Give President Obama credit for persistence. And stubbornness. And lack of imagination. He declared again last week that his health care plan "will slow the growth of health care costs for our families and our businesses and our government." And this historic achievement will be accompanied by a dazzling array of new medical benefits that everyone will receive--guaranteed by law. Okay, you've heard this before. But that's the president's story, and he's sticking to it.
The question is, why? Does he think we're stupid? His argument has failed to persuade a sizeable majority of the American people precisely because they're not stupid. They understand the laws of addition and subtraction. When you offer more--much, much more in this case--of a good, it's going to cost more. Somebody has to pay for it. Yet Obama says we'll all be paying less, and that includes businesses and government.
If he could actually pull off this feat, he would indeed be the One we've been waiting for. But he can't. This is apparent whenever Obama explains where the "savings" will come from. They're from eliminating "hundreds of billions of dollars" in waste, fraud, and abuse (WFA) in the health care system. Surely, he knows better. Everyone in Washington recognizes these savings are imaginary. They're offered with a wink. They never happen. President Reagan promised to slash WFA in the 1980s. The result: zilch. Where Reagan failed, Obama is not likely to succeed.
Obama may be unaware, but there are three programs--in Maine, Massachusetts, and Tennessee--currently testing his idea of get-more-pay-less. The evidence is already in: Expanded health care coverage costs more, an awful lot more. There are no known exceptions.
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The High Cost of Health Care
As Democrats and Obamabots try to remake the health care system in the face of bitter opposition (45% of doctors say they will quit their practices or retire early), the federal public option for the elderly is preparing to cut benefits. This should be part of the debate, but of course it is not.
Supporters of the health care revision tell us that its $1 trillion price tag won’t add a dime to the national deficits. But the reality is any program that expands Washington’s reach into health care will cost far more than the rosy projections we’re hearing. History shows that the bureaucracy always spends far more on programs than the Beltway experts say it will.
One program that has spun wildly out of control is Medicare, enshrined as an entitlement in 1965 over the opposition of many in Congress because they could see what was coming. Actuaries projected its cost for 1990 as $10 billion. Yet actual outlays were $107 billion. Now the program is spending more than it is taking in through the payroll tax that is supposed to fund it, leaving Washington with only two options: ration Medicare or raise taxes.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that brilliant minds in Washington will figure out a way to avoid rationing before it becomes necessary. Those heads are busy looking for places to slash right now. Medicare, for instance, is considering cutting $1.4 billion in benefits beginning on January 1st, 2010. If the new schedule is adopted, the reductions will be in fees paid to cardiologists and oncologists.
At the same time that fees for heart and cancer physicians will be trimmed by 10%, fees paid to family doctors, who can do for little heart and cancer patients, will be boosted by 8% and reimbursements paid to nurses will rise 7%. The Administration believes that moving the fees toward primary care will be a boost for preventive care which recent studies have been shown to provide no significant savings.
There are two points to take away from this mostly ignored news. One, any scheme passed by Congress and signed into law will cost taxpayers dearly. Two, the government will have to ration care because it cannot possibly pay for a nation of 305 million going on a billion demanding free medical care.
If rationing is adopted, it will have a direct effect on patients, particularly those who are suffering from two of the most serious illnesses. Heart and cancer specialists, who will be expected to accept Medicare reimbursements that are less than some procedures cost, are already reporting that they will either close their practices or limit care. Some will simply stop treating Medicare patients. Welcome to the new brave world of rationed medicine!
Anyone who believes Washington can improve health care by increasing its involvement is not thinking clearly. Its solutions tend to create bigger problems. Yes, a government takeover may improve care for a small segment of the population. But it will be far worst for everyone else. – adapted from an IBD editorial.
In looking for cost savings the government has overlooked the most obvious source for such savings: illegal aliens, legal immigrants, and their progeny who account for a disproportionate share of the uninsured and who use emergency rooms are their primary providers. What if we started demanding that emergency room patients produce evidence of citizenship as soon as possible after their condition is stabilized or sooner if a relative is available to provide that evidence? What if we required the hospitals and emergency rooms to place an automatic call to ICE by pushing a button with a pre-recorded message like, “We are treating a patient who has been unable to produce evidence of citizenship. Please arrange for immediate pick up and deportation as soon as the medical problem is under control.” What if the hospitals and emergency rooms also required the patient to identify the employer of the family breadwinner so he could be billed for any unreimbursed costs? What if they also had a mechanism for billing the countries of origin for all costs of treatment, hospitalization, detention, and repatriation? There is a good possibility of billions of saving to be had with these administrative arrangements. Obviously, Obama is not interested in savings from this quarter or he would be saying, “Why didn’t I think of that?”
