through taxes, waste, etc.) and kills innovation. Why work hard when I’m just going to give it away?
As I’ve said before – socialism fails because the government eventually sucks the life out of private enterprise and individuals. As we are taxed at higher and higher percentages over time – people eventually give up trying to earn a decent living (starting new businesses, creating jobs, taking risks, working hard to provide a better life, etc.) because no one wants to give away their hard earned income to a bloated bureaucracy that will waste a large percentage of it and then re-distribute what remains to others. People eventually say ‘enough’ and give up trying to do the right things – which is exactly what world leaders want. Slowly, over time, they are killing our rights as individuals. They are trying to ensure that we are eventually dependent on the government for everything. Once we are totally dependent on the world’s government – the people of the world will be led like sheep – and we already know how this ends.
Since none of us want to pay a large percentage of our income to the government – these programs must come with all kinds of stipulations. Take a look at what will be required for this healthcare system to work:
“Like the homeowner who waits until his house is on fire to buy insurance, younger, poorer, healthier workers will rationally choose to avoid paying high premiums now to subsidize insurance for someone else. After all, they can always get a policy if they get sick.
To avoid this outcome, most congressional Democrats and some Republicans would combine guaranteed issue and community rating with the requirement that all workers buy health insurance—that is, an "individual mandate." This solves the incentive problem, and guarantees that both the healthy poor 25-year-old and the sick higher-income 55-year-old have heath insurance.
But the combination of a guaranteed issue, community rating and an individual mandate means that younger, healthier, lower-income earners would be forced to subsidize older, sicker, higher-income earners. And because these subsidies are buried within health-insurance premiums, the massive income redistribution is hidden from public view and not debated. “
This is typical of most government programs. The program cannot stand on its own in the market – so the government must enact all kinds of mandates to try and make it work.
I believe I can do a much better job of deciding how to spend my money than our wasteful government – and I think most Americans would agree.
As I’ve said before – we don’t need socialized healthcare. We need to look closely at the current system and determine the real causes of our problems. Regardless of how we decide to improve our healthcare system – it needs to stay private.
If we truly want to remain free – we need to significantly reduce taxes – not increase them. We need to live within our means – not continue to spend money we don’t have (on healthcare or anything else). We need significantly less government – not more.
We need to give power back to the people of the United States to run our nation.
jg – September 28, 2009
________________________________________
Health 'Reform' Is Income Redistribution
September 28, 2009
Wall St. Journal
By MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, AL HUBBARD
AND KEITH HENNESSEY
While many Americans are upset by ObamaCare’s $1 trillion price tag, Congress is contemplating other changes with little analysis or debate. These changes would create a massively unfair form of income redistribution and create incentives for many not to buy health insurance at all.
Let's start with basics: Insurance protects against the risk of something bad happening. When your house is on fire you no longer need protection against risk. You need a fireman and cash to rebuild your home. But suppose the government requires insurers to sell you fire "insurance" while your house is on fire and says you can pay the same premium as people whose houses are not on fire. The result would be that few homeowners would buy insurance until their houses were on fire.
The same could happen under health insurance reform. Here's how: President Obama proposes to require insurers to sell policies to everyone no matter what their health status. By itself this requirement, called "guaranteed issue," would just mean that insurers would charge predictably sick people the extremely high insurance premiums that reflect their future expected costs. But if Congress adds another requirement, called "community rating," insurers' ability to charge higher premiums for higher risks will be sharply limited.
Thus a healthy 25-year-old and a 55-year-old with cancer would pay nearly the same premium for a health policy. Mr. Obama and his allies emphasize the benefits for the 55-year old. But the 25-year-old, who may also have a lower income, would pay significantly more than needed to cover his expected costs.
Like the homeowner who waits until his house is on fire to buy insurance, younger, poorer, healthier workers will rationally choose to avoid paying high premiums now to subsidize insurance for someone else. After all, they can always get a policy if they get sick.
To avoid this outcome, most congressional Democrats and some Republicans would combine guaranteed issue and community rating with the requirement that all workers buy health insurance—that is, an "individual mandate." This solves the incentive problem, and guarantees that both the healthy poor 25-year-old and the sick higher-income 55-year-old have heath insurance.
But the combination of a guaranteed issue, community rating and an individual mandate means that younger, healthier, lower-income earners would be forced to subsidize older, sicker, higher-income earners. And because these subsidies are buried within health-insurance premiums, the massive income redistribution is hidden from public view and not debated.
If Congress goes down this road, health insurance premiums will increase dramatically for the overwhelming majority of people. Even if Congress mandates that everyone have health insurance, many will choose to go without and pay the tax penalty. If you think people are dissatisfied with health care now, wait until they understand that Congress voted to mandate hidden premium increases and lower wages.
There are wiser and more equitable ways to ensure that every American has access to affordable health insurance. Policy experts and state policy makers have experimented with different solutions, including high risk pools and taxpayer-funded vouchers subsidized for those who are both poor and sick. Medicaid, charity care, and uncompensated care provided by hospitals cover some of these costs today.
These solutions are imperfect, but so are the reforms being proposed in Congress. Congress should be explicit about who will pay more under its plans.
—Mr. Leavitt, former secretary of Health and Human Services (2005-2009), has served as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and a governor of Utah (1993-2003). Mr. Hubbard (2005-2007) and Mr. Hennessey (2008) served as directors of the White House National Economic Council.
This deception is always presented as something that must be done to ‘help’ us. The banking system is failing – so the government must now decide who gets help from our taxes. People can’t afford health insurance – so the government must somehow provide for them. Our auto industry is failing – so the government must take over. As government provides more and more ‘services’ – it continues to grow – taking more and more money out of the hands of private individuals and corporations. It will function for awhile – but eventually – the government will take such a large percentage of our income – the system will collapse on itself (couple this with the eventual collapse of our monetary system and you’ve got some catastrophic problems brewing). Government doesn’t create wealth and inspire us to take risks and work hard. Government destroys wealth (through taxes, waste, etc.) and kills innovation. Why work hard when I’m just going to give it away?
As I’ve said before – socialism fails because the government eventually sucks the life out of private enterprise and individuals. As we are taxed at higher and higher percentages over time – people eventually give up trying to earn a decent living (starting new businesses, creating jobs, taking risks, working hard to provide a better life, etc.) because no one wants to give away their hard earned income to a bloated bureaucracy that will waste a large percentage of it and then re-distribute what remains to others. People eventually say ‘enough’ and give up trying to do the right things – which is exactly what world leaders want. Slowly, over time, they are killing our rights as individuals. They are trying to ensure that we are eventually dependent on the government for everything. Once we are totally dependent on the world’s government – the people of the world will be led like sheep – and we already know how this ends.
