We’re Better Off Governed By Random People….and safer too

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government, Health Care | Posted on 08-04-2010


William F. Buckley, Jr. once said he’d rather entrust our government to the first 400 people in the phone book than the faculty of Harvard. What he meant was he trusts the common sense wisdom of the average American more than the political elites, who think they know best how everyone else should live. This video shows how true this is.

Also, while Republican party loyalists think the GOP believes in the Constitution and liberty, here is the GOP’s biggest stalwart showing how false that is.

From HotAir.com

The lady in the audience, who Tom Coburn basically ridicules in another part of this discussion as a brainwashed idiot who only watches Fox News, seems to understand how government works better than the senator. She simply points out that people can have their liberty taken from them and put in jail if they don’t buy insurance as our overlords have mandated. What’s Coburn’s reply? “Putting people in jail is not the intention.” Really? That makes me feel better. As long as that’s not the intention, who gives a rat’s ass what the outcome is.

I’m sure it wasn’t the intention of the slave master to kill his slave either. He just wanted him to work. When he refused to work, he beat him. Then when he tried to defend himself, the slave master just had to kill him.

He then goes on to say the intention is for the IRS to coerce you into abiding by your overlord’s dictates. This is different how? Does Coburn know what the IRS uses to back up it’s threats? If you do not pay your taxes what happens? Oh sure, they’ll start off by only fining you, but what happens if you insist on claiming your right to make your own choices about what you should do with your own money? You will quickly find yourself being arrested and sent to prison. Then what happens if you try to defend yourself against your imprisoners? Wonder what Coburn thinks would happen then? You would quickly find yourself dead, just as the slave who defies his slave master.

Every demand the government makes on you is backed up by that one underlying threat of taking your life from you. Sure they’d rather you comply without resorting to killing you, but if it becomes necessary, you will comply or die. If you do not comply, you’ll be fined. If you don’t pay your fines, you’ll be imprisoned. If you fight for your freedom from imprisonment, you will be killed. While most Americans think this is OK, because you should just have did what they told you, it is just proof that you are not free. You are a slave to the government, who just wants you to work like you’re told.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

How Will Government Deliver Health Care Savings? Paul Krugman says…..

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 02-04-2010


How do we get cost savings in the free market? Do businesses say they are going to deny people products and services that consumers demand in order to save money? No. People save money by entrepreneurs competing to deliver better and cheaper products and services. If an entrepreneur sees that a company is charging too much, he or she will say “I can deliver that same service for less money and still make a profit.”, and they jump into the business (well unless the government sets up a road block). In doing so, they push down the cost of that product or service.

Also, if a product or service has low profit margins but is still extremely expensive, an entrepreneur will say, “Couldn’t this substitute product deliver the same effect at a lower cost?”, and they’d come up with a substitute. This happens all the time. Look a copper plumbing. All the competition in the world isn’t going to lower the price enough, so entrepreneurs developed substitutes for plumbing. Now they run piping with PEX, which is about 1/1oth the cost of copper.

So, if we want to lower health care costs, we should remove the government’s barriers and allow the free market to bring prices down. Instead, what are we doing? What is ObamaCare going to do to lower costs? Well, ask Paul Krugman, the lefts’ superhero economist.

How’s a real economist put it? Here’s Robert Wenzel from EconomicPolicyJournal.

BTW, I do agree with him that many are, in one area, overestimating the cost of ObamaCare. Between death panels and the general decline in life expectancy that is going to occur, the actuarial costs based on life expectancy will be too high. That said, the structure overall is designed to explode overall healthcare costs. When you have demanders of services who don’t have to pay the direct cost, they will demand and demand.

via EconomicPolicyJournal.com

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

We Already Have Death Panels

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 29-03-2010


Democrats were jumping ugly when Sarah Palin said under ObamaCare we would have death panels. What she didn’t mention is that we already have death panels. Every year people die while the FDA forces companies to funnel money into their coffers, so they can “protect” us.

But what if we don’t want protected? Shouldn’t we have a choice?

Last month, Stossel had a special on how the FDA’s claims of being our protectors. He highlighted that when the FDA states that a new drug that they just approved will save X number of lives per year, what they are really saying is their 10 to 15 year drug approval period costs X number of lives every year while they held up the drug for approval.

The incentives at the FDA are to drag out drug approvals despite the lives it costs. There is no public uproar for those who die waiting. There is only uproar for those who take a drug that has been approved and results in side effects. With this upside down incentive, the FDA more than likely costs more lives than it would other wise cost if drugs were not regulated at all.

“Well, that’s just the system.”, you say. “You can’t really call that a death panel.”

But what if you were dying, and you wanted to take a drug that has shown promise? What if the only way to get the drug was to beg your government to allow you to have it? Well that is the reality many people face. Because the FDA has a monopoly on approving drugs, those who are the most ill among us must beg for the chance to save their own lives. What do side effects matter when you are going to die anyway? At least with an experimental drug, you might have a chance. Without it, the result is already known. Why does the government decide you should not have that opportunity? Who gave them the wisdom to decide someone must die?