Supporters of the health care revision tell us that its $1 trillion price tag won’t add a dime to the national deficits. But the reality is any program that expands Washington’s reach into health care will cost far more than the rosy projections we’re hearing. History shows that the bureaucracy always spends far more on programs than the Beltway experts say it will.
One program that has spun wildly out of control is Medicare, enshrined as an entitlement in 1965 over the opposition of many in Congress because they could see what was coming. Actuaries projected its cost for 1990 as $10 billion. Yet actual outlays were $107 billion. Now the program is spending more than it is taking in through the payroll tax that is supposed to fund it, leaving Washington with only two options: ration Medicare or raise taxes.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that brilliant minds in Washington will figure out a way to avoid rationing before it becomes necessary. Those heads are busy looking for places to slash right now. Medicare, for instance, is considering cutting $1.4 billion in benefits beginning on January 1st, 2010. If the new schedule is adopted, the reductions will be in fees paid to cardiologists and oncologists.
At the same time that fees for heart and cancer physicians will be trimmed by 10%, fees paid to family doctors, who can do for little heart and cancer patients, will be boosted by 8% and reimbursements paid to nurses will rise 7%. The Administration believes that moving the fees toward primary care will be a boost for preventive care which recent studies have been shown to provide no significant savings.
There are two points to take away from this mostly ignored news. One, any scheme passed by Congress and signed into law will cost taxpayers dearly. Two, the government will have to ration care because it cannot possibly pay for a nation of 305 million going on a billion demanding free medical care.
If rationing is adopted, it will have a direct effect on patients, particularly those who are suffering from two of the most serious illnesses. Heart and cancer specialists, who will be expected to accept Medicare reimbursements that are less than some procedures cost, are already reporting that they will either close their practices or limit care. Some will simply stop treating Medicare patients. Welcome to the new brave world of rationed medicine!
Anyone who believes Washington can improve health care by increasing its involvement is not thinking clearly. Its solutions tend to create bigger problems. Yes, a government takeover may improve care for a small segment of the population. But it will be far worst for everyone else. – adapted from an IBD editorial.
In looking for cost savings the government has overlooked the most obvious source for such savings: illegal aliens, legal immigrants, and their progeny who account for a disproportionate share of the uninsured and who use emergency rooms are their primary providers. What if we started demanding that emergency room patients produce evidence of citizenship as soon as possible after their condition is stabilized or sooner if a relative is available to provide that evidence? What if we required the hospitals and emergency rooms to place an automatic call to ICE by pushing a button with a pre-recorded message like, “We are treating a patient who has been unable to produce evidence of citizenship. Please arrange for immediate pick up and deportation as soon as the medical problem is under control.” What if the hospitals and emergency rooms also required the patient to identify the employer of the family breadwinner so he could be billed for any unreimbursed costs? What if they also had a mechanism for billing the countries of origin for all costs of treatment, hospitalization, detention, and repatriation? There is a good possibility of billions of saving to be had with these administrative arrangements. Obviously, Obama is not interested in savings from this quarter or he would be saying, “Why didn’t I think of that?”
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Obama's Glib Denial that Illegal Aliens will receive Benefits
It is the last thing the leftist president and the Democrat congressional leaders wanted to happen: An actual debate, an over-informed citizenry and the August congressional break before a rushed vote on government regulated health care.
At least a month of actual public exposure to Obama's health care legislation.
The magnitude of the detrimental effect of the planned takeover of American health care is quickly becoming apparent to even the least curious American voter.
As details of the scheme become known, the overexposure of the contents of "the health care reform bill" is creating a legislative pre-existing condition that the president strived to avoid at all costs ... reality.
It has become crystal clear that the decision has been made to cover a huge potential voter base for the Democrats ... illegal aliens. Contrary to constant denial from the Democrats, every version of the Obama's health care legislation would permit coverage for the victims of geography in the government regulated health insurance. And they are willing to fight for it.