Since none of us want to pay a large percentage of our income to the government – these programs must come with all kinds of stipulations. Take a look at what will be required for this healthcare system to work:
“Like the homeowner who waits until his house is on fire to buy insurance, younger, poorer, healthier workers will rationally choose to avoid paying high premiums now to subsidize insurance for someone else. After all, they can always get a policy if they get sick.
To avoid this outcome, most congressional Democrats and some Republicans would combine guaranteed issue and community rating with the requirement that all workers buy health insurance—that is, an "individual mandate." This solves the incentive problem, and guarantees that both the healthy poor 25-year-old and the sick higher-income 55-year-old have heath insurance.
But the combination of a guaranteed issue, community rating and an individual mandate means that younger, healthier, lower-income earners would be forced to subsidize older, sicker, higher-income earners. And because these subsidies are buried within health-insurance premiums, the massive income redistribution is hidden from public view and not debated. “
This is typical of most government programs. The program cannot stand on its own in the market – so the government must enact all kinds of mandates to try and make it work.
I believe I can do a much better job of deciding how to spend my money than our wasteful government – and I think most Americans would agree.
As I’ve said before – we don’t need socialized healthcare. We need to look closely at the current system and determine the real causes of our problems. Regardless of how we decide to improve our healthcare system – it needs to stay private.
If we truly want to remain free – we need to significantly reduce taxes – not increase them. We need to live within our means – not continue to spend money we don’t have (on healthcare or anything else). We need significantly less government – not more.
We need to give power back to the people of the United States to run our nation.
jg – September 28, 2009
________________________________________
Health 'Reform' Is Income Redistribution
September 28, 2009
Wall St. Journal
By MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, AL HUBBARD
AND KEITH HENNESSEY
While many Americans are upset by ObamaCare’s $1 trillion price tag, Congress is contemplating other changes with little analysis or debate. These changes would create a massively unfair form of income redistribution and create incentives for many not to buy health insurance at all.
Let's start with basics: Insurance protects against the risk of something bad happening. When your house is on fire you no longer need protection against risk. You need a fireman and cash to rebuild your home. But suppose the government requires insurers to sell you fire "insurance" while your house is on fire and says you can pay the same premium as people whose houses are not on fire. The result would be that few homeowners would buy insurance until their houses were on fire.
The same could happen under health insurance reform. Here's how: President Obama proposes to require insurers to sell policies to everyone no matter what their health status. By itself this requirement, called "guaranteed issue," would just mean that insurers would charge predictably sick people the extremely high insurance premiums that reflect their future expected costs. But if Congress adds another requirement, called "community rating," insurers' ability to charge higher premiums for higher risks will be sharply limited.
Thus a healthy 25-year-old and a 55-year-old with cancer would pay nearly the same premium for a health policy. Mr. Obama and his allies emphasize the benefits for the 55-year old. But the 25-year-old, who may also have a lower income, would pay significantly more than needed to cover his expected costs.
Like the homeowner who waits until his house is on fire to buy insurance, younger, poorer, healthier workers will rationally choose to avoid paying high premiums now to subsidize insurance for someone else. After all, they can always get a policy if they get sick.
To avoid this outcome, most congressional Democrats and some Republicans would combine guaranteed issue and community rating with the requirement that all workers buy health insurance—that is, an "individual mandate." This solves the incentive problem, and guarantees that both the healthy poor 25-year-old and the sick higher-income 55-year-old have heath insurance.
But the combination of a guaranteed issue, community rating and an individual mandate means that younger, healthier, lower-income earners would be forced to subsidize older, sicker, higher-income earners. And because these subsidies are buried within health-insurance premiums, the massive income redistribution is hidden from public view and not debated.
If Congress goes down this road, health insurance premiums will increase dramatically for the overwhelming majority of people. Even if Congress mandates that everyone have health insurance, many will choose to go without and pay the tax penalty. If you think people are dissatisfied with health care now, wait until they understand that Congress voted to mandate hidden premium increases and lower wages.
There are wiser and more equitable ways to ensure that every American has access to affordable health insurance. Policy experts and state policy makers have experimented with different solutions, including high risk pools and taxpayer-funded vouchers subsidized for those who are both poor and sick. Medicaid, charity care, and uncompensated care provided by hospitals cover some of these costs today.
These solutions are imperfect, but so are the reforms being proposed in Congress. Congress should be explicit about who will pay more under its plans.
—Mr. Leavitt, former secretary of Health and Human Services (2005-2009), has served as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and a governor of Utah (1993-2003). Mr. Hubbard (2005-2007) and Mr. Hennessey (2008) served as directors of the White House National Economic Council.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Your Massachusetts Future
This is the future of healthcare under Obama’s plan. We’re told that this plan will “reduce the costs of healthcare”. What is the truth? Healthcare costs will “explode”. We’re told that we will retain our freedom to choose our healthcare providers. What is the truth? In order to control expenses, we’ll be required to give up our freedom to choose our providers – and our choices will eventually be severely limited. We’re told that Doctors and hospitals will not be forced to join large networks and remain free to choose their networks. What is the truth? They will be forced to do exactly that – forced to join large networks and be paid per patient.
As I’ve said before – government has no business in the healthcare industry. If this healthcare plan passes – our healthcare industry will rapidly become a wasteful, bloated, incompetent nightmare (see Medicare). This is the eventual result anytime government is involved in private industry.
jg – October 14, 2009
_________________________________________
OCTOBER 14, 2009
Your Massachusetts Future
The Senate Finance Committee approves its version of ObamaCare.
Wall St. Journal - Opinion
These are the days of miracles and wonders, as the Senate Finance Committee approved its version of ObamaCare yesterday on 14 to 9 vote, including Maine Republican Olympia Snowe. Now their health-care marvel—a new entitlement that will supposedly "reduce the costs of health care," as the President put it in his congratulatory message—will move to the Senate floor, and perhaps then to a doctor or hospital near you.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts is offering a preview of where all this will end up. The state passed a prototype for ObamaCare in 2006 on the same cost-control theory as Senate Finance, only to see spending explode. So now Beacon Hill is contemplating far more drastic spending-control measures, such as a plan to "require residents to give up their nearly unlimited freedom to go to any hospital and specialist they want," as the Boston Globe reported on Sunday. Paul Levy, the CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, told the Globe that "You can't reap these savings without limiting patients' choices in some way."