The reason they cannot let people have untested drugs is because people would quickly catch onto their game. Soon people would challenge the idea of the FDA altogether, and to prevent that, they must let people die, people like Anna Tomalis, a 13 year old girl who fought to the very end to make sure others would have the opportunity she was denied.

Here is a blog post about Anna Tomalis followed by Stossel’s show where he talks about her.

Last Friday, I attended the funeral of a remarkable 13-year-old girl named Anna Tomalis. For the past three years, Anna had been battling terminal cancer and, more recently, trying to get the Food and Drug Administration to grant a “compassionate use” exemption so she could try an experimental cancer drug now being jointly developed by the pharmaceutical companies ARIAD and Merck. Unfortunately, FDA rarely grants exemptions. If too many exemptions are granted, it would become harder to enroll patients in clinical trials, where they have as much as a 50-50 chance of getting a placebo. Anna was too young and too sick to be admitted to any of the clinical trials, so that wasn’t at issue here. But, of course, the whole point of FDA is to keep individuals from making their own decisions about which drugs to take. So, eventually, after months of delay, FDA finally approved Anna’s exemption, but it came too late. She died just three weeks after beginning treatment — too little time for the drug to have worked.

I got to meet Anna and her mother Liz a few months ago, through a patient advocacy organization called the Abigail Alliance For Better Access To Developmental Drugs, with which CEI works occasionally. And, I continued to correspond with them both by e-mail ever since. Though I certainly did not know Anna very well, the service was quite moving. Her father, Ron, for example, explained that Anna realized all along that her chances of survival weren’t good. But, keeping a good attitude about the whole thing, Anna insisted that she be buried in a hot pink casket. Since no one actually makes a hot pink casket, her parents had to buy a non-descript one and take it to an auto body shop to have it painted pink.

Anna also tried to use her impending death in order to promote a change in the law that would make it easier for critically ill patients to get compassionate use exemptions. Even though she realized she wouldn’t last long enough to benefit personally from such a change, she visited Washington several times in order to advocate for such a policy. My op-ed on the subject appeared in this past weekend edition of The Wall Street Journal, and can be read here.

via Anna Tomalis, R.I.P. | OpenMarket.org.

Some “Compassionate use” exemption. Why should free people have to ask their government for an exemption? Shouldn’t we decide if we want to take a risk, when we already know what’s going to happen without doing anything? There is no compassion in government. Anytime, you see something titled like this, you can guess the exact opposite is true. There is nothing compassionate about a cold bureaucrat who wields the power of the state. They will let nothing, even a little girl, challenge their position to wield that power.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)

Opinion Checking One Journalist’s Fact Checking Of ObamaCare

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 25-03-2010


A friend of mine sent me this article yesterday that purports to be objective and fact checking on the health care bill. Since the author is supposedly only using facts, although selective facts, I figured I’d throw my opinions up. After all, facts are pretty useless without some context.

The tumultuous health care debate that brought you death panels and socialism has spun off a catalog of popular myths that will keep growing as President Barack Obama and all sides battle toward the midterm elections this fall.

OK, the cats out of the bag as to where the author stands already. I would call panels who decide what gets what care, which can ultimately be who lives and dies, death panels. While the name may not be the one that matches Obama’s PR push, it pretty much nails it. Also, the bills that were being pushed by the house, which would have obviously been part of the debate included the public option. What is the public option other than socialism. Granted, the bill that passed didn’t have it, so it’s technically not socialism. It’s more like fascism. I guess the President and the author think that is better.

At a White House signing ceremony Tuesday, Obama ventured the hope that Americans on all sides will judge the legislation for what it actually says and does. “When I sign this bill,” he declared, “all of the overheated rhetoric over reform will finally confront the reality of reform.”

Of course, Obama is only talking about the oppositions’ rhetoric. I hope he realizes his rhetoric will be confronted with the reality as well. Oh, but don’t forget. Most of the bill doesn’t take place until after the next election. Obama won’t have to worry about being elected again after the bill finally takes effect. If he was really sure of the results, it would have went into effect right away, so his re-election would have hinged on the results.

Wishful thinking, Mr. President.

Facts are stubborn, the saying goes. But myths about the legislation are likely to persist as well. And a lot of people don’t agree on which is which.

“People have taken away from the debate a number of beliefs about the bill that are very difficult to shake based on objective reports,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard public health professor who follows opinion trends. “There is enough skepticism out there that questions about how it’s going to help the country are likely to continue.”

If you wanted to find the best way to deal with ..ah. let’s say Iran, and you asked a military specialist, what type of answers do you think you’d get? If you asked a peace studies professor, what kind of answer do you think you’d get? The point I’m making is if the author of this article wants to tilt it in favor of ObamaCare, he would pose as objective and bring in a “specialist”, but the specialist would be someone who is inherently for the bill. Someone who studies “public health” for a living is going to see everything through pro-government lenses. Also, being a professor of public health or a so-called objective journalist does not mean you can even comment on the real economic results of the bill. For that you would need an economist, and even then it would depend if the economist is a state suckup or not.

Here’s a look at some of the myths and realities, from both sides of the issue:

Obama has put the nation on a slippery slope toward socialism.

