President Obama's Health Care Reform - and why it doesn't make sense
President Obama made several key points in his address to Congress on September
9, 2009. The rhetoric, however, was short on specifics and, most troubling,
as lacking of real facts as it has proven to be since this debate began months
ago.
The President described the uninsured as "not primarily people on welfare"
but as "middle class Americans." Not true. As reported in April 2007 by
the Online Newshour on PBS, "The uninsured are -- and have been for years and years
-- mainly people who make less than 200 percent of the poverty level," said Cathy Hoffman,
associate director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.
Oh.
The President then says, "We are the only democracy, the only advanced democracy on Earth, the
only wealthy nation that allows such hardship for millions of its people." Not true. First,
the U.S. is NOT a democracy -- it is a representative republic. Second, the U.S. is NOT wealthy; by
any objective measure, the U.S., with a national debt approaching $11 trillion and unfunded obligations
approaching $60 trillion, is BANKRUPT. Third, "hardship" is quite relative, especially when you
factor in the wait times that come with the health systems in other "wealthy" nations. Take the UK
as an example, where the National Health Service is bragging about meeting its wait-time goal of
18 weeks. From their
Web site:
"It also said it had met its "18 weeks" waiting time target, whereby patients referred from a GP for
further treatment start that treatment within 18 weeks." Huh. Well, there's no hardship in waiting 18
weeks for cancer treatment or a diagnosis for severe pain, right?
One sentence. Three lies.
The President goes on. "There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage."
We find this number striking because the President most often discusses the 47 million "Americans" who
do not have coverage. Who are the other 17 million people? By definition, these are non-citizens,
consisting of legal and illegal immigrants, temporary and permanent. Is anyone interested in subsidizing
health insurance for non-citizens?
But according to the Online Newshour, the percentage of folks without insurance who are non-citizens is
actually 43%. Huh. Given that 46.3 million folks do not have insurance, REAL breakout of the uninsured
is: 20 million uninsured NON-CITIZENS and 26 million uninsured CITIZENS.
Let's proceed.
The President then says, "But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem for
the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today."
Why? "More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job or change your job, you'll lose your
health insurance, too." Then shouldn't the President's focus be on stemming the tide of job losses rather
than on fixing a related symptom?
The President adds, "More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance
company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens
every day." It does? Actually, federal law, through HIPAA, already prohibits this, and almost
every state already has "guaranteed renewability" laws on their books to prohibit the practice of dropping
or cancelling any insurance policy because someone falls ill.
The President presents a related anecdote: "One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of
chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about.
They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it." But this is not true either
(read the article).
Why must the President misrepresent the facts to make his case?
The President presents ANOTHER anecdote: "Another woman, from Texas, was about to get a double
mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of
acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size."
Not exactly. The woman actually had TWO pre-existing conditions, acne and a RAPID HEART RATE, and
failed to disclose them. She lied to the insurance company. Despite this, the insurance company
did ultimately reinstate her policy, although unfortunately her tumor did grow.
Continuing on, the President stated, "Then there's the problem of rising costs. We spend one- and-a-half
times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it."
We're not? We certainly don't wait 18 weeks for access to a specialist, unlike those stricken in the UK.
While our life expectancy as a number of years is comparable to that of most industrialized nations,
our overall QUALITY of life, especially in the final years where health can be most tenuous, can be MUCH
better.
"It's why so many employers, especially small businesses, are forcing their employers -- employees to
pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely." It's a fair point. The question,
however, is this: how will the health care proposal outlined in this speech do ANYTHING to reduce
costs?
"Now, there are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer
system like Canada's, where we would -- where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and
have the government provide coverage for everybody." Is the President separating himself from those
on the "left"? He is on the record, after all, in support of just such a single-payer plan
(view the clip).
He goes on. "On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and
leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own." Is that a bad idea?
"But either one would represent a radical shift..." How is buying your own health insurance from
the free market "radical"?
But we digress. Let's address how the President's plan will reduce costs.
"Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because
of a preexisting condition." ... meaning insurance companies will be legally required to insure
those it knows it will lose money on. Because the insurance company has to stay in business, it will
have to socialize these losses across its customer base by raising premiums on everyone. No?
"As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage
when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most." This is already against the law.
"They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in
a given year or in a lifetime." This is additional risk, which must be neutralized by raising
premiums. Again.
"We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of- pocket expenses, because in the
United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick." This forces the insurance
company to pay out more, which, yet again, MUST result in an increase in premiums.
"And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and
preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies." ...resulting in yet ANOTHER increase in
premiums.
How does ANY of this REDUCE costs?
"That makes sense. It saves money, and it saves lives." How does ANY of this save money?
"We'll do this by creating a new insurance exchange, a marketplace where individuals and small
businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices." Is there ANY taxpayer
pricetag on this? Isn't this simply the equivalent of deregulating the industry and allowing the free
market system to work -- allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines and compete for
the business of every single American? What element of allowing folks to buy individual insurance
from the free market requires ANY government control and ANY taxpayer money at all?
"Now, for those individuals and small businesses who still can't afford the lower-priced insurance
available in the exchange, we'll provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need."
Right, except every American today gets to deduct health insurance premiums. How is this impacted?
Would tax deductibility for Americans who are deemed to be able to afford insurance be eliminated?
Since this new proposal involves a phased-in tax credit, does this mean that folks who are not
"lower-income" are taking a tax increase?
"And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the
consumer protections I already mentioned." And given those new consumer protections, will any
insurance company then WANT such access? And will those that DO want this access be able to
charge affordable prices?
"That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just
as most states require you to carry auto insurance." Except no auto insurance policy covers
oil changes, tire rotations, wheel balances, air filters, and checkups. Yet health insurance policies
will be forced under this plan to cover physicals and preventative tests. Mandates that individuals
carry catastrophic insurance may make sense, and that discussion can be had.
Mandates that individuals
carry THIS level of coverage are completely unsustainable, especially as the rates respond to these
new rules. Once these policies become unaffordable, and as the government continues to subsidize
more and more people to be able to purchase these plans, won't all of this ultimately HAVE to lead to
some socialized public plan?
More coming... stay tuned.
|
|
|
Coming This Week:
The basic principles for which we stand -- can you disagree?
The people surrounding the Congress
Central government as a necessary evil ...our view
The history of the federal income tax
Why slippery slope theory is REAL
Our read of the Constitution
|
|
|