A 10-member commission is trying to impose a new "global payment" system on the top-notch Massachusetts health system. Doctors and hospitals would be forced to join large networks and be paid a set rate for each patient. The idea is to make providers live within a fixed budget and cut down on expensive treatments. But if patients are allowed to receive care outside of whatever network they end up in, this new jerryrigged cost-control would break down, or not produce the desired "savings." You know who wins when the interests of government conflict with those of patients to choose a doctor or treatment.
We'll have more to say about such "accountable care organizations" in the coming days, as they're also a major element in the Senate Finance bill and the direction that Washington wants to move U.S. medicine. Yet anyone following yesterday's vote should understand what it will mean—because the Senators clearly don't.
As I’ve said before – government has no business in the healthcare industry. If this healthcare plan passes – our healthcare industry will rapidly become a wasteful, bloated, incompetent nightmare (see Medicare). This is the eventual result anytime government is involved in private industry.
jg – October 14, 2009
_________________________________________
OCTOBER 14, 2009
Your Massachusetts Future
The Senate Finance Committee approves its version of ObamaCare.
Wall St. Journal - Opinion
These are the days of miracles and wonders, as the Senate Finance Committee approved its version of ObamaCare yesterday on 14 to 9 vote, including Maine Republican Olympia Snowe. Now their health-care marvel—a new entitlement that will supposedly "reduce the costs of health care," as the President put it in his congratulatory message—will move to the Senate floor, and perhaps then to a doctor or hospital near you.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts is offering a preview of where all this will end up. The state passed a prototype for ObamaCare in 2006 on the same cost-control theory as Senate Finance, only to see spending explode. So now Beacon Hill is contemplating far more drastic spending-control measures, such as a plan to "require residents to give up their nearly unlimited freedom to go to any hospital and specialist they want," as the Boston Globe reported on Sunday. Paul Levy, the CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, told the Globe that "You can't reap these savings without limiting patients' choices in some way."
A 10-member commission is trying to impose a new "global payment" system on the top-notch Massachusetts health system. Doctors and hospitals would be forced to join large networks and be paid a set rate for each patient. The idea is to make providers live within a fixed budget and cut down on expensive treatments. But if patients are allowed to receive care outside of whatever network they end up in, this new jerryrigged cost-control would break down, or not produce the desired "savings." You know who wins when the interests of government conflict with those of patients to choose a doctor or treatment.
We'll have more to say about such "accountable care organizations" in the coming days, as they're also a major element in the Senate Finance bill and the direction that Washington wants to move U.S. medicine. Yet anyone following yesterday's vote should understand what it will mean—because the Senators clearly don't.
The WellPoint Revelation
Here’s some more truth regarding recent attempts at Healthcare ‘reform’.
Anyone who thinks that our Government can run healthcare more efficiently than private companies and drive down prices – is living in a fantasy.
The following excerpt tells you all you need to know. Our leaders who support government healthcare reform are not concerned with learning the facts – anyone/anything that opposes them is trashed.
Not even two hours after Wellpoint had presented its materials on the Hill, Democrats were already trashing it—which, considering that it runs to some 238 pages and took weeks to prepare, must have required remarkable powers of digestion and analysis.
What we need are true leaders who will make well-informed decisions based on what is best (both from operational and financial perspectives) for the American people – not what is best for them or their own agendas.
jg – October 28, 2009
_________________________________________
October 28, 2009
The WellPoint Revelation
Private insurance premiums could triple under ObamaCare.
Opinion
Wall St. Journal
Washington is captivated by the Senate melodrama over the so-called public option, salivating at the ring of Harry Reid's political bell (see below). But the most important health-care questions continue to be about the policy substance—particularly those that Democrats don't want asked.
Foremost among them is: How will ObamaCare affect insurance premiums in the private health-care markets? Despite indignant Democratic denials, the near-certainty is that their plan will cause costs to rise across the board. The latest data on this score come from a series of state-level studies from the insurance company WellPoint Inc.
At the request of Congressional delegations worried about their constituents—call it a public service—WellPoint mined its own actuarial data to model ObamaCare in the 14 states where it runs Blue Cross plans. The study therefore takes into account market and demographic differences that other industry studies have not, such as the one from the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans, which looked at aggregate national trends.
In all of the 14 states WellPoint scrutinized, ObamaCare would drive up premiums for the small businesses and individuals who are most of WellPoint's customers. (Other big insurers, like Aetna, focus on the market among large businesses.) Young and healthy consumers will see the largest increases—their premiums would more than triple in some states—though average middle-class buyers will pay more too.
Not even two hours after Wellpoint had presented its materials on the Hill, Democrats were already trashing it—which, considering that it runs to some 238 pages and took weeks to prepare, must have required remarkable powers of digestion and analysis.
"This is yet another insurance-industry report that twists the facts to produce a skewed result," averred Linda Douglass, the White House communications director on health care. Said a spokesman for the Senate Finance Committee, "This is akin to the tobacco companies commissioning another study claiming nicotine isn't addictive and cigarettes don't cause cancer." So in its Saul Alinsky fashion, the White House again attacks the messenger so it can avoid rebutting the message.
In fact, what distinguishes the Wellpoint study is its detailed rigor. Take Ohio, where a young, healthy 25-year-old living in Columbus can purchase insurance from WellPoint today for about $52 per month in the individual market. WellPoint's actuaries calculate the bill will rise to $79 because Democrats are going to require it to issue policies to anyone who applies, even if they've waited until they're sick to buy insurance. Then they'll also require the company to charge everyone nearly the same rate, bringing the premium to $134. Add in an extra $17, since Democrats will require higher benefit levels, and a share of the new health industry taxes ($6), and monthly premiums have risen to $157, a 199% boost.
Meanwhile, a 40-year-old husband and wife with two kids would see their premiums jump by 122%—to $737 from $332—while a small business with eight employees in Franklin County would see premiums climb by 86%. It's true that the family or the individual might qualify for subsidies if their incomes are low enough, but the business wouldn't qualify under the Senate Finance bill WellPoint examined. And even if there are subsidies, the new costs the bill creates don't vaporize. They're merely transferred to taxpayers nationwide—or financed with deficits, which will be financed eventually with higher taxes.
The story is largely the same from state to state, though the increases are smaller in the few states that have already adopted the same mandates and regulations that Democrats want to impose on all states. For the average small employer in high-cost New York, for instance, premiums would only rise by 6%. But they'd shoot up by 94% for the same employer in Indianapolis, 91% in St. Louis and 53% in Milwaukee.
A family of four with average health in those same cities would all face cost increases of 122% buying insurance on the individual market. And it's important to understand that these are merely the new costs created by ObamaCare—not including the natural increases in medical costs over time from new therapies and the like.