Hello? Government’s role in health care has been steadily growing since Medicare and Medicaid were established 45 years ago. Even if Republicans were to take control of Washington and repeal this bill, government would still be on track to pick up more than half the nation’s health care tab by 2012, according to a report last month from Medicare.

“The Republican myth is that the government is for the first time going to take over the health care sector,” said economist Joe Antos of the business-oriented American Enterprise Institute. “The takeover was probably largely accomplished in 1965 with the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. Since the early days, Medicare has called the shots on a lot of policy issues that private insurance fell in line with.”

Still, the new law will undoubtedly expand the government’s influence. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., warned Tuesday it will lead to the “quasi-nationalization of the health industry.”

Underline “quasi.” Democrats dropped their idea of a government insurance plan to compete with private carriers. So any “socialization” will be channeled through Wellpoint, UnitedHealthcare and other private insurance giants.

Ok, not too bad so far. I agree that the government has been heavily involved in health care, and actually it accounts for 50% of health spending already. The author is correct. Unfortunately, his objectivism leaves out what the economic result of that involvement has been. Since the government involvement in health care has steadily increased since 1965, so has prices. Is that a shocker? Not to anyone who knows the economic effects of throwing billions of dollars of government money at the same amount of resources. Of course, the result is going to be huge price inflation.

Also, the argument by government is and always has been that health insurance equals health care. They even use the terms interchangeably. The end result of that is everyone thinks they have to have total care insurance instead of catastrophic insurance. The introduction of third party payer in health care all the way down to checkups has also heavily inflated prices. Read my post on root causes of the health care crisis to see why health care costs are so high.

I love how the author tries painting Judd Gregg as if he’s being dramatic. Would you call a government take over that says what type of insurance you must have and regulates every aspect of how care will be given “quasi-nationalization”? I’d say Gregg isn’t being dramatic enough. Also, the last part of that sentence really highlights what this is. “So any ‘socialization’ will be channeled through Wellpoint, UnitedHealthcare and other private insurance giants.” Hmmm, if it looks like fascism, smells like fascism, and quacks like fascism, could it be?

• Health care overhaul is going to lower your health insurance premiums.

Obama says that once new competitive insurance markets open for business, in 2014, individuals buying coverage comparable to what they have today will pay 14-20 percent less. Family coverage costs about $13,400 a year, so that could be real money.

But the president’s assurance is based on a selective reading of a Congressional Budget Office report that found most individuals would probably buy better, more expensive coverage than what’s available today.

And Obama skips over an important caveat: The budget office didn’t say premiums would be lower than currently. It said premiums for some people would be lower than they would have been without the bill. Premiums for others would be higher.

With the U.S. population getting older, and medical science pushing the technological envelope, there’s very little reason to think premiums will go down. The best Obama can hope for is to slow the pace of increases.

Well, the author gave it a try. I must say this was pretty close to objective. The fact is you will not see premiums going down. The only way you will see premiums going down is if the government subsidizes premiums, which wouldnt’ mean they went down. It would just mean someone else is paying. Also, this bill does absolutely zero to address health care costs, so if health care costs keep rising, so will insurance. Until we address the root causes of health care inflation, we will never see insurance premiums decrease. As I’ve stated in previous posts, the only way to drive costs down is to increase supply or decrease demand in relation to each other. Does this bill increase supply? I doubt it. Considering how many doctors aren’t taking mediacare patients anymore, if everyone basically becomes a medicare patient, doctors will flee the field. Drug companies and medical device companies are going to pay over $100 billion in new taxes. Does that increase supply? On the demand side, we are supposedly adding 30 million new people to the insurance system. Is that decreasing demand?

• You will be forced to pay for other people’s abortions.

Only if you join a health insurance plan that covers abortion. In that case, the costs of paying for abortions would be spread over all the enrollees in the plan — no differently from how other medical procedures are handled, except a policyholder would have to write a separate check for it.

Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University, said people who don’t want to pay for abortion could simply pick a plan that doesn’t offer it.

There would definitely be a demand for such plans, and not just from people with moral objections. Single men and older women would have no reason to pay an extra premium for abortion coverage.

The debate on abortion was on the federal dollars being spent on this bill. The author talks about it in the terms of the private insurance market, so I really question his objectivity on this. In his last statement, he actually sounds like he’s starting to understand how the free market works. It allows people to choose their coverage. The problem that he seems to ignore is government mandates. Government mandates tons of coverage that many people don’t want or need, but they are forced to pay for it because government says so. Do you think abortion will be any different, especially if the pro-abortion groups have their way?

• The Democratic bill will lead to government health care rationing.

The legislation sets up a research center to compare the effectiveness of medical treatments, and critics fear that bureaucrats will start issuing justifications for denying patients access to the latest medical technology.

Republicans as well as Democrats had previously called for a major investment in such research to help make sense of which kinds of treatments, medications and technologies are worth the cost.

The legislation specifies that the research findings cannot be used to impose mandates, guidelines or recommendations for payment, coverage, or treatment — or used to deny coverage.

Acceptance of the research is likely to be slow in coming, and the medical community — not government and insurance companies — will probably take the lead in vetting it.

