Strawmen For Healthcare
September 1st 2009 16:46
This is a great video for tearing down the strawman arguments made by "universal healthcare supporters."
For all of you who think we can afford to do this, you need to go to and look at the unfunded liabilities section. Do you:
a) Really think there are and will be enough income to tax to overcome that AND provide healtchare to the 8 million people who can't afford health insurance right now?
b) Really think that the purpose of all of this is to wipe out private insurance (go see many of the videos capturing "public option" fans insisting that of course that's a way to single payer, government only healthcare) so that they can increase taxes on those not rich enough to handle a major medical disaster with cash but not "poor enough" to qualify for the other people to pick up the tab?
In such a system, as has happened in EVERY government healthcare system, the taxes collected don't go far enough, care is rationed by government bodies (like Obama's Sr. Health Advisor Ezekiel Emanuel who wants to ration away the old and very young) and the system goes bankrupt anyways. In the UK just this past week there was a story about 4,000 women THIS YEAR giving birth in elevators, offices, and closets in hospitals because government healthcare couldn't afford the beds needed. Also, a study by the UK found that one million patients got extremely poor care.
Australia has government healthcare. Yet, when the PM got prostate cancer, he flew to the US to get his care. Rich people from all over the world that are in "universal healthcare" systems fly to the US for our far superior care.
Why? Because of profit. Profit drives people to innovate, to become better to compete for the dollars. It encourages people and companies to get into the market and offer it better. The more people see money to be made, the more people and companies get into it and competition drives down prices. As prices fall the market reaches equilibrium at some point.
The reason that hasn't happened in US healthcare is simple: The government is already too involved. I have been watching some of the other news networks and the reason I hear over and over again why there has to be all these state mandates and such is that "people are too stupid to know what they need in a health plan." They don't use those words, they say something like "we have to make sure the consumer is getting what they need."
Right now the cost of insurance is inflated by:
1) Not being able to buy across state lines. Combined with state mandates, this means that insurance companies offering non-employer insurance have very small groups to spread the risk across (especially in states with only 400,000 people) and less competition to encourage price reductions. Not only that, but the brilliant (sarcastic) Oregon Legislature, for instance, just put a 1% tax on insurance policies, doctors and hospitals. All of this is passed on to the consumer, for an effective 3% tax on our medical care.
2) State mandates. Trust people to be able to buy the ala carte policies they want. States that have eliminated mandates have seen insurance rates drop and more people covered. The biggest argument people make for universal healtcare is that "disasters" bankrupt people. So let people buy emergency care only, or office visits and emergency. Let people with bad backs add chiropractic care like a person that is out of town in their car a lot can choose to add roadside assistance to their car insurance.
"But hey, I threw my back out and now they won't take the pre-existing condition!" In an ala-carte plan system that is factored in. Very few people won't buy insurance for things they don't need. In at least one state cosmetic surgery is mandated in coverage. So EVERYBODY pays for that. It comes down to personal responsibility: If you decide you don't need more than 25,000 in liability on your car and you cause a 10 car/semi pileup on the freeway, it will bankrupt you. If you work in a job where lifting and twisting are part of the work, or you have a history of bad backs in your familiy, but choose not to have back care in your coverage, then you pay the price of more expensive insurance to add chiropractic care when you do throw your back out.
In California they allow for "catastropic only" coverage and they have tort limits. Therefore, I was able to either buy catastrophic insurance for around $50 a month (less than what most people with cable or sattelite choose to pay on entertainment) and I was also able to insure my kids for $140 a month.
The current HB 3200 eliminates Health Savings Accounts, pre tax accounts limited to $5300 a year or so in contributions, that allow people to save money on insurance by getting high deductible or catastrophic only plans, but earning money in a special savings account to pay for doctors vists, etc.
It's called choice and it works.
3) Tort reform. Strengthen the certification boards for licensing doctors. Then institute two changes: a) cap the amount that can be awarded in a malpractice case and b) make the losing party pay the expenses of BOTH parties for going through with the suit.
There are many components to this. First, doctors over test and often do unnecessary procedures to protect themselves. They don't willy-nilly take out tonsils and cut off feet to get rich, as Obama has suggested in his speeches. But they do have to practice with the worry of a lawsuit in the back of their minds.