Democrats have been selling health care as one huge free lunch in which everyone gets better insurance while paying less. But the policy facts simply don't add up, and Democrats are attacking WellPoint because they don't want anyone to understand what their health-care schemes will mean in practice. Democrats know that if the public is given the facts and the time to consider them, Americans might demand that Democrats stop pushing the country off this cliff and start all over.
Anyone who thinks that our Government can run healthcare more efficiently than private companies and drive down prices – is living in a fantasy.
The following excerpt tells you all you need to know. Our leaders who support government healthcare reform are not concerned with learning the facts – anyone/anything that opposes them is trashed.
Not even two hours after Wellpoint had presented its materials on the Hill, Democrats were already trashing it—which, considering that it runs to some 238 pages and took weeks to prepare, must have required remarkable powers of digestion and analysis.
What we need are true leaders who will make well-informed decisions based on what is best (both from operational and financial perspectives) for the American people – not what is best for them or their own agendas.
jg – October 28, 2009
_________________________________________
October 28, 2009
The WellPoint Revelation
Private insurance premiums could triple under ObamaCare.
Opinion
Wall St. Journal
Washington is captivated by the Senate melodrama over the so-called public option, salivating at the ring of Harry Reid's political bell (see below). But the most important health-care questions continue to be about the policy substance—particularly those that Democrats don't want asked.
Foremost among them is: How will ObamaCare affect insurance premiums in the private health-care markets? Despite indignant Democratic denials, the near-certainty is that their plan will cause costs to rise across the board. The latest data on this score come from a series of state-level studies from the insurance company WellPoint Inc.
At the request of Congressional delegations worried about their constituents—call it a public service—WellPoint mined its own actuarial data to model ObamaCare in the 14 states where it runs Blue Cross plans. The study therefore takes into account market and demographic differences that other industry studies have not, such as the one from the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans, which looked at aggregate national trends.
In all of the 14 states WellPoint scrutinized, ObamaCare would drive up premiums for the small businesses and individuals who are most of WellPoint's customers. (Other big insurers, like Aetna, focus on the market among large businesses.) Young and healthy consumers will see the largest increases—their premiums would more than triple in some states—though average middle-class buyers will pay more too.
Not even two hours after Wellpoint had presented its materials on the Hill, Democrats were already trashing it—which, considering that it runs to some 238 pages and took weeks to prepare, must have required remarkable powers of digestion and analysis.
"This is yet another insurance-industry report that twists the facts to produce a skewed result," averred Linda Douglass, the White House communications director on health care. Said a spokesman for the Senate Finance Committee, "This is akin to the tobacco companies commissioning another study claiming nicotine isn't addictive and cigarettes don't cause cancer." So in its Saul Alinsky fashion, the White House again attacks the messenger so it can avoid rebutting the message.
In fact, what distinguishes the Wellpoint study is its detailed rigor. Take Ohio, where a young, healthy 25-year-old living in Columbus can purchase insurance from WellPoint today for about $52 per month in the individual market. WellPoint's actuaries calculate the bill will rise to $79 because Democrats are going to require it to issue policies to anyone who applies, even if they've waited until they're sick to buy insurance. Then they'll also require the company to charge everyone nearly the same rate, bringing the premium to $134. Add in an extra $17, since Democrats will require higher benefit levels, and a share of the new health industry taxes ($6), and monthly premiums have risen to $157, a 199% boost.
Meanwhile, a 40-year-old husband and wife with two kids would see their premiums jump by 122%—to $737 from $332—while a small business with eight employees in Franklin County would see premiums climb by 86%. It's true that the family or the individual might qualify for subsidies if their incomes are low enough, but the business wouldn't qualify under the Senate Finance bill WellPoint examined. And even if there are subsidies, the new costs the bill creates don't vaporize. They're merely transferred to taxpayers nationwide—or financed with deficits, which will be financed eventually with higher taxes.
The story is largely the same from state to state, though the increases are smaller in the few states that have already adopted the same mandates and regulations that Democrats want to impose on all states. For the average small employer in high-cost New York, for instance, premiums would only rise by 6%. But they'd shoot up by 94% for the same employer in Indianapolis, 91% in St. Louis and 53% in Milwaukee.
A family of four with average health in those same cities would all face cost increases of 122% buying insurance on the individual market. And it's important to understand that these are merely the new costs created by ObamaCare—not including the natural increases in medical costs over time from new therapies and the like.
Democrats have been selling health care as one huge free lunch in which everyone gets better insurance while paying less. But the policy facts simply don't add up, and Democrats are attacking WellPoint because they don't want anyone to understand what their health-care schemes will mean in practice. Democrats know that if the public is given the facts and the time to consider them, Americans might demand that Democrats stop pushing the country off this cliff and start all over.
The Worst Bill Ever (ObamaCare)
This is an opinion piece in the Wall St. Journal this morning. If we only look at the financial impact of this bill (and ignore the obvious problems associated with our Government running healthcare or anything else) - this is a nightmare.
I continue to be amazed at how our leaders in Washington D.C. (Republicans & Democrats alike) act as though they can spend whatever they want - with no repercussions.
We currently have over $55 Trillion Dollars in debt/unfunded liabilities that we will never be able to re-pay - so why not add a few more trillion on top for additional healthcare entitlements?
As I've said before - this does not end well for us. The path we're on is unsustainable.
jg - November 2, 2009
_______________
NOVEMBER 1, 2009, 11:23 P.M. ET
The Worst Bill Ever
Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.
Opinion
Wall St. Journal
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.
In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.
Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.
•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.
At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.
Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.
• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.
As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.
Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal program—up from today's 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.
• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.
This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.
Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.
Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.
• The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.
The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.
The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance.
***
All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.
As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.
Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.
I continue to be amazed at how our leaders in Washington D.C. (Republicans & Democrats alike) act as though they can spend whatever they want - with no repercussions.
We currently have over $55 Trillion Dollars in debt/unfunded liabilities that we will never be able to re-pay - so why not add a few more trillion on top for additional healthcare entitlements?
As I've said before - this does not end well for us. The path we're on is unsustainable.
jg - November 2, 2009
_______________
NOVEMBER 1, 2009, 11:23 P.M. ET
The Worst Bill Ever
Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.
Opinion
Wall St. Journal
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.
In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.
Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.
•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.
At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.
Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.
• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.
As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.
Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal program—up from today's 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.
• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.
This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.
Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.
Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.
• The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.
The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.
The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance.
***
All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.
As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.
Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.