The government has no role or need in deciding what health care technologies are worth their cost. That should be handled by the free market and consumers. We don’t need government telling IT companies how to invest their money. Can you imagine how much the innovation of the internet would have been stifled if a government panel decided what technologies were worth the cost.

Also, never ever, ever, ever, ever believe there is such a thing as a government panel that does not have power to decide what happens. The government is the gun in the room. They provide a ton of funding for research. Do you think for a second this panel will not dictate where that money goes? Seriously though. You must always think of the government as the gun in the room. That is what it is. Imagine you are sitting around debating on where to go to dinner with a few people. There is one strange guy, Mr. State, in the group who always seems to get his way. There are stories about this guy that scare the crap out of you. Supposedly, he’s killed people before and got away with it. Everyone is putting out their opinions, and then the strange guy speaks up. He says, “I’m just going to throw my opinion out there. You guys can choose where we go, so don’t let me be the one to decide.” Then as he’s telling you where he thinks everyone should go, he pulls his jacket back a little to show his gun. Everyone immediately, nervously says, “Well, that’s a brilliant idea Mr. State. Why didn’t we think of that. Let’s go there.” Mr. State smiles grimly and says, “Ok, if that’s what you guys want to do. Fine by me.”

The government is Mr. State. Do not ever believe that those who decide the rules and ultimately back up their opinion of how each of us should act with deadly force is going to be just a measly side show. They will be THE SHOW.

• The American people have already rejected Obamacare.

Although some polls show a majority oppose the bill, most surveys find the public about evenly divided. Blendon, the public opinion expert, believes it’s premature to say that the public has rejected it. Curiously, many individual components — doing away with insurance denials for pre-existing conditions, tax credits to help pay premiums, insurance purchasing pools — are widely popular.

Obama reads those findings to mean that Democrats have a chance to turn around public opinion, and he’s embarking on a campaign to sell the bill.

Don’t you feel better now about this whole thing? The country is evenly divided according to our objective journalist. What he should have said is half the country is having a gun stuck to their head by the other half. This is why democracy is a horrible system. One part of the population holds the other captive, against their will.

It shouldn’t matter if it’s 75% of the population in favor of the bill. This country was not setup as a democracy for a reason. It was setup to be limited in what the federal government can do in order to make sure that individual rights are protected. That means protected from the majority. In democracy, the majority can enslave the minority, which is basically what you see happening now.

Also, who gives a rat ass if “insurance denials for pre-existing conditions, tax credits to help pay premiums, insurance purchasing pools — are widely popular”. So is free booze. Anything that purports to be a free lunch is going to be popular.

Do you think it would be widely popular if I asked people if they were in favor of being robbed to pay for someone else’s health problems, who chooses to eat at McDonald’s every day?

How about, do you have a problem with me stealing your money to help someone else pay for their insurance premiums, because they’d rather spend their money on something else like their $100 cable bill, several hundred a month eating out, etc?

How about, you go to the gym and ask the person who works out religiously, makes the hard eating decisions, etc if they mind paying higher premiums, even though he or she still has impeccable health, because the obese guy down the street doesn’t want to make the same hard decisions and also doesn’t want to pay for health insurance, because the cost of his health care insurance is way too high because of his weight? What do you think the popular opinion would be?

Now, ask everyone if they want a free car. I’m sure that would be widely popular too. Does that make it great policy? Does that mean we should force someone else to pay for the cars against their will, which basically makes them slaves?

• The legislation will save Medicare from bankruptcy.

Democrats say the bill — even as it cuts Medicare to pay for expanded coverage for working families — will add at least nine years of solvency to the program’s giant hospital insurance trust fund, now projected to be exhausted in 2017.

Technically that’s true — but only on paper.

Savings from the Medicare cuts will be invested in government IOUs, like any other trust fund surplus. The special Treasury securities count as an asset on Medicare’s books — making the program’s precarious financial situation seem more reassuring. But the government will spend the actual money. And when time comes for Medicare to redeem the IOUs, lawmakers will have to scramble to come up with the cash.

The key point is that the Medicare savings will be received by the government only once, the Congressional Budget Office said, “so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending … on other programs.”

via Health care fact check: Some myths about legislation likely to persist | NewsChannel 36 | Charlotte Health & Medical News, Nutrition and Fitness | WCNC.com | News for Charlotte, North Carolina.

This last one isn’t even worth a comment. If what the lying Democrats say is true, that medicare is saved from bankruptcy, it’s at the expense of bankrupting the entire country. What a joke. We are going to save ourselves from bankruptcy by spending and borrowing more. Eff it. Let the whole system implode, and let’s hope we have more intelligent people rebuilding. Maybe the liberals can pass a law to change reality again, and we can all be rich and have a unicorn when this all falls apart.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 1.0/10 (3 votes cast)

You May Not Have Freedom, But At Least You’ll Have Health Care…Sort Of

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 22-03-2010


Last night, our supposed representatives passed the health care bill that says you no longer have the freedom to decide what services and products you want to buy. You have to buy what they say you have to buy. Don’t forget this is just the beginning. Government never stops growing. This bill will continue to grow and grow, and more liberty will be lost. Say goodbye to ownership of your own life, body and health decisions.