The most recent effort to require use of existing tools to determine eligibility for taxpayer-funded health care benefits came from Georgia Representative Nathan Deal (R-Gainesville). He proposed a badly needed amendment that would have explicitly prohibited illegal aliens from receiving health care benefits under the health care reform bill (H.R. 3200). The horror.
Deal's amendment was defeated in committee last week along party lines. Pandering to hoped for future voters and rationality don't mix.
Still, the media and too many in GOP leadership are not making the legislation's immigration element a big issue. One Republican Congressional staffer told me this week that the bill was so bad that the bill's illegal immigration component didn't really need to be brought up.
Most longtime Americans would adamantly disagree.
Any discussion of the health care swindle that does not include the fact that Americans would be forced to further permanently subsidize illegal immigration into their nation is dangerous and incomplete.
It's neither an oversight nor a surprise that congressional Democrats have a loophole in their bill to provide government-run health care for illegal aliens.
Americans don't want the government running their health care, and they certainly don't want their tax dollars paying for health care for those who have shown no respect for our borders or the rule of law. While Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Waxman were busy navigating their own intra-party squabbles in an attempt to reach agreement on how best to nationalize America's health care system, they created several avenues by which illegal immigrants can receive health benefits at the expense of taxpaying citizens. Simply put, this is disgraceful. In the meantime, President Obama is busy making glib assurances to the contrary. Others have used the tactic of calling "liars" all those who point out the ease with which illegal aliens will be able to sign up for health care benefits.
Disgraceful or not, desperate economic times and immigration law or not, the Democrats seem to be determined to further reward illegals - even if it means a tax increase on middle-class America to finance the contemptible program.
The Associated Press - without mentioning government coverage for illegals - reports that "Obama's treasury secretary said he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul."
And it is not just far-left extremists in government who support the plan. Joining such fringe groups as ACORN, La Raza, and MoveOn.org, even corporate giants like Wal-Mart have taken up the cause of redistributing the wealth.
According to Chicago Public Radio, during a health-care reform panel discussion at the recent annual National Council of La Raza convention in Chicago, Dr. John Agwunobi, a senior Wal-Mart vice-president said the company supports rewarding illegals with government health care. Of course he does. He wants to shift the burder from WalMart to the taxpayers.
To a direct question from the panel moderator, "What about health-care coverage for undocumented immigrants?" Agwunobi described Wal-Mart's position: "We believe strongly that everyone should have access to affordable health insurance. Everyone."
If Americans aren't already concerned enough about the astronomical costs of the healthcare proposal, this taxpayer-funded benefit for illegal alien lawbreakers should sound the alarms.
August is the last best hope for killing ObamaCare. Outraged Americans would be well advised to make it clear that they will not be lulled into ignoring its connection to our unsecured borders and illegal immigration.
At least a month of actual public exposure to Obama's health care legislation.
The magnitude of the detrimental effect of the planned takeover of American health care is quickly becoming apparent to even the least curious American voter.
As details of the scheme become known, the overexposure of the contents of "the health care reform bill" is creating a legislative pre-existing condition that the president strived to avoid at all costs ... reality.
It has become crystal clear that the decision has been made to cover a huge potential voter base for the Democrats ... illegal aliens. Contrary to constant denial from the Democrats, every version of the Obama's health care legislation would permit coverage for the victims of geography in the government regulated health insurance. And they are willing to fight for it.
The most recent effort to require use of existing tools to determine eligibility for taxpayer-funded health care benefits came from Georgia Representative Nathan Deal (R-Gainesville). He proposed a badly needed amendment that would have explicitly prohibited illegal aliens from receiving health care benefits under the health care reform bill (H.R. 3200). The horror.
Deal's amendment was defeated in committee last week along party lines. Pandering to hoped for future voters and rationality don't mix.
Still, the media and too many in GOP leadership are not making the legislation's immigration element a big issue. One Republican Congressional staffer told me this week that the bill was so bad that the bill's illegal immigration component didn't really need to be brought up.
Most longtime Americans would adamantly disagree.
Any discussion of the health care swindle that does not include the fact that Americans would be forced to further permanently subsidize illegal immigration into their nation is dangerous and incomplete.
It's neither an oversight nor a surprise that congressional Democrats have a loophole in their bill to provide government-run health care for illegal aliens.