Health 'Debate' Deserves a Failing Grade
Instead of listening to politicians speak about what’s best for us – let’s learn a few things from someone who understands our healthcare system and the finances involved.
jg – November 18, 2009
_______________________________
NOVEMBER 18, 2009
Health 'Debate' Deserves a Failing Grade
Wall St. Journal
Opinion
By JEFFREY S. FLIER
As the dean of Harvard Medical School I am frequently asked to comment on the health-reform debate. I'd give it a failing grade.
Instead of forthrightly dealing with the fundamental problems, discussion is dominated by rival factions struggling to enact or defeat President Barack Obama's agenda. The rhetoric on both sides is exaggerated and often deceptive. Those of us for whom the central issue is health—not politics—have been left in the lurch. And as controversy heads toward a conclusion in Washington, it appears that the people who favor the legislation are engaged in collective denial.
Our health-care system suffers from problems of cost, access and quality, and needs major reform. Tax policy drives employment-based insurance; this begets overinsurance and drives costs upward while creating inequities for the unemployed and self-employed. A regulatory morass limits innovation. And deep flaws in Medicare and Medicaid drive spending without optimizing care.
Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that's not true. The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost—and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.
In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system. The system we have now promotes fragmented care and makes it more difficult than it should be to assess outcomes and patient satisfaction. The true costs of health care are disguised, competition based on price and quality are almost impossible, and patients lose their ability to be the ultimate judges of value.
Worse, currently proposed federal legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care. It would do so by overregulating the health-care system in the service of special interests such as insurance companies, hospitals, professional organizations and pharmaceutical companies, rather than the patients who should be our primary concern.
In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.
There are important lessons to be learned from recent experience with reform in Massachusetts. Here, insurance mandates similar to those proposed in the federal legislation succeeded in expanding coverage but—despite initial predictions—increased total spending.
A "Special Commission on the Health Care Payment System" recently declared that the Massachusetts health-care payment system must be changed over the next five years, most likely to one involving "capitated" payments instead of the traditional fee-for-service system. Capitation means that newly created organizations of physicians and other health-care providers will be given limited dollars per patient for all of their care, allowing for shared savings if spending is below the targets. Unfortunately, the details of this massive change—necessitated by skyrocketing costs and a desire to improve quality—are completely unspecified by the commission, although a new Massachusetts state bureaucracy clearly will be required.
Yet it's entirely unclear how such unspecified changes would impact physician practices and compensation, hospital organizations and their capacity to invest, and the ability of patients to receive the kind and quality of care they desire. Similar challenges would eventually confront the entire country on a more explosive scale if the current legislation becomes law.
Selling an uncertain and potentially unwelcome outcome such as this to the public would be a challenging task. It is easier to assert, confidently but disingenuously, that decreased costs and enhanced quality would result from the current legislation.
So the majority of our representatives may congratulate themselves on reducing the number of uninsured, while quietly understanding this can only be the first step of a multiyear process to more drastically change the organization and funding of health care in America. I have met many people for whom this strategy is conscious and explicit.
We should not be making public policy in such a crucial area by keeping the electorate ignorant of the actual road ahead.
—Dr. Flier is dean of the Harvard Medical School.
jg – November 18, 2009
_______________________________
NOVEMBER 18, 2009
Health 'Debate' Deserves a Failing Grade
Wall St. Journal
Opinion
By JEFFREY S. FLIER
As the dean of Harvard Medical School I am frequently asked to comment on the health-reform debate. I'd give it a failing grade.
Instead of forthrightly dealing with the fundamental problems, discussion is dominated by rival factions struggling to enact or defeat President Barack Obama's agenda. The rhetoric on both sides is exaggerated and often deceptive. Those of us for whom the central issue is health—not politics—have been left in the lurch. And as controversy heads toward a conclusion in Washington, it appears that the people who favor the legislation are engaged in collective denial.
Our health-care system suffers from problems of cost, access and quality, and needs major reform. Tax policy drives employment-based insurance; this begets overinsurance and drives costs upward while creating inequities for the unemployed and self-employed. A regulatory morass limits innovation. And deep flaws in Medicare and Medicaid drive spending without optimizing care.
Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that's not true. The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost—and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.
In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system. The system we have now promotes fragmented care and makes it more difficult than it should be to assess outcomes and patient satisfaction. The true costs of health care are disguised, competition based on price and quality are almost impossible, and patients lose their ability to be the ultimate judges of value.
Worse, currently proposed federal legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care. It would do so by overregulating the health-care system in the service of special interests such as insurance companies, hospitals, professional organizations and pharmaceutical companies, rather than the patients who should be our primary concern.
In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.
There are important lessons to be learned from recent experience with reform in Massachusetts. Here, insurance mandates similar to those proposed in the federal legislation succeeded in expanding coverage but—despite initial predictions—increased total spending.
A "Special Commission on the Health Care Payment System" recently declared that the Massachusetts health-care payment system must be changed over the next five years, most likely to one involving "capitated" payments instead of the traditional fee-for-service system. Capitation means that newly created organizations of physicians and other health-care providers will be given limited dollars per patient for all of their care, allowing for shared savings if spending is below the targets. Unfortunately, the details of this massive change—necessitated by skyrocketing costs and a desire to improve quality—are completely unspecified by the commission, although a new Massachusetts state bureaucracy clearly will be required.
Yet it's entirely unclear how such unspecified changes would impact physician practices and compensation, hospital organizations and their capacity to invest, and the ability of patients to receive the kind and quality of care they desire. Similar challenges would eventually confront the entire country on a more explosive scale if the current legislation becomes law.
Selling an uncertain and potentially unwelcome outcome such as this to the public would be a challenging task. It is easier to assert, confidently but disingenuously, that decreased costs and enhanced quality would result from the current legislation.
So the majority of our representatives may congratulate themselves on reducing the number of uninsured, while quietly understanding this can only be the first step of a multiyear process to more drastically change the organization and funding of health care in America. I have met many people for whom this strategy is conscious and explicit.
We should not be making public policy in such a crucial area by keeping the electorate ignorant of the actual road ahead.
—Dr. Flier is dean of the Harvard Medical School.
Australian Healthcare - See a Pattern?
A secret agenda continues to move forward. The following is an article from today’s Wall Street Journal. Consolidation of power continues. If you think it’s a coincidence that all developed nations have moved (or are moving) to the same socialistic healthcare system as Europe – it’s not a coincidence.
I have added a blog post at the end of this email that I wrote in February of 2009 regarding Kevin Rudd (Australian PM) – and his support for a new world order.
John - April 20, 2010
__________________________________
APRIL 20, 2010, 7:45 A.M. ET
Australian States Agree to Health Plan
By GEOFFREY ROGOW
SYDNEY—Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and all but one of the country's states Tuesday agreed to an overhaul of the country's health care system, with primary responsibility for the nation's hospitals moving from the states to the federal government.
