Comments on: The Democrats’ Dilemma on Health Reform

By: The Pelosi Bill Explained | John Goodman | NCPA

The Pelosi Bill Explained | John Goodman | NCPA — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:33:43 +0000

[...] will lead to higher prices and more health care spending. As previously explained, there are no realistic offsetting provisions for controlling health care costs. Also as previously explained, the perverse incentives of managed [...]

By: The Baucus Bill Explained | John Goodman | NCPA

The Baucus Bill Explained | John Goodman | NCPA — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:12:33 +0000

By: Dennis Logue

Dennis Logue — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:58:18 +0000

Gee whillikers. Health insurance is provided by many of the same insurance companies that provide life, auto, and property insurance. In view of the fact that government now believes health insurers to be “an enemy”,when will our magnificent politicos turn their attention to these other evil insurance programs?
Indeed, when will our political class also take a look at private pensions,especially those 401(k)defined contribution plans, and substitute a government run progam?
It hurts my head to think of all the wonderful things government will do to (not for) me over the next few years.

By: Stan Ingman

Stan Ingman — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:57:46 +0000

Some, like right-wing pundit Bill Kristol, even admit it: “This is no time to pull punches. Go for the kill.”

By: Doby

Doby — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:24:22 +0000

John – We a Chamber of Commerce meeting next week with one of the Blue Dog Democrats from California.

If you had only one question to pose during that luncheon, what would it be?

By: Gerald Musgrave

Gerald Musgrave — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:43:43 +0000

John ,

You could be the first to see the parallels in the Cash for Clunkers and health care legislation. It might be productive to have one of the interns look at the Cash for Clunkers program and compare it to health care legislation. The Clunker rules are now 135 pages. To privately sell a car at an auto auction is one page.

We also know that the program announced that a second revised list of the eligible vehicles–adding some eliminating others. People are getting notices that the deal they had, has been revoked. And to give the dealer $4,500 or void the deal. The government rules are of course to LIMIT participation, not to promote it! Lots of folks are angry. The person who has a car that gets 21mpg and wants to buy a 30 mpg is not eligible. Whereas, switch in a truck that gets only 2 mph better and ends with mph of 20 mpg would be eligible. They think the policy has perverse results. This will seem tame in comparison to health care. On the scale of 1 to 100, auto policy is a 10 and health care is at least a 90. Don’t forget that the program cost of $3,500 to $4,500 per car is a gross underestimation. Edmunds.com, the famous auto price expert, says the cost will be more like $20,000 per car. According to Business Week about 200,000 cars in the range of the program would be traded on new cars, every quarter, anyway. The estimate is that the billion dollar program would generate about 50,000 net new sales. The result is a program cost of $20,000 per actual car.

Why not assume the same general result will occur in health care? The program is sold to promote health care but will have elaborate and changing rules that limit health care, will have many perverse effects, and have much higher costs.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:57:21 +0000

Mr. SilentNoMore-
When you say that no-one is going to Canada for care you are 100% wrong. You obviouslyt don’t know many people that are suffering under America’s system. There are literally THOUSANDS that go to Canada for their care. They are un-insurable in America, they cannot afford to pay for medications. Go to Canada and you get the care, You get the same exact medications, produced by the same exact AMERICAN Pharma companiesyet the cost is about 1/5 of the cost for the same EXACT medication here in America. I have gone to Canada for healthcare. Not because it is nessessarily better but because it is the ONLY place to recieve quality care. It is that or sit in an ER room for 18+ hrs for a prescription that I cannot pay for and have my credit ruined for years (affecting housing, jobs, banking, and every facet of life). It is constantly amazing just how gullible Americans can be. All you have to do is take the exception and portray it as the rule and America swallows the lie.
All the quality in the world won’t make a hill of beans if you cannot afford it. Insurance is ensuring that no-one will be able to afford it. Insurance rations care right now but no-one is taking that fact and scaring elderly people with it. Choice is limited to non-existant right now. You have a choice of 1 or 2 doctors that are “in-plan”. Tough if your doctor isn’t one of them.
There is only one difference here. A public option offers coverage that insurance denies, covers those that insurance has deemed not worth living, is NOT a financial disaster every facet of life. It isn’t abou6t profit it is about providing healthcare whereas insurance has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with profit. I don’t work for a political party, I read the proposals and match that against actual life experience. As yet NOTHING republican stands a chance in lowering cost nor expanding coverage. Blue-dog Democrats? They are a sticking point as well but seeing the media blitz against healthcare reform, I can understand that the driving force isn’t caring about healthcare, it is about fear over losing their seat in government. Instead of doing what is right for America, they would rather pander to the fear and lies and retain those sizeable campaign contributions from insurance and pharma. Basically it is a sell-out by government.

