Government will go bankrupt! I’ll guarantee it!

Charlie Gibson with the President discussing health care.

On the proposed health care bill, the President said: 

“If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you…potentially they're going to drop your coverage, because they just can't afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year.

“Medicare and Medicaid are on an unsustainable trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, the federal government will go bankrupt.”

Mr. President.  If you DO pass it, here’s the guarantee.  The cost of medical treatment will go up for most of us, the quality of medical treatment will go down for most of us, government will become responsible for more of our lives, we will all be on an unsustainable path of expecting government to do more than it is capable of doing for us, and the federal government will go bankrupt.

On the President’s sales pitch, I say:

Mr. President.  Instead of all the lies and hyperbole about none of us losing existing coverage and promising more people will be covered for less money, why don’t you just tell the truth?  Costs are increasing and if we want the same level of coverage we have now, we’ll have to pay for it.  But haven’t we all known that for the past several decades?  Hey, the price of a gallon of gas was 23 cents in 1955 and is now $2.80.

So, what’s missing from your sales pitch?  Oh, you want the government to pay for the coverage for the 30 million who are now without coverage?  OK.  And that keeps the government from going broke – how?  Do you seriously believe that the government will ever adequately fund that new responsibility?  Every four years there will be a new tax payer revolt that will gut the program of funds.  That is what has happened to Medicare.  Our representatives don’t even have the fortitude to adequately fund that program.  And instead, you use the pending bankruptcy of that program – and of our nation – as a scare tactic to promote even more government intrusion and irresponsibility.  

News flash!  If the government insists on spending more than the taxpayers want to pay, the government will eventually go bankrupt.  To be a responsible president, wouldn't it be better to promote the idea of paying for services we receive?  The majority of us are concerned with our unsustainable debt right now.  Try really hard not to use illogical arguments to get us to spend more money than we have. 

If you want the “have nots” to have health coverage, donate to a church or mosque*, or hospital  or other non-profit organization that provides assistance.  Don’t force our government to do things it was never intended to do and that which will further erode the motivation for individual initiative.

_____________________

*More likely than not, donating to a mosque will contribute to terror networks, equipping people to blow themselves up.  While this is certain to reduce the health care costs for some (those who blow themselves up), there are others who will need costly medical assistance.  Consequently, the health care “cost/benefit” ratio does not warrant contributions to this entity.  For this reason and despite the President’s predisposition to do so, I would advise him not to donate to mosques but instead to donate to entities where his health care dollars are likely to go further.

LiveJournal Tags: government health care,health care,government bankruptcy,irresponsible spending,personal initititive,Obamacare

My sweet letter to AARP: Their Obama-care endorsement

I don’t think my e-mailed letter from their web site went through because of excessive internet traffic :) A couple of other folks were probably writing them as well.

Here is what I wrote:

“You (AARP) say you want to separate "myth" from"reality." I suppose you’re referring to all the “scare tactics and half truths” the “radical right” is foisting on the American public.

Here is “myth” and “reality” for you...

Myth: We can afford the 1.2 trillion dollars for better coverage for 40 million more people

Reality: This plan will cost American taxpayers much more than we can afford at this point in our economic history and the vast majority of us will have worse coverage.

Myth: We will not lose existing health coverage.

Reality: Medicare Advantage Plan members will be forced to get less, more costly coverage under the Plan AARP endorses.

Reality: AARP has lost all credibility with me.

I just received an AARP mailing soliciting my membership, with a couple of pre-mature membership cards enclosed. This evening I will mail their membership cards back to them in little pieces. If you would like to do the same, their mailing address is:

AARP
601 E Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20049

LiveJournal Tags: AARP,health care,Obama-care,Pelosi-care

Technorati Tags: AARP,health care,Obama-care,Pelosi-care

Health Care Op Ed…

Here is my attempt at promoting the position of “the other side.”

Conservatives argue against just about any version of health care legislation proposed by the President or Congress. It is true that many millions of Americans have little or no health coverage – Democrats want to do something about it.