Ending two days of contentious negotiations in Canberra, Mr. Rudd unveiled the plan at a press conference Tuesday in a move he likely hopes will fuel his 2010 re-election campaign. It includes federal government commitments for extra services that will cost 5.4 billion Australian dollars (US$4.98 billion) over five years. At the same time, Canberra will hold back 30% of revenue from Australia's goods and services tax, which is expected to reap A$44.26 billion in the fiscal year ending June 30, to help fund hospitals.
Mr. Rudd must now win over Western Australia, the lone holdout, to implement the plan. Mr. Rudd promised to continue talks with Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett in the coming weeks, with both sides seemingly optimistic an agreement will be reached by July 1.
Seven Australian states and territories covering 90% of the population signed the health-care overhaul package.
"Here we have for the first time, the Australian government as the exclusive funder of the [health] care system, the exclusive funder of the primary health care system of Australia, and for the first time in our country's history, the dominant funder of the acute hospital system," Mr. Rudd said.
He said the government won't issue full details of the plan's cost until the annual budget is released on May 11.
Mr. Rudd's health-care plan, unveiled earlier this year, is designed to improve aging hospitals that have long wait lists and too few doctors by having the federal government take responsibility for funding the country's public hospitals. The move marks the biggest overhaul of the country's health system since the universal health program began in 1975.
Throughout the negotiations, Mr. Rudd said the plan would wipe out red tape and bureaucracy slowing down hospital care in the country. The government could also ensure more standardized health coverage across the country.
Approval of the plan comes at a crucial point for Mr. Rudd, who leads the ruling Australian labor party and is just months away from an election. The government has so far failed to put in place many of its planned big reforms that Labor promised in the 2007 election campaign, a fact that has been repeatedly touted by Liberal-National Coalition Leader Tony Abbott in recent debates.
Australia's two most populous states, New South Wales and Victoria, signed the health care plan on Tuesday only after Mr. Rudd agreed to give each state more money for extra health services, including more hospital beds and rehabilitation care.
New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally said the deal was worth A$6.6 billion over 10 years for her state, while Queensland Premier Anna Bligh said it was worth A$4 billion over 10 years. South Australia placed the total added health-care funding at A$1.35 billion from the federal government.
One of the key sticking points for state leaders was the prime minister's desire to have the federal government take 30% of the country's good and services tax revenue that normally goes to the states, with that tax revenue then used to provide the majority of funding for hospitals.
"We will not be signing the agreement as it stands," said Western Australia's Mr. Barnett, adding he doesn't want to lose control of goods and services tax revenue for fear that it would set a precedent for similar moves from the federal government in other areas.
—James Glynn in Sydney and Ray Brindal in Canberra contributed to this article
Link to previous blog post on Kevin Rudd:
http://endtimediscussions.blogspot.com/2006/09/australian-prime-minister-time-for-new.html
I have added a blog post at the end of this email that I wrote in February of 2009 regarding Kevin Rudd (Australian PM) – and his support for a new world order.
John - April 20, 2010
__________________________________
APRIL 20, 2010, 7:45 A.M. ET
Australian States Agree to Health Plan
By GEOFFREY ROGOW
SYDNEY—Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and all but one of the country's states Tuesday agreed to an overhaul of the country's health care system, with primary responsibility for the nation's hospitals moving from the states to the federal government.
Ending two days of contentious negotiations in Canberra, Mr. Rudd unveiled the plan at a press conference Tuesday in a move he likely hopes will fuel his 2010 re-election campaign. It includes federal government commitments for extra services that will cost 5.4 billion Australian dollars (US$4.98 billion) over five years. At the same time, Canberra will hold back 30% of revenue from Australia's goods and services tax, which is expected to reap A$44.26 billion in the fiscal year ending June 30, to help fund hospitals.
Mr. Rudd must now win over Western Australia, the lone holdout, to implement the plan. Mr. Rudd promised to continue talks with Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett in the coming weeks, with both sides seemingly optimistic an agreement will be reached by July 1.
Seven Australian states and territories covering 90% of the population signed the health-care overhaul package.
"Here we have for the first time, the Australian government as the exclusive funder of the [health] care system, the exclusive funder of the primary health care system of Australia, and for the first time in our country's history, the dominant funder of the acute hospital system," Mr. Rudd said.
He said the government won't issue full details of the plan's cost until the annual budget is released on May 11.
Mr. Rudd's health-care plan, unveiled earlier this year, is designed to improve aging hospitals that have long wait lists and too few doctors by having the federal government take responsibility for funding the country's public hospitals. The move marks the biggest overhaul of the country's health system since the universal health program began in 1975.
Throughout the negotiations, Mr. Rudd said the plan would wipe out red tape and bureaucracy slowing down hospital care in the country. The government could also ensure more standardized health coverage across the country.
Approval of the plan comes at a crucial point for Mr. Rudd, who leads the ruling Australian labor party and is just months away from an election. The government has so far failed to put in place many of its planned big reforms that Labor promised in the 2007 election campaign, a fact that has been repeatedly touted by Liberal-National Coalition Leader Tony Abbott in recent debates.
Australia's two most populous states, New South Wales and Victoria, signed the health care plan on Tuesday only after Mr. Rudd agreed to give each state more money for extra health services, including more hospital beds and rehabilitation care.
New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally said the deal was worth A$6.6 billion over 10 years for her state, while Queensland Premier Anna Bligh said it was worth A$4 billion over 10 years. South Australia placed the total added health-care funding at A$1.35 billion from the federal government.
One of the key sticking points for state leaders was the prime minister's desire to have the federal government take 30% of the country's good and services tax revenue that normally goes to the states, with that tax revenue then used to provide the majority of funding for hospitals.
"We will not be signing the agreement as it stands," said Western Australia's Mr. Barnett, adding he doesn't want to lose control of goods and services tax revenue for fear that it would set a precedent for similar moves from the federal government in other areas.
—James Glynn in Sydney and Ray Brindal in Canberra contributed to this article
Link to previous blog post on Kevin Rudd:
http://endtimediscussions.blogspot.com/2006/09/australian-prime-minister-time-for-new.html
The Massachusetts Health-Care 'Train Wreck' - July 7 2010
In the grand scheme of things – this is really about more control of the population. The global elite want the world’s population completely dependent on them. They do not want you thinking for yourself or making your own decisions. They want you to do what they say to do – and they want you to do it without complaint.
Unfortunately for ‘ObamaCare’ – or any other socialist ‘program’ – economic realities will always trump political rhetoric. Free markets impose truth on a system built on lies – always has – always will.
