Mandate madness on health care

Talk about personal responsibility is cheap. Legislating personal responsibility isn't. Take the movement to require everyone to purchase government-approved health insurance. If at first this seems like a reasonable requirement necessary to reduce cost shifting by those who do not pay their own fare, then step back and think again. The damage caused by such a mandate is far greater than the problem it purports to solve.

Passing a law won't magically make everyone insured any more than laws against speeding cause everyone to drive carefully — and shaving a few MPH off your speed is a much milder behavior modification than involuntarily spending thousands of your hard-earned dollars on government's wish list rather than your own.

Many states, including Colorado, require drivers to have automobile insurance; yet the number of uninsured drivers is estimated at 14 percent nationally and 16 percent in Colorado.

Analyzing the newest health "reform" bill by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the Congressional Budget Office found that its individual purchase mandate would still leave 25 million uninsured — out of some 30 million that CBO says are currently uninsured on any given day.

From a practical standpoint, the requirement to purchase health insurance will start badly and grow even worse. That's because the choice of what kind of insurance to purchase will no longer belong to consumers but to politicians and bureaucrats, relentlessly pressured by lobbyists to add to every conceivable screening or procedure in the nanny-state's wish list to your mandatory policy.

Politicians who resist that pressure and defend your right to choose your own level of coverage will be smeared at election time by dishonest advertisements accusing them of opposing mammograms and maternity care.

Requiring health insurance to pay for preventive screenings is like mandating that auto insurance must pay for oil changes and new tires. Only in health care do we forget that insurance was designed to pay for unforeseen catastrophes, not for predictable events for which we should plan and budget.

These are the types of mandates that turn a practical, affordable policy into an unaffordable one. In Massachusetts, which implemented an individual mandate in 2007, the average family insurance policy now costs $13,788 a year — the most expensive in the nation.

But, true to form, liberals in Congress seem incapable of learning from others' mistakes.

Worse still, the Senate bill's $829 billion cost estimate doesn't attempt to account for the total cost to Americans — only for the cost to government. Factor in the cost to businesses and families of buying government-approved health insurance and the total cost soars to $2 trillion, says Michael Cannon, health policy director at Cato Institute.

If Congress can order us to use our own money to buy goods or services that we might not otherwise purchase, what's to stop it from ordering us to drive hybrid vehicles, install solar panels on our homes, or eat our vegetables?

So let's say someone who still holds to the old-fashioned notion that America is "a free country" decides to spend her own money as she darn well pleases and buys health insurance that doesn't meet government's criteria. Then what?

According to a memo from the Joint Committee on Taxation, such independence would result in a $1,900 income tax penalty from the IRS. Refusal to pay the penalty would subject the taxpayer to a misdemeanor criminal charge carrying a fine of $25,000 and up to one year in jail.

What is so wrong with American health care that justifies this type of authoritarian government? And what does it say about Democrats who would jail those who spend their own money however they choose?

Contrary to President Obama's oft-repeated disinformation, health care spending had nothing to do with the implosion of the financial markets. In fact, the biggest problems in health care and the most expensive problems in government emanate from government health care programs. Medicare, for example, is nearly bankrupt and carries a long-term deficit of $89 trillion.

Only in Washington is it conventional wisdom that the cure for big government's errors is to make them bigger. Mark Hillman served as Colorado senate majority leader and state treasurer. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com.

The Dem's health care war of attrition

The Congressional Budget Office yesterday released its analysis of the Baucus health bill -- and the numbers will breathe new life into the ObamaCare effort. The CBO claims it will cost "only" $829 billion" over the next decade and -- importantly -- will actually shave $81 billion off the deficit. Of course, these are the same accountants who predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion by 1990 and the actual number was almost 10 times that -- $107 billion. For the Federal Government, that's a rounding error. For you and I, its disastrous. The reason the Senate bill shaves $81 billion OFF the deficit is because it pushes most of the real costs out past year 10. Its another example of smoke and mirrors from Congress. As Karl Rove points out in today's WSJ,

Yesterday's Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report pegs its cost at $829 billion over the next 10 years. The CBO report claims the bill won't add to the budget deficit until 2015—but the bill only manages that feat by delaying benefits and imposing taxes and Medicare and Medicaid cuts up front.