The biggest transformation of the U.S. health system in decades won approval on Capitol Hill late Sunday, the culmination of efforts by generations of Democrats to achieve near-universal health coverage.

Let’s be clear here. This isn’t the biggest transformation of the U.S. health system. This is the biggest transformation in our liberty. The health system was not made better last night. If anything, it will get progressively worse. What did happen last night is your decisions and options in health care were stripped from you hands and placed into the cold, unaccountable hands of a bureaucrat.

President Barack Obama, who staked his presidency on the health-care overhaul, helped push it toward passage with a last-minute promise to issue an executive order making clear that no money dispensed under the $940 billion bill would pay for abortions. That persuaded Rep. Bart Stupak, a holdout Michigan Democrat, to vote yes and bring at least seven colleagues with him.

Yeah, some hold out Stupak was. He was just looking for the tiniest crack to crawl through. If you were so concerned would you trust someone promising to make an executive order? Now that the bill has passed, what recourse does Stupak have? Zero.

President Obama spoke just before midnight at the White House. “At a time when the pundits said it was no longer possible, we rose above the weight of our politics,” he said in hailing the vote. “We proved that this government … still works for the people.”

Please. The government hasn’t worked for the people in my lifetime. This is nothing more than Democrats turning everyone into slaves who will keep pulling the lever for their party begging them to fix an ever worsening system. The people will forget about this bill, and when the system is getting  worse, they will fall for the Democrats cries of exploitation by insurance companies and medical companies.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) condemned the legislation, and said Democrats are moving against the will of the public. “Shame on this body. Shame on each and every one of you who substitutes your will and your desire above your fellow countrymen,” he said. “By our actions today we disgrace their value.”

Republicans hope to use the health overhaul to drive Democrats into the minority, citing polls that show a plurality of Americans oppose it, while Democrats believe the immediate benefits brought by the bill will work to their credit.

Hopefully, people are starting to see how this game is played. Democrats got the bill through. There will be backlash, and Republicans will win elections. The bill won’t be repealed, and eventually after Republicans steal some of our liberties for wars, Democrats will regain power again. Nothing will change. We’ll just keep marching on toward complete tyranny.

The legislation will extend health coverage to 32 million Americans now without insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It will mandate that almost every American carry health insurance—a provision that opponents are set to challenge in the courts. To help people get covered, the legislation expands Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor, and gives subsidies to families making as much as $88,000 a year.

If the courts up hold this, then what? I guess the government can mandate anything it wants. It can tell us how to live and what to buy in every aspect of our lives. Oh, but they are just looking out for us stupid normal people. We are all too dumb to live without the wonderful government telling us how to live properly.

The focus Sunday was largely on resolving the abortion dispute. Several Democrats, led by Rep. Stupak, had been withholding support, saying the legislation didn’t go far enough to keep federal funds from being used to pay for abortions. They praised Mr. Obama’s executive order, while Roman Catholic bishops and other antiabortion groups said it wasn’t good enough.

While I wish the bishops were opposed on the merits of the bill, at least they stuck to their guns on abortion. What they realize and what the paper doesn’t mention is executive orders mean nothing. Obama can make an executive order, and that order can be overturned by any President including Obama at any time they choose. It will be used as a political tool, just like government funding of embryonic stem cell research and government funding of overseas abortions was. Bush made executive orders and Obama overturned them. Both appeased their base.

A large swath of the business community opposed the changes, arguing the legislation was too broad and had too many taxes. “This will make us one of the highest-taxed regions in the world, and that’s going to have an impact on the appetite for people to invest in medical innovation,” said Bill Hawkins, chief executive of Medtronic Inc., which makes medical devices. He said his company could cut at least 1,000 jobs to absorb a new 2.9% excise tax on medical-device makers.

Bye bye recovery. This is definitely going to cost jobs and economic growth. The money that would have been invested else where will now be forced into health care, where it will be lost. Health care will not be improved by the increase money flowing into it. It will just be wasted by paperwork and bureaucracy.

Insurers will see the heaviest regulations, with new rules that dictate how much they can reap in profit and whom they must cover.

So much for a free market, not that it was before.

The bulk of the legislation wouldn’t take effect until 2014. Once the tax credits and Medicaid expansion are in place, most Americans will be required to carry health insurance or pay a fee, topping out at either $695 a year or 2.5% of income.

Well, I guess I should just drop my insurance and buy it when I need it. I pay almost $500/month right now. I could just pay the government $695/year and save over $5,000/year. Don’t worry though. That $695 will quickly skyrocket once they realize it has the opposite effect of what they want. Oh, and in case you thought you still had freedom, ask yourself what happens if you don’t pay that fine. Time to go to jail for you.

Employers would have to provide affordable insurance or pay a penalty of up to $3,000 per worker. Those figures assume the Senate ultimately adopts the package of changes the House approved.

Tax increases needed to finance the program would hit a range of industries, from insurers to tanning services. Over the next decade, $108 billion in new fees will fall on insurers, drug makers and medical-device companies. Families earning more than $250,000 a year will pay a higher Medicare payroll tax, and see that tax expanded to investment income such as dividends. High-value insurance plans would be hit with a 40% tax starting in 2018.

via House Passes Historic Health Bill – WSJ.com.