Americans don't want the government running their health care, and they certainly don't want their tax dollars paying for health care for those who have shown no respect for our borders or the rule of law. While Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Waxman were busy navigating their own intra-party squabbles in an attempt to reach agreement on how best to nationalize America's health care system, they created several avenues by which illegal immigrants can receive health benefits at the expense of taxpaying citizens. Simply put, this is disgraceful. In the meantime, President Obama is busy making glib assurances to the contrary. Others have used the tactic of calling "liars" all those who point out the ease with which illegal aliens will be able to sign up for health care benefits.
Disgraceful or not, desperate economic times and immigration law or not, the Democrats seem to be determined to further reward illegals - even if it means a tax increase on middle-class America to finance the contemptible program.
The Associated Press - without mentioning government coverage for illegals - reports that "Obama's treasury secretary said he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul."
And it is not just far-left extremists in government who support the plan. Joining such fringe groups as ACORN, La Raza, and MoveOn.org, even corporate giants like Wal-Mart have taken up the cause of redistributing the wealth.
According to Chicago Public Radio, during a health-care reform panel discussion at the recent annual National Council of La Raza convention in Chicago, Dr. John Agwunobi, a senior Wal-Mart vice-president said the company supports rewarding illegals with government health care. Of course he does. He wants to shift the burder from WalMart to the taxpayers.
To a direct question from the panel moderator, "What about health-care coverage for undocumented immigrants?" Agwunobi described Wal-Mart's position: "We believe strongly that everyone should have access to affordable health insurance. Everyone."
If Americans aren't already concerned enough about the astronomical costs of the healthcare proposal, this taxpayer-funded benefit for illegal alien lawbreakers should sound the alarms.
August is the last best hope for killing ObamaCare. Outraged Americans would be well advised to make it clear that they will not be lulled into ignoring its connection to our unsecured borders and illegal immigration.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Health Care Co-ops
A cooperative (also co-operative or coöperative; often referred to as a co-op or coop) is defined by the International Co-operative Alliance's Statement on the Co-operative Identity as an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise[1]. It is a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit.[2] A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or who work at it. Cooperative enterprises are the focus of study in the field of cooperative economics.
How will the government be involved? Is a co-op just another name for a public option? Is this just an attempt by Congress to sell us another bill of goods?
How will the government be involved? Is a co-op just another name for a public option? Is this just an attempt by Congress to sell us another bill of goods?
ObamaCare
The Democrats' most recent answer to the question of how they will pay for their trillion-dollar healt-care reform was just announced by Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel. He wants to impose a surtax on incomes over $280,000, which would be a staggering blow to small businesses that create most jobs.
Another option floated by the Democrats is to tax employer-sponsored health coverage. Obama-supporter and union boss James P. Hoffa (name sound familiar?)calls this "a bitter pill for middle-class wage earners," and has vowed to fight it.
The real purposeof Obama's health care "reform" is to seize control of another major industry (health care) and move rapidly into Socialism. This is a big move because health care accounts for one dollar in every six spent in this country. The Democrats' plan involves mandates to force individuals to buy insurance, employers to provide insurance, and private insurance to offer an expensive list of benefits. If Obama is serious about allowing private plans to continue, he needs to back off. When the government dictates, there is little left that can be called private.
Instead of allowing insurance to compete by offering different benefit packages, the Democrats are considering insurance mandates to cover exotic benefits that individuals may want to buy such as in-vitro fertilization, hair transplants, rehab services, hearing aids, sex-change operations, prescription drugs, abortions, mental health, and substance abuse programs. If wanted to design the most expensive health care system in the world all over again at twice the cost, this is it.
The Democrats intend to prohibit low-cost policies for catastrophic are. This is the one option that keeps current health care affordable for some families. But that's okay; throw the baby out with the bath water. They want to bar you from buying cheap insurance in other states.
The Democrats intend to impose community rating on a federal level, which means all customers regardless of age, obesity, smoking, or other lifestyle differences. How many want to pay for your neighbors smoking-induced emphysema or lung cancer? How many want to pay for those 40% of Americans who run up billions in medical are cost because of their gluttony? This forces young people and those who choose a healthier lifestyle to subsidize older patients and those who are are the cause of America's epidemic of obesity. Is this the right kind of incentive for a healthy lifestyle?
The Democrats intend to launch a government-subsidized "public option" to compete with private insurance. Public competition with private business used to be anathema in this country. No private company can compete successfully under those circumstances so Obama's plan is clear: drive them out of business. That gives all of his promises about people being able to retain their private plans a hollow ring. This is just a milepost on the way to the single-payer government run plan the neolibs want.