By: MsSilentNoMore

MsSilentNoMore — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:14:29 +0000

To Stan Ingmam, the absence of facts to support your liberal platitudes leaves me unimpressed. Our systems do great things for those who do not have any insurance as well as for those who do. There is not one that is denied the best of care in our present system. They may not have insurance but they are not lacking medical care. Personally, I know five Hispanic individuals who work for two small municipalities and their insurance is paid for by the city. However, they choose not to insure their families because according to them “they can get free care through the emergency room” One of their family members just got a liver transplant via emergency room care at zero cost to them. Another just brought home his fourth child via emergency room, at no cost. This is not the exception. This is the rule. Illegal aliens are crossing our Texas boarder by the hundreds daily to take advantage of our free emergency room care to have their babies as well as address other medical issues. I am a bilingual teacher, and many of the parents tell me about themselves and relatives coming to US free healthcare via emergency room.
Obviously, as evidenced by your support of the Democratic socialist bill, called health care reform, you prefer the Obama’s system of Patient Dumping, like the one Michelle Obama enacted in Chicago, where her Scheme booted poor patients out of the Hospital emergency room and forced them to have to drive one hour away even though they were in serious condition. This is the better way?
In section 1233 of the present Health Care legislation, on page 424, it clearly states that the elderly will be denied services and forced to participate in planning consultations conducted by the government so that they can inform the elderly of all of their end of life options. What a travesty!!!!!! As for the rest of us, according to section 102 of this health care legislation, we will be forced onto the Government run option. We will not able keep our present insurance because our employers will choose to pay the smaller fine rather than continue our health care, just as the Pelosi companies have stated they will if this legislation passes. Also according to section 102, we are prohibited from buying a different private plan because the government according to this legislation will make it illegal to sell or by new private insurance after the first day that this legislation goes into effect. There is no cost containment in this ill-conceived Democratic bill.
Yes, you are right all systems have pluses and minus however the nationalized option has been tried over and over again and have failed. The quality of care in Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland are not equal to or better than USA. There were no facts changed by Fox or CNN the patient herself did live interviews and supported what CNN and Fox both said Unlike the liberal media that call themselves journalist, they report the facts and back them up as well.

I know several Canadians and they everyone have horror stories about the Canadian Health care system. You need to stop swallowing the propaganda of tingly leg ABC, NBC, CBS Obama media. READ THE BILL! DO YOUR OWN INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE FAILING SYSTMES OF OTHER COUNTRIES INSTEAD OF ACCEPTING THE PROPOGANDA THAT YOU NOW TAKE AS FACT.

By: MsSilentNoMore

MsSilentNoMore — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:56:35 +0000

No, Tim McBride, I believe your take is distorted. Base on your vague statements of denial it is obvious that you are nothing more than one of Obama’s planted liberal bloggers that he spoke with on his conference call last week and your liberal meaningless rhetoric will not work here.
Where are your facts. and just exactly what do you think the CBO analysis really says? The Democrats Plan Would Result In Employers Canceling the Insurance for 10 Million Americans. “Looking at one year—2017—as an example, CBO estimates that, under the HELP proposal, about 147 million people would have employer-sponsored insurance in that year, 15 million fewer than would have such insurance under current law. Most Americans are happy with the care that they have but will lose it under a government-run health care system. A government-run plan backed by tax dollars and subsidies will undercut private insurance rates, force private insurers out of business and cause many Americans to join the public plan, even if they like their plan and their current doctor. Yea this is really being able to keep our Heath care that we like so much, as Obama falsely stated?
No, once again your conclusions are the ones that are false. Your propaganda that reforms should lower your premiums for individuals and lead to increases in pay would be laughable if it were not such a blatant lie. This demonstrates that you have not read the bill. if you had, you would know: fact#1 section 102: To pay for the new federal health board, there will be a new “fair share” tax imposed on everyone’s health insurance and the government has not yet decided what your portion will be. How could this cost less when this is a tax added to what you already currently now pay?
In addition, Republicans have proposed many sound solutions to health care Reform that focus on keeping what is good about the Greatest Health Care System in the World and working to correct what is wrong.
What would be even better is if the Democrats were actually working to improve health care rather than using their Gangster Government tactics (Villanize, bully, and intimidate) the Chicago Way! That is what is bad for the country. It is a travesty how the Democrats are using Health Care reform as the guise to shove socialism down our throats of all Americas not to mention using this legislation to deny many health care options to the elderly in order to pay for Health Care for ILLEGAL ALLIENS, REAL AMERICAN RIGHT!
Our Health Care system is one of the best in the world and better by far than Canada or UK. Why else would Canadians and well as many other wealthy foreigners come to the US for their health care? I do not see foreigners going to Canada, UK or other countries with nationalized health care when they are seriously ill. You need to take your much-distorted view and read the bill before you start spouting your lies and misinformation.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:15:30 +0000

In response to Dr. Kendrick-

1) there is no appeal in insurance. They drop you end of story.
2) Insurance is DRIVING the cost of healthcare. Doctors don’t patients don’t. Insurance does.
3) MOST un-nessessary medical tests and procedures are ORDERED by the insurance groups themselves.
Example: My mother in law passed from brain cancer. about 3 years ago, her insurance, BC/BS, told her that she MUST undergo exploratory surgery, she MUST undergo chemotherapy. Granted they also said they were only going to cover 40% of the cost and she would have to pay for the rest of it. She refused. She continued to pay her premiums and yet Insurance dropped her at her end-of-life time because she had not followed through with proper care AS ORDERED. Her doctor advised against the medical procedures and she, the consumer declined these procedures, and for that she was punished. They didn’t have a problem cashing her payments though! They even cashed her premium AFTER her death. (It was set up for automatic deduction from her checking account). Did we get that money back? NO! The insurance company will not return that money, AND its legal! That’s the worst part. It is legal for them to steal from the elderly. The insurance companies act with impunity and there is no appeal. Now that government has shown that even it will not stand up for the rights of citizens in the face of corporate greed, government has shown that insurance companies are obviously above the law and can do as they please, at anytime, and that there is no-one to stop them. Go elsewhere? There is no other place to go except for becoming un-insured and have your credit and your finances destroyed.
The only winners so far in this healthcare debate has been insurance companies, brecause yet again, nothing is going to change in any meaningful and affective way. No surprise. Your premiums also include the cost of buying votes in washington.