Why worry? Because in the system where it costs you to even defend a suit you can win, doctors and their liability insurance often just settle out of court, whether the plaintiff has a case or not, rather than have all the expenses to pay even if they win. It can cost well into the five figures to successfully defend a case, when you could settle for less than that. If the loser has to pay ALL costs for BOTH parties, not only will less suits be brought, doctors will defend themselves in cases where they are in the right. This means lower liability insurance because the liability insurance company will be paying out less money as there are fewer "go away" settlements and fewer cases tried.
Second, when a doctor makes an honest mistake, should he have to pay millions? Part of the reason liability insurance is so high, is becuase the awards are so high. One neurosurgeon reported that if he does 300 surgeries a year, it takes the first ONE HUNDRED just to pay his liability premiums! One third of his gross income goes to insuring against lawsuits, despite his excellent record.
Unfortunately, the trial lawyers have the Democrats in their pockets, and many Republicans too.
So, how do we cover the uninsured? How do they get care?
One of the worst strawmen arguments is that some people can't get healthcare. Very untrue. Anybody can walk into any hospital and get care. Yes, it gets distributed back out in higher health insurance costs, but people don't lay on the street bleeding to death.
If you take away people who choose not to get health insurance (they can afford it but think they don't need it, would prefer to have all premium channels, want to travel the world instead of buy insurance, etc), and the illegal aliens tax dollars should not be insuring, the number of uninsured is down to eight to ten million people.
We can handle it this way:
- Continue to allow people to use hospitals when they don't have insurance (the benefits of preventative care are questionable. Think about it, how does seeing the doctor twice a year keep your from swine flu, when the shots are available, whether you have a doctor or not, at your local pharmacy.)
- Let doctors and clinics and hospitals get all or part of their "pro bono" care deducted off their taxes as charitable contributions if they are for-profit.
If you take that, plus:
- take away state mandates so there are affordable "catastrophic" insurance plans,
- strengthen HSA's,
- put in tort reform,
- allow people to buy across state lines to increase competition and group sizes,
- incentivize charity (instead of reducing the incentive as Obama's tax plan does by restricting deductions),
- let people have the same tax deductions for insurance that employers do (count as pre-tax income),
you increase choice and freedom, which is what America is all about. Americans have shown consistently throughout history that if you reduce their tax burden they are generous, charitable, and innovative with the money they keep. If people are keeping more of their money, then free clinics will get more donations. If people have more choice, then innovation takes place to offer a better product.
A "public option" will lead to government only healthcare, as the current plans exempt themselves from state mandates and a panel of executive branch bureaucrats work to build their kingdoms and expand their department. I've seen it every time I've worked in government. You can't be intellectually honest with yourself and look at who Obama has surrounded himself with, what the single payer fans say in that link above, and the history of government agencies to push out private competition (like the post office legislated monopoly on first class mail, because they are run too poorly to compete but want to keep running in the red on taxpayer dollars). The bill may not be single payer, but it gives a government board and agency all the power of the federal government to change the playing field to eliminate private insurance through pricing and coverage pressures. Yet unions and members of congress are exempt.
Then why do it? Are they evil?
No, unless being power hungry is in itself evil. Who's going to vote against the party that "provides" your healthcare. Why has Canada, with their horrible healthcare system, not been able to get rid of it? People voting as they always do: what they THINK is in their self-interest. If the Democrats can get 80 million (as the CBO says) or even everybody onto government healthcare, they've created a voting block and believe that will keep their party in power forever, so they can keep:
Giving billions to foreign rum companies partially owned by DNC supporters.
Or giving billions to a Brazilian oil company so that billionaire George Soros (the money behind MoveOn.org and other liberal groups) can get even richer!
It's not to take care of people. There's not one government healthcare system that takes care of people better than America's private care system. Not one.
Your freedom is at stake here. I've written about that before, so I'll leave it at that. Let me leave you with this excellent cartoon by Michael Ramirez at Investor's Business Daily:
For all of you who think we can afford to do this, you need to go to and look at the unfunded liabilities section. Do you:
a) Really think there are and will be enough income to tax to overcome that AND provide healtchare to the 8 million people who can't afford health insurance right now?
b) Really think that the purpose of all of this is to wipe out private insurance (go see many of the videos capturing "public option" fans insisting that of course that's a way to single payer, government only healthcare) so that they can increase taxes on those not rich enough to handle a major medical disaster with cash but not "poor enough" to qualify for the other people to pick up the tab?