Obama promised that if you like your current insurance plan you can keep it. Hard to do if the company is forced out of business! Your employer could cancel his company's paid insurance because only the government plan would enable him to take advantage of taxpayer subsidies. Scrub another private insurer.
The CBO estimates that the bill worked on by the Senate Finance Committee will cost $1.6 trillion. A private consulting group, Health Systems Innovation Network, estimates the cost of this bill at $4 trillion. Personally, against the backdrop of a ton of failed government cost and revenue estimates, I would opt for the higher estimate just to be on the safe side. Remember you read it here.
More people will buy insurance after the government subsidy rises to those with incomes five times the poverty rate, or $110,000 for a family of four. How many out there are earning that much? In LBJ's day, the focus was on the poverty level itself, now we have begun to multipliers of 2, 3, 4 and 5 times the poverty level making poverty level utterly meaningless.
Another option floated by the Democrats is to tax employer-sponsored health coverage. Obama-supporter and union boss James P. Hoffa (name sound familiar?)calls this "a bitter pill for middle-class wage earners," and has vowed to fight it.
The real purposeof Obama's health care "reform" is to seize control of another major industry (health care) and move rapidly into Socialism. This is a big move because health care accounts for one dollar in every six spent in this country. The Democrats' plan involves mandates to force individuals to buy insurance, employers to provide insurance, and private insurance to offer an expensive list of benefits. If Obama is serious about allowing private plans to continue, he needs to back off. When the government dictates, there is little left that can be called private.
Instead of allowing insurance to compete by offering different benefit packages, the Democrats are considering insurance mandates to cover exotic benefits that individuals may want to buy such as in-vitro fertilization, hair transplants, rehab services, hearing aids, sex-change operations, prescription drugs, abortions, mental health, and substance abuse programs. If wanted to design the most expensive health care system in the world all over again at twice the cost, this is it.
The Democrats intend to prohibit low-cost policies for catastrophic are. This is the one option that keeps current health care affordable for some families. But that's okay; throw the baby out with the bath water. They want to bar you from buying cheap insurance in other states.
The Democrats intend to impose community rating on a federal level, which means all customers regardless of age, obesity, smoking, or other lifestyle differences. How many want to pay for your neighbors smoking-induced emphysema or lung cancer? How many want to pay for those 40% of Americans who run up billions in medical are cost because of their gluttony? This forces young people and those who choose a healthier lifestyle to subsidize older patients and those who are are the cause of America's epidemic of obesity. Is this the right kind of incentive for a healthy lifestyle?
The Democrats intend to launch a government-subsidized "public option" to compete with private insurance. Public competition with private business used to be anathema in this country. No private company can compete successfully under those circumstances so Obama's plan is clear: drive them out of business. That gives all of his promises about people being able to retain their private plans a hollow ring. This is just a milepost on the way to the single-payer government run plan the neolibs want.
Obama promised that if you like your current insurance plan you can keep it. Hard to do if the company is forced out of business! Your employer could cancel his company's paid insurance because only the government plan would enable him to take advantage of taxpayer subsidies. Scrub another private insurer.
The CBO estimates that the bill worked on by the Senate Finance Committee will cost $1.6 trillion. A private consulting group, Health Systems Innovation Network, estimates the cost of this bill at $4 trillion. Personally, against the backdrop of a ton of failed government cost and revenue estimates, I would opt for the higher estimate just to be on the safe side. Remember you read it here.
More people will buy insurance after the government subsidy rises to those with incomes five times the poverty rate, or $110,000 for a family of four. How many out there are earning that much? In LBJ's day, the focus was on the poverty level itself, now we have begun to multipliers of 2, 3, 4 and 5 times the poverty level making poverty level utterly meaningless.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Obamacare
As a measure of the government’s ability to finance and manage the programs it enacts, the following facts about Social Security and Medicare are revealing and prophetic. The nation’s capital stock would have to be $106.4 trillion larger today to generate enough income to pay all of the Social Security and Medicare
benefits that have been promised, over and above future payroll taxes. But according to the Federal Reserve, the nation’s total private net worth is only $51.5 trillion. An 81% increase in income taxes would be needed to cover this problem.