Many in our capitalist society are not “socially responsible.” Many thousands of companies hire “contract” employees as a way around providing a health care benefit to their workers. Or they cut costs by hiring part times help – sometimes up to 39.9999 hours per week to avoid paying health insurance costs. And what about the unemployed, underemployed and those between jobs? Most of these millions are without any form of health coverage.

Conservatives argue that the government and special interests such as unions are simply legislating a power grab. They call it a “control issue.”

Proponents of a health care overhaul argue that providing some form of universal coverage is the moral and right thing to do. That is hard to argue against. The current system favors those among us who are fortunate enough to work for companies that offer and supplement the cost of good coverage. The “haves” have it – the “have nots” don’t.

Practicing Christians and others who strive to act civilly and morally would have to conclude that the current system is selfish. If we are to feed the hungry and clothe the poor and take care of widows and orphans, why are we not also called to care for the sick and infirm? The churches aren't stepping up. Other non-profit organizations are not equipped and able to assist the millions who can’t afford health insurance. This being the case, what is so wrong with the federal government filling this gaping void through creation of a mechanism to fill the health insurance black hole wherein millions of Americans are lost?

From a moral perspective: Proponents – 1 Opponents – 0

OP-OP ED

Not willing to let a good argument lie peaceably, I am compelled by some inner wonkiness to present a counter argument. A good op-ed deserves a good op-op ed.

The moral argument is a good and valid one. But let’s peel back the morality onion one more layer, because there are other aspects of morality that are being ignored.

We’ll look at this from two perspectives:

1. The role of government, and
2. The responsibility of individuals, including employers, employees, and others

First, the role of government. Since when has health care in this country become the responsibility of our government? Once they are responsible for our health care, how far will it go? Will government provide everything the patient needs? Will they mandate what treatments can and cannot be provided? Will they reduce the quality of coverage many now pay for and enjoy?

If the resources of government were unlimited; if the efficiency of government was award winning; if the ethics of government were above reproach; then there would be little to argue about. Health care is one of those services where the cost can be infinite – a bottomless pit. We never cease hearing the plea “what is the value of one human life?” There has to be rationing. Should the government be doing the rationing?

Fact check:

• The resources of the government are limited.
• The efficiency of government is not award-winning.
• The ethics of government are not above reproach.

The government as middleman and arbiter of who gets coverage, what kind, how much, how often, when and at what cost does not sound like the way to go. The governments role should be limited to three things:

1. Promoting efficiency - enacting tort reform to eliminate costly lawsuits and reduce medical malpractice insurance costs.
2. Promoting competition – open up competition across state borders for example
3. Prohibiting coverage discrimination – eliminate “preexisting condition clauses” while allowing premiums to be higher for those who have avoided paying for coverage during their healthy years.

These are legitimate functions of government. They are things they can do reasonable well because they involve minimal bureaucracy and taxpayer funding.

Second, the role of the individual. What should be the responsibility of the individual for his/her own health care? Should they rely on government? Should they rely on their employer if they have one? Should they rely on their insurance company for 100% of their health care needs?

Sometimes there is no employer or insurance company. Should he rely on his own resources or just leave things to chance? What if the individual simply chooses to be irresponsible by being indifferent or remain in ignorance? Is it the government’s job to make him responsible?

We are responsible for feeding and clothing ourselves. The great majority do a decent job. Able bodied people are responsible for productive work and earning a living. Why shouldn’t able bodied people be responsible for providing for their health care needs? Is it the government’s job to bail out people for irresponsible health care decisions the same way it bails out banks from irresponsible financial decisions?

The responsible individual will do whatever it takes to provide for her health care – self insure if she has the money; get a job with an employer that has a good plan; or sacrifice and prioritize to pay for her own coverage. Pop culture “necessities” drain away the personal resources that should go toward our personally responsible health care. Personal priorities are often upside down. Ahhh, it’s so much easier to let the government do it.