So we are going to improve health care by pulling $108 billion outt of the companies who create health products. That makes sense.

Also, families making over $250k/year is where this starts. That is never where it ends. That will quickly become families making over poverty income. Ask those who thought the income tax was only going to be on the rich.

Lastly, this is just hilarious. For those of you who have too much insurance, by government standards, you are going to pay a 40% tax on your insurance. That’s brilliant. In order to make sure everyone has insurance, we’ll tax people who have a lot of insurance. How long do you think that option will be around? Man I love the government. They just take away options slowly until you are left with only one. That option is government enslavement. You either submit, or you’ll be fined. Oh that fine of $695 will quickly become much larger. They can’t leave an option that you can actually take. They will raise that $695 so high, paying it won’t be an option. What is left is submit or go to jail.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

How Many Will Lose Their Jobs Because Of Health Care Reform?

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 20-03-2010


Caterpillar has come out and said that the health care bill will cost the company $100 million in the first year. Where is the money coming from? It appears Democrats think this is magic money that will be paid without consequence because they deemed it to be paid in their bill. Well, Caterpillar sure isn’t going to just suck it up and hand over $100 million. Guess who will do that? The workers who lose their jobs will be coughing it up. How many jobs is $100 million? Let’s just say the average employee costs the company $65,000 with benefits. That’s a possible 1500 jobs. Oh but don’t worry! Those people can get unemployment and government health insurance. But who’s going to pay for that?

Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the House would increase the company’s health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.

In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan “because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and …

via Caterpillar Says Health Bill Would Cost Company $100 Million More – WSJ.com.

While I doubt the scenario above will play out like that, you get the point. Instead, I don’t think Catepillar would give up 1500 employees for the idiotic edicts of the government. Instead, they would probably shift the jobs overseas.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Hey Democrats, We Won’t Save Money By Killing Babies

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 18-03-2010


This might not be a smooth post. I’m trying to type it up while working, so forgive the choppiness, and as always, ignore grammar and spelling. I went to public school.

In this post last week, I said I would go into the disgusting argument that Democrats are supposedly making to Representative Stupak about how the government needs to pay for abortions, because if the babies are born, they would cost the government more money in health care.

Could this be any more dehumanizing? Can you ever trust a government who looks at life in terms of how much it is going to cost their entitlement program? How do you think they’ll make decisions on whether you’ll get an expensive treatment to stay alive or not? I never trusted the government, but hopefully comments like this make the casual follower of what’s going on question what it is the government is really saying and doing.

As I said in the previous post, I just recently had someone use a similar argument to explain why they reluctantly supported abortions. This person is far from ruthless. She’s actually a extremely positive and inspring person, but I think she might not be looking at what is being said when you analyze it a little deeper. This is all part of the pro-choice movements propaganda campaign. They want you to quit looking at what object you are talking about, which is a baby. They want to dehumanize what is being talked about. It is no different than what a military will do during wars. They do not want soldiers thinking of the enemy has humans that have families, dreams, etc. They want the soldier to think this is a monster that must be slayed. As far as the military goes, this is probably good strategy, but with abortion we aren’t talking about an enemy. We are talking about a child.

This person I was debating with was describing her real life encounters and how she changed from pro-life to pro-choice. She explained how she moved to Vegas and heard daily news stories about mothers killing babies and leaving them in dumpsters, babies being abused till their bodies couldn’t handle it anymore, and women being raped. This all sounds extremely horrible, and it’s not surprising they could have someone say as she did, that she thinks if these mothers don’t have the abortion option, they would then be forced into parenthood, and you would have more abused children. Then she said something similar to what the Democrats say. If you had all these unwanted children running around, you would have more welfare and crime, and it would cost the tax payers more money.

Well there is a couple ways to think about this. Number one, this only effects the tax payer to the extent that the government is involved. The government is involved because it is overgrown. Because, our government steals our money and gives it to those who don’t produce, we can say these children are going to cost tax payers in welfare. We could fix this easily by getting rid of welfare. Because the government criminalizes so many things such as drug use, of course there is going to be more crime. You can easily lower crime by not criminalizing everything under the sun. If you read this post, you saw how easily it was to become a criminal. One guy who writes a letter for an 83 year old gentlemen quickly became a criminal for “practicing law without a license”. So much for the government wanting you to help your neighbors.

Second, no one is forced into parenthood, well no woman anyways. A woman can decide to give a child up for adoption. There are plenty of people in America looking to adopt children. Also, the argument my friend made didn’t make sense, because these actions happened while abortion is legal. OK, but this is beside the point. Let’s get back to the economic value of life argument.

While Democrats appear to be making a value of life argument simply based on the cost of health care, which is completely disgusting since it’s only a small part of someone’s life, we need to think about the argument of a human life’s value based on total costs. Government forces us to pay for others against our will. If we didn’t have government forcing us to do this, you could not say these lives are going to cost us anything. They would cost their parents and family while they are children, but that’s not something parents usually frown upon.