Now a new trillion dollar health care program is being rushed through Congress without adequate study. The 1000 page House version, on p. 16, would prohibit any new purchases of private insurance and any changes from one carrier to another. This provision sounds the deathknell for private plans. Such plans cannot survive without new members as the old ones fade away.
Sections 242, 1702 and 1714 would allow illegal aliens to participate at taxpayer expense. Isn't that wonderful! We can't even afford to pay for our own health care costs but that does not deter the Neolibs from adding more beneficiaries, like they did in social security. Ask Congress to eliminate these provisions, reduce the scope of the program, and s-l-o-w d-o-w-n. Everyone who applies for any new program should be required provide foolproof evidence that they are in this country legally. We could use E-verify for this purpose if Congress and the Administration would get off the time and require its use across the board in both public and private applications.
As in the earlier Social Security and Medicare estimates, neither the revenue nor the cost estimates are credible. Likewise, the ephemeral cost savings are certain instead to turn into yet another increase in the national debt. The CBO has said that the program proposed will actually increase the cost of health care. Now that statement is credible. How can you add 30 million uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions and expect the cost to go down. Never happen, GI!
Isn't it time we figured out how to pay for the programs already on the books before we indulge in a rush to enact another underfunded entitlement program? If Obama wants to tax the rich, why not begin by removing the cap on taxable earning for social security purposes while freeze the maximum benefit at the present level as adjusted for inflation? Why not take a more modest approach to health care reform and as doctors, insurance companies and drug companies to voluntarily reduce costs by some prescribed amount or percentage and give assurances that costs will not be allowed to increase at a rate greater than the overall inflation rate for the next ten years. Many already have pro bono programs for those who cannot afford their medications and Wal-Mart has introduced prescriptions for as little as $4. Maybe we need more pro bono volunteers to help the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions but with the requirement that they have to demonstrate what they are doing to improve their own diets, exercise routine, and general health.
Already mortgaged to the hilt, America’s future is headed toward another underfunded program we cannot afford. Good cost estimates get overruled by political appointees if they don’t support their favorite programs. I know. I was a government cost analyst.
benefits that have been promised, over and above future payroll taxes. But according to the Federal Reserve, the nation’s total private net worth is only $51.5 trillion. An 81% increase in income taxes would be needed to cover this problem.
Now a new trillion dollar health care program is being rushed through Congress without adequate study. The 1000 page House version, on p. 16, would prohibit any new purchases of private insurance and any changes from one carrier to another. This provision sounds the deathknell for private plans. Such plans cannot survive without new members as the old ones fade away.
Sections 242, 1702 and 1714 would allow illegal aliens to participate at taxpayer expense. Isn't that wonderful! We can't even afford to pay for our own health care costs but that does not deter the Neolibs from adding more beneficiaries, like they did in social security. Ask Congress to eliminate these provisions, reduce the scope of the program, and s-l-o-w d-o-w-n. Everyone who applies for any new program should be required provide foolproof evidence that they are in this country legally. We could use E-verify for this purpose if Congress and the Administration would get off the time and require its use across the board in both public and private applications.
As in the earlier Social Security and Medicare estimates, neither the revenue nor the cost estimates are credible. Likewise, the ephemeral cost savings are certain instead to turn into yet another increase in the national debt. The CBO has said that the program proposed will actually increase the cost of health care. Now that statement is credible. How can you add 30 million uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions and expect the cost to go down. Never happen, GI!
Isn't it time we figured out how to pay for the programs already on the books before we indulge in a rush to enact another underfunded entitlement program? If Obama wants to tax the rich, why not begin by removing the cap on taxable earning for social security purposes while freeze the maximum benefit at the present level as adjusted for inflation? Why not take a more modest approach to health care reform and as doctors, insurance companies and drug companies to voluntarily reduce costs by some prescribed amount or percentage and give assurances that costs will not be allowed to increase at a rate greater than the overall inflation rate for the next ten years. Many already have pro bono programs for those who cannot afford their medications and Wal-Mart has introduced prescriptions for as little as $4. Maybe we need more pro bono volunteers to help the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions but with the requirement that they have to demonstrate what they are doing to improve their own diets, exercise routine, and general health.
Already mortgaged to the hilt, America’s future is headed toward another underfunded program we cannot afford. Good cost estimates get overruled by political appointees if they don’t support their favorite programs. I know. I was a government cost analyst.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