Politicians like to tell us that ‘universal healthcare’ is a right. They say that they can provide healthcare to all and somehow reduce costs. Is this economically feasible? No. Healthcare is a business and should be run accordingly – or it will fail – just like any business.
Instead of determining why healthcare costs are so outrageous – our current leaders simply throw more wood on the fire – by enacting laws that increase spending on healthcare. Spending that is already at unsustainable levels. Once again we see our leaders push a system – that math would tell us is unsustainable.
Why are healthcare costs so outrageous? Costs began an upward spiral once our Government decided to get in the healthcare business in the 1960’s. Perhaps you’ve heard of Medicare? Our Government started this mess – and now they’re trying to fix a broken system they created. Do you feel confident that this bloated bureaucracy of incompetent leaders - that have brought us to the brink of financial ruin - will somehow be able to fix this problem? I don’t. Unlike our current President – I like to factor in things like math and finance when I make a decision. I don’t believe that the solution to our nation’s problems involve spending more money that we don’t have. President Obama seems to think that borrowing and spending will solve everything – the economy, healthcare, etc.
Of course – we now know that this isn’t President Obama’s plan. He’s simply the puppet. It’s the guys behind the curtain who are writing this script.
In a future post, we’ll briefly explore how healthcare costs started on an unsustainable path.
jg – July 7, 2010
_______________________
JULY 7, 2010
The Massachusetts Health-Care 'Train Wreck'
The future of ObamaCare is unfolding here: runaway spending, price controls, even limits on care and medical licensing.
Wall St. Journal
By JOSEPH RAGO
President Obama said earlier this year that the health-care bill that Congress passed three months ago is "essentially identical" to the Massachusetts universal coverage plan that then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed into law in 2006. No one but Mr. Romney disagrees.
As events are now unfolding, the Massachusetts plan couldn't be a more damning indictment of ObamaCare. The state's universal health-care prototype is growing more dysfunctional by the day, which is the inevitable result of a health system dominated by politics.
In the first good news in months, a state appeals board has reversed some of the price controls on the insurance industry that Gov. Deval Patrick imposed earlier this year. Late last month, the panel ruled that the action had no legal basis and ignored "economic realities."
In April, Mr. Patrick's insurance commissioner had rejected 235 of 274 premium increases state insurers had submitted for approval for individuals and small businesses. The carriers said these increases were necessary to cover their expected claims over the coming year, as underlying state health costs continue to rise at 8% annually. By inventing an arbitrary rate cap, the administration was in effect ordering the carriers to sell their products at a loss.
Mr. Patrick has promised to appeal the panel's decision and find some other reason to cap rates. Yet a raft of internal documents recently leaked to the press shows this squeeze play was opposed even within his own administration.
In an April message to his staff, Robert Dynan, a career insurance commissioner responsible for ensuring the solvency of state carriers, wrote that his superiors "implemented artificial price caps on HMO rates. The rates, by design, have no actuarial support. This action was taken against my objections and without including me in the conversation."
Mr. Dynan added that "The current course . . . has the potential for catastrophic consequences including irreversible damage to our non-profit health care system" and that "there most likely will be a train wreck (or perhaps several train wrecks)."
Sure enough, the five major state insurers have so far collectively lost $116 million due to the rate cap. Three of them are now under administrative oversight because of concerns about their financial viability. Perhaps Mr. Patrick felt he could be so reckless because health-care demagoguery is the strategy for his fall re-election bid against a former insurance CEO.
The deeper problem is that price controls seem to be the only way the political class can salvage a program that was supposed to reduce spending and manifestly has not. Massachusetts now has the highest average premiums in the nation.
In a new paper, Stanford economists John Cogan and Dan Kessler and Glenn Hubbard of Columbia find that the Massachusetts plan increased private employer-sponsored premiums by about 6%. Another study released last week by the state found that the number of people gaming the "individual mandate"—buying insurance only when they are about to incur major medical costs, then dumping coverage—has quadrupled since 2006. State regulators estimate that this amounts to a de facto 1% tax on insurance premiums for everyone else in the individual market and recommend a limited enrollment period to discourage such abuses. (This will be illegal under ObamaCare.)
Liberals write off such consequences as unimportant under the revisionist history that the plan was never meant to reduce costs but only to cover the uninsured. Yet Mr. Romney wrote in these pages shortly after his plan became law that every resident "will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced."
One junior senator from Illinois agreed. In a February 2006 interview on NBC, Mr. Obama praised the "bold initiative" in Massachusetts, arguing that it would "reduce costs and expand coverage." A Romney spokesman said at the time that "It's gratifying that national figures from both sides of the aisle recognize the potential of this plan to transform our health-care system."
An entitlement sold as a way to reduce costs was bound to fundamentally change the system. The larger question—for Massachusetts, and now for the nation—is whether that was really the plan all along.
"If you're going to do health-care cost containment, it has to be stealth," said Jon Kingsdale, speaking at a conference sponsored by the New Republic magazine last October. "It has to be unsuspected by any of the key players to actually have an effect." Mr. Kingsdale is the former director of the Massachusetts "connector," the beta version of ObamaCare's insurance "exchanges," and is now widely expected to serve as an ObamaCare regulator.
He went on to explain that universal coverage was "fundamentally a political strategy question"—a way of finding a "significant systematic way of pushing back on the health-care system and saying, 'No, you have to do with less.' And that's the challenge, how to do it. It's like we're waiting for a chain reaction but there's no catalyst, there's nothing to start it."
In other words, health reform was a classic bait and switch: Sell a virtually unrepealable entitlement on utterly unrealistic premises and then the political class will eventually be forced to control spending. The likes of Mr. Kingsdale would say cost control is only a matter of technocratic judgement, but the raw dirigisme of Mr. Patrick's price controls is a better indicator of what happens when health care is in the custody of elected officials rather than a market.
Naturally, Mr. Patrick wants to export the rate review beyond the insurers to hospitals, physician groups and specialty providers—presumably to set medical prices as well as insurance prices. Last month, his administration also announced it would use the existing state "determination of need" process to restrict the diffusion of expensive medical technologies like MRI machines and linear accelerator radiation therapy.
Meanwhile, Richard Moore, a state senator from Uxbridge and an architect of the 2006 plan, has introduced a new bill that will make physician participation in government health programs a condition of medical licensure. This would essentially convert all Massachusetts doctors into public employees.
All of this is merely a prelude to far more aggressive restructuring of the state's health-care markets—and a preview of what awaits the rest of the country.
Mr. Rago is a senior editorial writer at the Journal.
Unfortunately for ‘ObamaCare’ – or any other socialist ‘program’ – economic realities will always trump political rhetoric. Free markets impose truth on a system built on lies – always has – always will.