Also, this argument is used as if these children won’t grow up to be producers, which they would if they are allowed to. Are we to assume that if these children grow up in bad homes, they won’t produce? I’m sure all of us know people who overcame so many bad things in life to become a success. Many children who grow up in poor homes grow up with a hunger to succeed. They know what it’s like to live without, and they know they have to work hard to get the best out of life. On the other hand, I’ve seen many kids who seemed to have perfect homes and all the toys a kid could want, that end up doing nothing when they get older. They never went without, so they don’t have that hunger. While I’m probably rambling here, my point is you just don’t know how people are going to turn out. You don’t know if the next baby to be aborted would have been the next Einstein. You don’t know if the next aborted baby would have been the one who discovered something that improves all our lives. The value of one innovation of one person could be more valuable than the cost of hundreds, thousands, or even millions of less productive people (again only costs because of gov’t force).

How many millions of lives were changed by Martin Luther King? What if he had been aborted instead? How many lives in India were changed because of Ghandi? How about Jon Huntsman, Sr.? What, never heard of him? Well, he grew up in poverty. He’s a billionaire, who plans on dying broke. He created a cancer institute, which is striving to cure cancer. How much value is his life worth? Would you have known that by looking at his parents when he was still in womb? You cannot make a prediction on the value or cost of one life. We are all so unique that it’s absolutely impossible. To say that government needs to pay for abortion because of the cost of the persons health care completely ignores all the contributions that that one person could make. Would the Democrats say “Well, I can understand why we had to pay to have Martin Luther King aborted as a fetus, because look how much his health care would have cost.”?

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 7.0/10 (3 votes cast)

Stupak: Dems Want Babies Murdered To Save Money On Health Care

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 13-03-2010


Well, here we go again with abortion (life) being considered in economic terms. This has to be the most disgusting, dehumanizing argument for abortion. I recently heard this type of argument from a friend, who is far from this ruthless. For some reason, when it comes to abortion, many people like my friend, who seem to very reluctantly pro-choice, decide abortions save us money. This argument needs to be soundly highlighted and defeated, which I will attempt to do in a future post (hopefully this week). Here is a post from Hot Air, which quotes this National Review article and Rep. Stupak talking about Democrats wanting tax payer funded abortions in the health care reform bill.

Sitting in an airport, on his way home to Michigan, Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat, is chagrined. “They’re ignoring me,” he says, in a phone interview with National Review Online. “That’s their strategy now. The House Democratic leaders think they have the votes to pass the Senate’s health-care bill without us. At this point, there is no doubt that they’ve been able to peel off one or two of my twelve. And even if they don’t have the votes, it’s been made clear to us that they won’t insert our language on the abortion issue.”…

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

via Hot Air » Blog Archive » Stupak: Dems told me they want to fund abortions because more kids mean higher health-care costs; Update: Waxman?.

First let me say, Wow. I can’t believe Rep. Stupak put that out in the open. Good for him. This argument is so ugly when it is given out in the open.  Stay tuned for my rebuttal to this disgusting argument.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Sebelius Calls A Meeting Corleone Style

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 05-03-2010


Don Corelone called his people in for a meeting yesterday.

WASHINGTON—The government’s top health official summoned health-insurance chief executives to the White House Thursday and told them they need to disclose more data justifying sharp premium increases.

The dressing-down, part of which was televised, was part of a campaign by the White House to build support for its health overhaul as President Barack Obama presses Congress to deliver final legislation to his desk in the next few weeks.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called five insurance company executives, including the heads of UnitedHealth Group Inc. and WellPoint Inc., to the Roosevelt Room to request explanation on the recent rate increases.

Who is Kathleen Sebelius to summon private individuals to the white house to explain why they raised their prices? It’s none of her or Obama’s business. No one is forcing people to buy their products, so if people don’t want to pay the prices, they can choose not to. Oh yeah, they will be forced to at gun point real soon.

Mr. Obama dropped by and read them a letter from a 50-year-old cancer survivor from Ohio whose premiums rose 40% this year. He told the group that such rate increases are “unjustifiable,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.

How about we read some letters from upstanding people that the government has imprisoned or pillaged for taxes? How about the family farm that had to be sold after gramps died, because the family couldn’t afford the death tax? How about the poor child who’s trapped in crappy public education, and because of Obama they had their charter school option taken away? Maybe we should read a letter from a child, who’s mother’s body was blown to bits by a drone attack? Oh that’s right, those aren’t American children, so they don’t matter. Maybe we should read a letter from a small business owner, who couldn’t sleep for weeks over the thought of having to layoff someone who’s become like family to him (or her)?

Insurers said the drug makers, medical-device makers, hospitals and other health-care companies are driving up the underlying cost of medical care. They said that trying to lower premiums without addressing those costs was destined to fail.

“The rate is really reflective of our other parts of the health-care delivery system,” Ron Williams, chief executive of Aetna Inc., told the group at the beginning of the meeting. In an interview after the meeting, Mr. Williams said the secretary should have included representatives from those industries.

