A couple of folks brought to my attention an editorial in Investors Business Daily regarding an obscure provision in the new House health care bill. This provision makes it illegal to procure private health insurance if such a policy was not already owned at the time the law becomes effective,
There is probably no more revealing indicator of the true intentions of those advancing this legislation than this particular provision. They want to box everyone into government-sponsored health insurance. And they want to kill off private insurance.
But there are other reasons to oppose this effort. The "individual mandate" to purchase health insurance is of dubious constitutionality according to the Federalist Society. Senator Tom Coburn says health care reform would end up killing people because there would be lower survival rates treating conditions like heart disease and cancer. And the head of the Congressional Budget Office says our fiscal problems would be worsened.
The AP reports that taxes on upper income taxpayers would shoot back up to pre-Reagan levels. This would break an Obama campaign promise that taxes would only increase to 1990's levels.
The Wall Street Journal points out, correctly, that small business would be hit particularly hard by the House version. And even CNN acknowledges that taxing the "rich" cannot possibly fund all the agenda items currently being pursued. (ht: John)
Fortunately, we are beginning to see some pushback. Jeff Sykes reports that conservative Democrats in the House say they have the votes to bottle the thing up in committee. And House Republicans have developed a chart akin to that used so effectively during the early 1990's when ClintonCare was all the rage:
The Central Budget Office is one of the few trustworthy informational sources left in Washington. Here's its take, released today, on Obamacare. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071602242.html?hpid=topnews
"Congress's chief budget analyst delivered a devastating assessment yesterday of the health-care proposals drafted by congressional Democrats. His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation's bleak budget outlook even worse. Elmendorf's blunt language startled lawmakers racing to meet Obama's deadline for approving a bill by the August break. The CBO is the official arbiter of the cost of legislation."
Posted by: cheripicker | July 16, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Cheripicker, this almost confirms what many of us in the conservative blogosphere have been saying locally for quite some time. Our nation is in a state of severe indebtedness; and this problem will worsen in the not-too-distant future because of unfunded liabilities under Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and the like-- to the tune of about $83 trillion. We have all the preexisting federal debt, and the amassing new debt because of the stimulus packages and bailouts.
The additional debt attributed to health care reform would only make the situation worse. And jacking up taxes to pay for health care reform would be very counterproductive because of all the other structural problems we have economically.
It would make more sense, instead, for the Congressional Democrats to instead begin tackling the problem of entitlements.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 16, 2009 at 11:02 PM
" 'I'm going to really put you on the spot," Conrad said. "From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?' "
Elmendorf responded: "No, Mr. Chairman."
And what is the take-home message to be gained from this assessment by the democrat chairs of the Finance and Budget committees, Baucus and Conrad, that just maybe we can’t afford another major entitlement right now? No, it’s tax, tax, tax…
Posted by: cheripicker | July 17, 2009 at 12:10 AM
I think we need to remain mindful that, when new entitlements are created, the true costs often exceed the projections dramatically.
There was a political effort to make it appear as if we were creating some kind of utopia by working toward universal coverage. But doing so would require that we fail to consider all the downsides and drawbacks and unintended consequences-- particularly at this moment in our nation's history.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 17, 2009 at 06:53 AM
Joe - there is a great editorial in the Wall Street Journal this morning about this health care plan. And conservative Democrats are like rats fleeing a sinking ship on this plan - once the House plan to pay for this was released, and it appeared that people were going to have a chance to actually READ this plan, things changed dramatically...there's hope still on this Joe!
Posted by: Everest | July 17, 2009 at 07:20 AM
Everest, the question is how hard the party discipline will come crashing down; and whether Obama and the Congressional leadership will make compromises if they are necessary to get a bill that will pass.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 17, 2009 at 09:59 AM
As troubling as the cost of this "reform" is, it's the details of what the program will actually do to us, the "middle class", (as Nancy Pelosi says it is for). ("It is pretty exciting. It is pretty exciting for us. That this is health care reform for the middle class is really important for everyone to know, that when this bill passes shortly thereafter, pre-existing medical conditions will no longer bar people from having health care..) Consider this from the New York Post story:
" One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."