In such a system, as has happened in EVERY government healthcare system, the taxes collected don't go far enough, care is rationed by government bodies (like Obama's Sr. Health Advisor Ezekiel Emanuel who wants to ration away the old and very young) and the system goes bankrupt anyways. In the UK just this past week there was a story about 4,000 women THIS YEAR giving birth in elevators, offices, and closets in hospitals because government healthcare couldn't afford the beds needed. Also, a study by the UK found that one million patients got extremely poor care.
Australia has government healthcare. Yet, when the PM got prostate cancer, he flew to the US to get his care. Rich people from all over the world that are in "universal healthcare" systems fly to the US for our far superior care.
Why? Because of profit. Profit drives people to innovate, to become better to compete for the dollars. It encourages people and companies to get into the market and offer it better. The more people see money to be made, the more people and companies get into it and competition drives down prices. As prices fall the market reaches equilibrium at some point.
The reason that hasn't happened in US healthcare is simple: The government is already too involved. I have been watching some of the other news networks and the reason I hear over and over again why there has to be all these state mandates and such is that "people are too stupid to know what they need in a health plan." They don't use those words, they say something like "we have to make sure the consumer is getting what they need."
Right now the cost of insurance is inflated by:
1) Not being able to buy across state lines. Combined with state mandates, this means that insurance companies offering non-employer insurance have very small groups to spread the risk across (especially in states with only 400,000 people) and less competition to encourage price reductions. Not only that, but the brilliant (sarcastic) Oregon Legislature, for instance, just put a 1% tax on insurance policies, doctors and hospitals. All of this is passed on to the consumer, for an effective 3% tax on our medical care.
2) State mandates. Trust people to be able to buy the ala carte policies they want. States that have eliminated mandates have seen insurance rates drop and more people covered. The biggest argument people make for universal healtcare is that "disasters" bankrupt people. So let people buy emergency care only, or office visits and emergency. Let people with bad backs add chiropractic care like a person that is out of town in their car a lot can choose to add roadside assistance to their car insurance.
"But hey, I threw my back out and now they won't take the pre-existing condition!" In an ala-carte plan system that is factored in. Very few people won't buy insurance for things they don't need. In at least one state cosmetic surgery is mandated in coverage. So EVERYBODY pays for that. It comes down to personal responsibility: If you decide you don't need more than 25,000 in liability on your car and you cause a 10 car/semi pileup on the freeway, it will bankrupt you. If you work in a job where lifting and twisting are part of the work, or you have a history of bad backs in your familiy, but choose not to have back care in your coverage, then you pay the price of more expensive insurance to add chiropractic care when you do throw your back out.
In California they allow for "catastropic only" coverage and they have tort limits. Therefore, I was able to either buy catastrophic insurance for around $50 a month (less than what most people with cable or sattelite choose to pay on entertainment) and I was also able to insure my kids for $140 a month.
The current HB 3200 eliminates Health Savings Accounts, pre tax accounts limited to $5300 a year or so in contributions, that allow people to save money on insurance by getting high deductible or catastrophic only plans, but earning money in a special savings account to pay for doctors vists, etc.
It's called choice and it works.
3) Tort reform. Strengthen the certification boards for licensing doctors. Then institute two changes: a) cap the amount that can be awarded in a malpractice case and b) make the losing party pay the expenses of BOTH parties for going through with the suit.
There are many components to this. First, doctors over test and often do unnecessary procedures to protect themselves. They don't willy-nilly take out tonsils and cut off feet to get rich, as Obama has suggested in his speeches. But they do have to practice with the worry of a lawsuit in the back of their minds.
Why worry? Because in the system where it costs you to even defend a suit you can win, doctors and their liability insurance often just settle out of court, whether the plaintiff has a case or not, rather than have all the expenses to pay even if they win. It can cost well into the five figures to successfully defend a case, when you could settle for less than that. If the loser has to pay ALL costs for BOTH parties, not only will less suits be brought, doctors will defend themselves in cases where they are in the right. This means lower liability insurance because the liability insurance company will be paying out less money as there are fewer "go away" settlements and fewer cases tried.
Second, when a doctor makes an honest mistake, should he have to pay millions? Part of the reason liability insurance is so high, is becuase the awards are so high. One neurosurgeon reported that if he does 300 surgeries a year, it takes the first ONE HUNDRED just to pay his liability premiums! One third of his gross income goes to insuring against lawsuits, despite his excellent record.
Unfortunately, the trial lawyers have the Democrats in their pockets, and many Republicans too.
So, how do we cover the uninsured? How do they get care?