I can see it now. “Please Mr. Obama. It’s not our fault. Please don’t point the gun at us.” Truly I think the insurance companies are the root problem of health care costs, but it’s not their doing. We have decided that insurance is supposed to cover everything, and then we complain when prices skyrocket and premiums skyrocket. Government of course played started it all off with their wage caps, HMOs, mandatory coverage, tax credits to businesses for supplying insurance, medicare/medicaide, etc.

The day started with gracious exchanges followed by sharper words afterwards

Ms. Sebelius asked the companies to begin posting information online for consumers to explain how much of their revenue goes toward administrative costs, marketing and actual care, along with other details of the rate increases. She called for “greatly increased transparency about what indeed is going on.”

This could make a great movie you know? Kathleen Sebelius can be walking around the room, nonchalantly waving a gun around as she’s talking. Not really pointing it at anyone directly, but they get the point. Then she says, “OK, I’ll tell you what. (Need mob sounding accent) Here’s what I want you to do. I want you to start posting all your information online.”

Insurance company: “But that information is confidential. We already are forced to disclose financial information for the SEC. That would give too much info to our ….”

Sebelius cocking the gun and turning towards the complaining insurance executive: “I think I’m being fair here. Now, are you going to do like I ask or what?” She stares down the executive, who meekly gives a nod.

Several executives at the meeting said they didn’t immediately commit to posting the information but were open to the idea. Much of that data is already detailed in filings to state insurance regulators, though they are difficult to access. Publicly traded companies report executive compensation and national cost trends, but keep some other measures under wraps as trade secrets. “There might be more transparency out there than you might realize,” said UnitedHealth Chief Executive Stephen Hemsley.

The two sides couldn’t agree whether insurers are highly profitable or just scraping by. Industry executives rolled out data showing their average profit margin was 2.2% last year, lower than other health industries. Ms. Sebelius cited figures showing that top insurers earned a collective $12 billion in profits last year, a 56% increase from the prior year, but that didn’t account for one-time gains.

Oh my world. You mean these companies are actually trying to make money by providing a service to customers? The audacity (and not of hope). How much does the Obama administration think these guys are going to make once Sebelius and Obama turn the gun on the people and force us to become customers? At that point, the government controls both citizen and the company, so who knows really. A 2.2% profit margin is nothing to write home about. Also, considering that health care is 1/6th of our economy, earning a collective $12 billion is not a lot of money. Think about the collective money Obama and the rest of government throw around.

The health overhaul, if passed, would require most Americans to carry health coverage or face a fine, meaning insurers would get more business.

Ah Ha! That will show those evil corporations! Wait….. wait… did I miss something?

However, insurers would be required to accept all applicants, including those who are sick. And they would see tougher restrictions on premium increases, particularly through the new state-based insurance exchanges.

Doesn’t state-based insurance exchanges sound so free market? This is sort of like the guy who comes to have a meeting with Don Corleone, so he can ask to do business in the neighborhood. Of course the Don is a reasonable man. He’s not going to be unfair. The new guy can do business. He just has to pay the toll to the mob…..I mean the government.

The White House has also proposed a new federal body with power to review premium increases. But that may not end up in a final bill due to procedural regulations that might require it to be jettisoned. That would be a relief for insurance companies, who say the panel would duplicate the rate regulation they already get from individual states. “If you have the rules written in the states and the prices written in Washington, there might be a disconnect,” said Angela F. Braly, chief executive of WellPoint Inc.

via Health Secretary Sebelius Debates Rate Increases With Insurers – WSJ.com.

Don’t forget though. All this additional regulation, bureacracy, panels, etc is going to lower cost. Obama said so.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

What’s Stopping Small Businesses And People From Pooling Health Care?

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 26-02-2010


During the Health Care Summit yesterday, the word pooling was used a lot. Typically, it was in reference to how the government can enabled people and small businesses to setup pools to purchase health insurance. Has anyone asked what is preventing that now? The politicians act like nature itself is preventing “pooling”.

Senator Baucus: So the main point is we’re not really that far apart. We’re trying to find ways for small business to pool, small business to take advantage of competition, they shop and compare; and also some tax provisions that enable — to encourage businesses to get health insurance.

Congressman Andrews: And then the President asked the question about whether we can find agreement on pooling the purchasing power of small businesses and individuals so they can get the same deal that big companies and members of Congress get. And my friend John Kline talked about the association health plan proposal. Respectfully, John, I think that what you’re talking about with association health plans and what we’re talking about with exchanges is a semantic difference. It’s a matter of pooling the purchasing power of small businesses and individuals to get a better deal.

President Obama: I just want to point out, though, that the principle of pooling is at the center of both the Senate and the House bill.

Representative Boustany: Small business health plans is one way to really deal with this and allow for pooling.

What is preventing people and small businesses from pooling? It’s the same root problem of all our problems, GOVERNMENT. The government is the one who sets up these tyrannical rules and regulations that say what “free” people can and can’t do. They tell you how you are going to buy, what you are going to buy, how you are going to pay for it, and on and on. It is not nature, and it is not the free market.

If these geniuses want to enable people to pool, they should get the government out of health care. If pooling makes sense for people, they will do it themselves. The problem is right now they can’t because government is a pool of bad regulations and idiots with bad ideas.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)