Politicians like to tell us that ‘universal healthcare’ is a right. They say that they can provide healthcare to all and somehow reduce costs. Is this economically feasible? No. Healthcare is a business and should be run accordingly – or it will fail – just like any business.
Instead of determining why healthcare costs are so outrageous – our current leaders simply throw more wood on the fire – by enacting laws that increase spending on healthcare. Spending that is already at unsustainable levels. Once again we see our leaders push a system – that math would tell us is unsustainable.
Why are healthcare costs so outrageous? Costs began an upward spiral once our Government decided to get in the healthcare business in the 1960’s. Perhaps you’ve heard of Medicare? Our Government started this mess – and now they’re trying to fix a broken system they created. Do you feel confident that this bloated bureaucracy of incompetent leaders - that have brought us to the brink of financial ruin - will somehow be able to fix this problem? I don’t. Unlike our current President – I like to factor in things like math and finance when I make a decision. I don’t believe that the solution to our nation’s problems involve spending more money that we don’t have. President Obama seems to think that borrowing and spending will solve everything – the economy, healthcare, etc.
Of course – we now know that this isn’t President Obama’s plan. He’s simply the puppet. It’s the guys behind the curtain who are writing this script.
In a future post, we’ll briefly explore how healthcare costs started on an unsustainable path.
jg – July 7, 2010
_______________________
JULY 7, 2010
The Massachusetts Health-Care 'Train Wreck'
The future of ObamaCare is unfolding here: runaway spending, price controls, even limits on care and medical licensing.
Wall St. Journal
By JOSEPH RAGO
President Obama said earlier this year that the health-care bill that Congress passed three months ago is "essentially identical" to the Massachusetts universal coverage plan that then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed into law in 2006. No one but Mr. Romney disagrees.
As events are now unfolding, the Massachusetts plan couldn't be a more damning indictment of ObamaCare. The state's universal health-care prototype is growing more dysfunctional by the day, which is the inevitable result of a health system dominated by politics.
In the first good news in months, a state appeals board has reversed some of the price controls on the insurance industry that Gov. Deval Patrick imposed earlier this year. Late last month, the panel ruled that the action had no legal basis and ignored "economic realities."
In April, Mr. Patrick's insurance commissioner had rejected 235 of 274 premium increases state insurers had submitted for approval for individuals and small businesses. The carriers said these increases were necessary to cover their expected claims over the coming year, as underlying state health costs continue to rise at 8% annually. By inventing an arbitrary rate cap, the administration was in effect ordering the carriers to sell their products at a loss.
Mr. Patrick has promised to appeal the panel's decision and find some other reason to cap rates. Yet a raft of internal documents recently leaked to the press shows this squeeze play was opposed even within his own administration.
In an April message to his staff, Robert Dynan, a career insurance commissioner responsible for ensuring the solvency of state carriers, wrote that his superiors "implemented artificial price caps on HMO rates. The rates, by design, have no actuarial support. This action was taken against my objections and without including me in the conversation."
Mr. Dynan added that "The current course . . . has the potential for catastrophic consequences including irreversible damage to our non-profit health care system" and that "there most likely will be a train wreck (or perhaps several train wrecks)."
Sure enough, the five major state insurers have so far collectively lost $116 million due to the rate cap. Three of them are now under administrative oversight because of concerns about their financial viability. Perhaps Mr. Patrick felt he could be so reckless because health-care demagoguery is the strategy for his fall re-election bid against a former insurance CEO.
The deeper problem is that price controls seem to be the only way the political class can salvage a program that was supposed to reduce spending and manifestly has not. Massachusetts now has the highest average premiums in the nation.
In a new paper, Stanford economists John Cogan and Dan Kessler and Glenn Hubbard of Columbia find that the Massachusetts plan increased private employer-sponsored premiums by about 6%. Another study released last week by the state found that the number of people gaming the "individual mandate"—buying insurance only when they are about to incur major medical costs, then dumping coverage—has quadrupled since 2006. State regulators estimate that this amounts to a de facto 1% tax on insurance premiums for everyone else in the individual market and recommend a limited enrollment period to discourage such abuses. (This will be illegal under ObamaCare.)
Liberals write off such consequences as unimportant under the revisionist history that the plan was never meant to reduce costs but only to cover the uninsured. Yet Mr. Romney wrote in these pages shortly after his plan became law that every resident "will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced."
One junior senator from Illinois agreed. In a February 2006 interview on NBC, Mr. Obama praised the "bold initiative" in Massachusetts, arguing that it would "reduce costs and expand coverage." A Romney spokesman said at the time that "It's gratifying that national figures from both sides of the aisle recognize the potential of this plan to transform our health-care system."
An entitlement sold as a way to reduce costs was bound to fundamentally change the system. The larger question—for Massachusetts, and now for the nation—is whether that was really the plan all along.
"If you're going to do health-care cost containment, it has to be stealth," said Jon Kingsdale, speaking at a conference sponsored by the New Republic magazine last October. "It has to be unsuspected by any of the key players to actually have an effect." Mr. Kingsdale is the former director of the Massachusetts "connector," the beta version of ObamaCare's insurance "exchanges," and is now widely expected to serve as an ObamaCare regulator.
He went on to explain that universal coverage was "fundamentally a political strategy question"—a way of finding a "significant systematic way of pushing back on the health-care system and saying, 'No, you have to do with less.' And that's the challenge, how to do it. It's like we're waiting for a chain reaction but there's no catalyst, there's nothing to start it."
In other words, health reform was a classic bait and switch: Sell a virtually unrepealable entitlement on utterly unrealistic premises and then the political class will eventually be forced to control spending. The likes of Mr. Kingsdale would say cost control is only a matter of technocratic judgement, but the raw dirigisme of Mr. Patrick's price controls is a better indicator of what happens when health care is in the custody of elected officials rather than a market.
Naturally, Mr. Patrick wants to export the rate review beyond the insurers to hospitals, physician groups and specialty providers—presumably to set medical prices as well as insurance prices. Last month, his administration also announced it would use the existing state "determination of need" process to restrict the diffusion of expensive medical technologies like MRI machines and linear accelerator radiation therapy.
Meanwhile, Richard Moore, a state senator from Uxbridge and an architect of the 2006 plan, has introduced a new bill that will make physician participation in government health programs a condition of medical licensure. This would essentially convert all Massachusetts doctors into public employees.
All of this is merely a prelude to far more aggressive restructuring of the state's health-care markets—and a preview of what awaits the rest of the country.
Mr. Rago is a senior editorial writer at the Journal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
