2009Aug14 Paying for Healthcare

Respondents to this week’s poll questions must be members of the “mob” showing up at town hall meetings across the country. There was little disagreement on any of these issues.

 

Health care reform as currently proposed will cost about 1.5 trillion dollars over 10 years. It is to be paid for as follows: $544 billion from a new income tax surcharge on single people making $280,000 a year and households making $350,000 and above; $37 billion in other tax adjustments. About $500 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. About $200 billion from penalties paid by individuals and employers who don't obtain coverage. Is this a reasonable way to cover the cost?

 

Ninety two percent of the respondents did not like the proposed financing. It is no surprise that people would vote against any tax increase, and it is unlikely that all respondents would be in the affected income brackets.

 

If the government believes $500 billion can be saved in Medicare and Medicaid, it raises doubt about the integrity of the bureaucrats running the system. Why aren’t they executing those processes now? Will the savings come from the elimination of fraudulent billings? Is the government not policing and prosecuting that area already? Are the costs reductions going to come from eliminating services, treatment or arbitrarily lower reimbursement schedules for providers?

 

Imposing penalties on individuals and employers who exercise their liberty to self-insure raises Orwellian “Big Brother” questions about the intent and direction of our government and society.

 

The title of the bill is H.R. 3200: To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes. Is it reasonable that it takes 1017 pages to get this done?

 

Ninety six percent of respondents did not believe H.R. 3200 needed to be so large. Other proposals have been submitted to various committees that did not require massive government intervention and oversight. None of those proposals have been allowed out of committee. This appears to be more about controlling individual lives and medical decisions rather than about improving the quality of healthcare.

 

Individuals must have insurance, enforced through tax penalty with hardship waivers. The penalty is 2.5 percent of income. Is this reasonable?

 

Mandating that everyone purchase insurance or be taxed as a penalty created the greatest division among the respondents with twenty percent in favor of the concept. This, of course, is another restriction on personal liberties. Massachusetts implemented a similar law in 2006 without success. The penalties have been less expensive than premiums resulting in a continuation of uninsured residents.

 

Independent analysis of the uninsured objective of H.R. 3200 consistently concludes that the number of uninsured in the country will not materially shrink and may significantly increase. It would be far less expensive for the federal government to budget money to buy private insurance for the uninsured than to add more than a trillion dollars to our federal debt.

 

Employers must provide insurance to their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll. Companies with payroll under $250,000 annually are exempt. Is this reasonable?

 

Only twelve percent of the respondents believe this is reasonable. The rule of unintended consequences works well here. Small businesses will be highly motivated to not grow payroll above the threshold. We certainly do not need more reasons to limit commercial activity in our country. The “jobless recovery” that has been mentioned in the mainstream media may last a very long time.

 

The main argument for a "public option" is that it would increase competition. However, if the federal government creates a health care plan that it controls and also sets the rules for the private plans, can this increase competition?

 

Negative responses outweigh the affirmatives by eighty four percent to sixteen. President Obama’s analogy of the postal service competing with UPS and FedEx is not reassuring. The postal service continues to run operating deficits. We can only assume that a “public option” will do the same. That is not fair competition when the tax payer subsidizes operations.

 

Interstate competition is the solution. Currently, insurance is a state by state regulated industry but most insurance companies have dealt with the encumbrance of multi-state regulation. Where competition has weakened has been in states with high levels of mandates for coverage and underwriting. When an insurance company cannot manage its underwriting, premium and risk pool, it cannot survive. Choice disappears. That is the inevitable result of H.R. 3200.

 

President Obama said: "They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. ... If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that's going to make you well." Does that sound like a government that will stay out of your health care decisions?

 

Eighty eight percent think not. “The land of the free” is not the land of the government making lifestyle decisions for its citizens. That happens in the land of tyranny. It is not just a question of which pill, but whether or not you get the pill in the first place.

 

The government is already neck deep in red ink. It has not been able to manage the expenses of Medicare or Medicaid within original expectations. The current proposals for healthcare reform all include more red ink. There will be no cost savings by having young people lead “healthier” lives. The only cost savings available are by reducing expenses incurred by the sick and elderly. When the government makes that decision, we are no longer in control of our medical destiny. We will have surrendered a fundamental liberty.