"This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?"
For those of us in Nancy Pelosi's "middle class" Granny will need to get more comfortable with going to a hospice than a hospital next time. But, I am sure she wil not see Nancy Pelosi there, when she does, as I am sure she will keep her medical plan for the rich.
Posted by: Stormy | July 17, 2009 at 10:15 AM
It is too bad that they don't actually get some economists to find the true root of what makes health care costs increase so dramatically and find a way to address the issues. I think the fact that we do have insurance that covers so much is a factor. You wind up using it more and are not able to see what you are paying for a service. I liken it to taking your car to be repaired and you only have to pay $25 no matter what. Are you really going to be concerned with what that new transmission costs.
I have also been disturbed by all the tests some doctors make you go through to "eliminate any doubts". Do you really have to have a $2,000 MRI or CT scan for everything. My daughter got stiches in her head after falling down and they ordered one. Why did they not give us some things to look out for and follow up the next day instead of having our insurance charged for an MRI? I guess the hospital has to pay for that thing somehow.
Posted by: cpa101 | July 17, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Stormy, what you are describing is a prime example of why health care reform should not proceed. Government should not be making life-or-death decisions regarding when people should receive care, and when they should not. And it should not be setting up faux-independent bodies to do so. It needs to be doctors working with families and patients who feel a substantial degree of financial responsibility for the decisions they make-- and who should not feel free to spend money thoughtlessly because other parties are picking up the tab. It also needs to be insurers those patients and families have freely chosen, not the government.
cpa, I agree. Part of the issue is the legal environment and the fear of malpractice suits. But a big part of the problem is also the way insurance is done in the United States-- third party, first dollar. We need to fix the way insurance is done to control costs better.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 17, 2009 at 10:51 AM
The next horror that we are learning in the health care bill, trying to be rammed through Congress before we find out what is in it, is a mandate that all health insurance plans, private or public, must provide coverage for abortion. And, any employer who wants to buy a plan without abortion coverage must pay an extra prremium of 2%-8%. Is this the change that we can believe in that we were promised?
Posted by: Stormy | July 17, 2009 at 06:30 PM
So, Obama says that they are going to pay for the health insurance bill by squeezing costs out of the system. But, if they start paying for new procedures such as abortions routinely, how is it that they can reduce costs? And, how is it that an employer must pay more for not having additional coverage? Have we passed through a worm hole into a parallel universe where things are illogical are now logical? Mr. Spock is confused.
Posted by: Stormy | July 17, 2009 at 07:01 PM
And yet even today, we get this from Obama Magnus:
"Obama rejected the criticism out of hand.
" 'Now, we know there are those who will oppose reform no matter what,' Obama said.
'We know the same special interests and their agents in Congress will make the same old arguments and use the same scare tactics that have stopped reform before because they profit from this relentless escalation in health care costs.'"
He's either incredibly stupid, or an incredible liar. Possibly both.
There's no other explanation.
Posted by: Bubba | July 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Folks: I think this bill can be stopped in the Senate, that is if it gets out of the house committees.
If you would help spread the word about the petition to Kay Hagan, and I mean really spread the word for the next two or three weeks, we can have a direct, grassroots impact on this issue.
This link goes to a post on my site:
http://tinyurl.com/nnq7ga
Please help spread this link across the web. The search traffic is now bringing almost 20 search terms related to "petition against health care bill" to the site.
We netted 350-plus signatures this week. If we can move to the next level of spreading the word in the upcoming weeks, we can make our voices heard.
We can't sit back and let big money Democratic groups swoop in and stir up their activists while we sit and watch.
Please take a personal stake in this campaign and help spread the message to Hagan that we are opposed to the current plans in Congress.
Posted by: Jeffrey Sykes | July 18, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Jeff, thanks for the reminder. Everyone who opposes health care reform should sign that petition to deliver a message to our junior senator.
Bubba, unfortunately, Obama has no credibility on this issue. He tried to make it appear that this change would be without consequence.
Stormy, coverage of abortion continues to be an issue.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 18, 2009 at 11:31 AM