“Oh, the cost , the cost. It is too great,” they cry. That is because most people, especially the ones who can’t afford it, expect health insurance to cover everything – with $15, $5, and zero dollar co-pays and low out of pocket limits. Insurance is designed for catastrophic events, not every little cold and sniffle. Many ignore the current option for major medical coverage. Major medical is quite reasonable – a fraction of the comprehensive coverage most seem to expect. A $1,000 a month plan can be reduced down to $100 a month with many major medical plans. This greatly reduces the numbers of those who claim they can’t afford it. Prioritize better. But at the same time, don’t penalize those who CAN afford more comprehensive plans.

Here is the ultimate moral question:

Who should be responsible for your health care decisions and priorities? You or someone else?

E-mail to the President about my wife’s healthcare plan…

I fired off this e-mail to the White House this evening after I heard from several news sources today that Medicare Advantage Plans are thought to enrich the pockets of insurance companies and will be eliminated by the President’s health care plan.

My wife is covered by a Medicare Advantage plan -the only affordable plan she is eligible for. I understand the Presidents health care plan will be funded to a large extent through cutting or eliminating Medicare Advantage policies. This runs counter to the President's statement:

"Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”

It appears a change in her coverage will be required by the President's plan. Am I misunderstanding something or is the President being less than honest?

Our Medicare Advantage Plan is a great policy for the money – we are happy with the coverage. But the President’s plan requires us to change what we have to something unknown. Was the President:

a) Misinformed?

b) Being disingenuous?

c) Practicing Islamic Taqiyya?

d) Being misleading?

e) Obfuscating?

f) Merely lying?

“Gee”, as in “golly” might be the best response - “all of the above.”

First it was the coal industry that Obama vowed to destroy through his cap and trade program. Next the takeover of banks, and the the auto industry. And now the health insurance companies. What's next? What other businesses and industries does this President wish to take over or destroy?

Entitlement Mentality and Early Retirees

I’ve heard some folks complain about their inability to get health insurance when they retire before the age of 65, the age when they would become eligible for Medicare. In fact, they will use this alleged “deficiency in the system” as a reason to support excessive federal involvement in or “socialization” of the health insurance system.

There are many perceived inequities in our current healthcare system.  But the health insurance gap for those who choose to retire before age 65 is not one of them.  The age one retires is most often a choice.  If a person retires at age 63 1/2, he has 18 months of COBRA to carry him through to age 65.  But if he chooses to retire at 62 or 55 why should he be “entitled” to insurance subsidized by taxpayers?  Early retirement was his decision.  He wasn’t forced to retire early. Just because we have the option to begin collecting reduced social security payments at age 62 does not mean we should also be entitled to subsidized health insurance at age 62.  The system wasn’t set up to do that, and there is no inequity in the way the system was set up.

In fact, if the system is changed at all, it ought to be changed to reflect the increasing longevity of retirees by increasing the age of Medicare eligibility.   The chart below shows male retirement age in 1950 to be almost 67, while life expectancy was less than 65, leaving zero years in retirement.  Based on CDC data

In 2005, the average retirement age was a few months less than 61, and the life expectancy was 75, providing 13.5 years in retirement.  These facts make the Medicare program something it was never intended to be: A medical plan for those who don’t need to retire and are healthy enough to continue working.

If there is any question why Medicare is underfunded, it is because of the entitlement mentality of existing and future recipients.

Will workers feel entitled to receive discounted insurance at age 50 or age 30?  Yes.  It is happening now.

The prevailing motive of many who are in favor of government option health insurance is their desire for something for nothing paid for by others from an increasingly socialized federal government – a desire to be “entitled” at someone else’s expense.

Refusing coverage for preexisting conditions is another matter. The two areas where there are inequities – refusing insurance to those with preexisting conditions and prohibiting insurance company competition across state lines which arbitrarily reduces competition – should be corrected.  That can be accomplished through legislation without excessive government intervention or unfair government competition subsidized by taxpayers.