One of the worst strawmen arguments is that some people can't get healthcare. Very untrue. Anybody can walk into any hospital and get care. Yes, it gets distributed back out in higher health insurance costs, but people don't lay on the street bleeding to death.
If you take away people who choose not to get health insurance (they can afford it but think they don't need it, would prefer to have all premium channels, want to travel the world instead of buy insurance, etc), and the illegal aliens tax dollars should not be insuring, the number of uninsured is down to eight to ten million people.
We can handle it this way:
- Continue to allow people to use hospitals when they don't have insurance (the benefits of preventative care are questionable. Think about it, how does seeing the doctor twice a year keep your from swine flu, when the shots are available, whether you have a doctor or not, at your local pharmacy.)
- Let doctors and clinics and hospitals get all or part of their "pro bono" care deducted off their taxes as charitable contributions if they are for-profit.
If you take that, plus:
- take away state mandates so there are affordable "catastrophic" insurance plans,
- strengthen HSA's,
- put in tort reform,
- allow people to buy across state lines to increase competition and group sizes,
- incentivize charity (instead of reducing the incentive as Obama's tax plan does by restricting deductions),
- let people have the same tax deductions for insurance that employers do (count as pre-tax income),
you increase choice and freedom, which is what America is all about. Americans have shown consistently throughout history that if you reduce their tax burden they are generous, charitable, and innovative with the money they keep. If people are keeping more of their money, then free clinics will get more donations. If people have more choice, then innovation takes place to offer a better product.
A "public option" will lead to government only healthcare, as the current plans exempt themselves from state mandates and a panel of executive branch bureaucrats work to build their kingdoms and expand their department. I've seen it every time I've worked in government. You can't be intellectually honest with yourself and look at who Obama has surrounded himself with, what the single payer fans say in that link above, and the history of government agencies to push out private competition (like the post office legislated monopoly on first class mail, because they are run too poorly to compete but want to keep running in the red on taxpayer dollars). The bill may not be single payer, but it gives a government board and agency all the power of the federal government to change the playing field to eliminate private insurance through pricing and coverage pressures. Yet unions and members of congress are exempt.
Then why do it? Are they evil?
No, unless being power hungry is in itself evil. Who's going to vote against the party that "provides" your healthcare. Why has Canada, with their horrible healthcare system, not been able to get rid of it? People voting as they always do: what they THINK is in their self-interest. If the Democrats can get 80 million (as the CBO says) or even everybody onto government healthcare, they've created a voting block and believe that will keep their party in power forever, so they can keep:
Giving billions to foreign rum companies partially owned by DNC supporters.
Or giving billions to a Brazilian oil company so that billionaire George Soros (the money behind MoveOn.org and other liberal groups) can get even richer!
It's not to take care of people. There's not one government healthcare system that takes care of people better than America's private care system. Not one.
Your freedom is at stake here. I've written about that before, so I'll leave it at that. Let me leave you with this excellent cartoon by Michael Ramirez at Investor's Business Daily:
Get the picture?
| 41 |
| Vote |
Comments (6)
Add Comments
Read More
Comment by Jonathan Biviano
on Strawmen For Healthcare
Politics Realm
Marriage Bits
You faced a couple problems.
First, I have to assume you're locked into a limited number of choices by your employer or income.
Second, your coverage wasn't sufficient.
In a truly competitive system, a greedy health insurance company couldn't survive, people would leave it for better plans and companies.
Right now you have limited choices because health insurance companies are forced into boxes, often to their benefit and not ours. If the playing field was opened up, with financial soundness oversight of course, insurance would be cheaper and they would have to compete for your business.
If the government were to take over, who would you go to if they didn't like how they rationed or reimbursed your care? A government bureaucrat?
In Canada the private competition from people paying for their own care threatened the budget of the national healtcare system so they banned private health insurance.
That actress, who's name is on the tip of my tongue, who died after the skiing accident in Canada was killed by government healthcare. To save money and attempt to keep the system solvent, there weren't helicopters to go get her, so she had to wait for an ambulance to come and then take her to the first hospital. Again, because of cost cutting, the first hospital didn't have the right equipment, so she had to ride in an ambulance again for hours to another hospital that did, but it was too late.
American hospitals have the equipment.
If your appendix had an issue in Canada, you could very well have to wait for it burst to get care, because the waits are so long.
That is where America would have to go to afford it. Go the http://www.usdebtclock.org and ask yourself how we afford to provide care to everybody, when we all owe, each and every man, woman and child, $220,000 in debt to pay our obligations.