So, this all just another calculated political effort to shift the reality from the voters. The real risk is that the voters won't know that you can't trust the government's analyis of ANYTHING (how they don't alreadly know that if beyond me, of course -- but then again, 54% of them voted for the current socialist in the White House.)

The risk here is that the momentum gained during the summer will be lost as House Democrats and liberal Senate Republicans (yes, that's you Olympia Snowe) will be emboldened to passing this disaster. Clearly, there are many conservatives in Congress who are worried as well.

Senator Mike Crapo, a Republican from Idaho, recently told The Hill newspaper that he
"credited the August recess protests with having created enough of an
impression among his colleagues for them to have voted down public option
amendments in the Senate Finance Committee, but he's worried the protests
haven't had enough of an impact as the debate moves forward. ‘I'm concerned that
that impact is not as deep as they thought it would be,’ Crapo said.  

This is a real danger. We must take back to the streets and burn up the Congressional phone lines and fax lines to ensure that they do not succeed. While the poll numbers continue to drop for the Obama-led effort, the battle is being fought in Congress -- and they are playing a war of attrition to buy time so that the protest will get tired and resigned to an inevitable spate of legislation. We can't let this work. Call your local representative. Call your Senator. Call every Senator. We must not let complacency set in -- these power hungry zealots in Congress want to destroy this country -- one devastating law at a time!!

* * * * *

Also -- please check out the Journal's Op-Ed today entitled "Nancy Pelosi Proposes a VAT" -- which is a huge stealth consumption tax on every component of the economy. It is a staple in the UK and other socialist democracies that have a national health plan -- and Pelosi admits it is coming here as well. The VAT in the UK is 16% -- meaning that 16% is added to the cost of every item or service before they even hit the market. And because you don't pay it at the checkout stand, you aren't faced with it in every purchase. It is -- like income tax withholding -- designed to hide from you the amount you are paying to the government. It is the holy grail for liberals who want to pay for their out of control spending.

And unless the GOP can take back the House and get rid of the socialist queen from San Francisco -- a VAT is on its way!

Trust & credibility eroding for BHO

President Obama’s poll numbers have been falling, which is to be expected in difficult economic times. It was inevitable that the President’s approval ratings would ebb from his honeymoon period after the election. Simply put: President Obama could not live up to the image that Candidate Obama created. Who could? But there is more behind the change in attitude toward the President than the laws of gravity. Americans clearly discouraged about partisanship and divisiveness, were hoping for a leader who would be the uniter Candidate Obama pledged he would be. Instead, it appears that Washington and partisanship are more divided than ever and the President is engaging in intentional misleading language for the direct purpose of legislative gain.

As I listened to the President’s health-care address to Congress, I was initially encouraged that the White House was going to work in a bipartisan fashion and introduce a bill that addressed the concerns of both sides of the debate. He specifically called to incorporate “...the best ideas of both parties.”

As his speech went on, however, I realized that President Obama was not talking about introducing a new bill, but rather, his passionate but carefully worded oration was an extremely misleading representation of HR 3200. Examples of this deceptive language include statements about no federal funding of abortion and no coverage for illegal immigrants. The President was correct in his assertions that the wording of the legislation does not specifically allow for the provisions of abortions or illegals, however, wording to specifically eliminate these provisions was removed in committee.

This delusive rhetoric creates the impression that the President is not genuine or trustful. These are critical commodities for a President, especially so early in his term.

Perhaps the biggest area of concern for this administration is its credibility on fiscal responsibility. Candidate Obama pledged to go line-by-line through the budget and eliminate waste and inefficiencies. Indeed, the President intends to pay for much of health care reform by eliminating waste and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid. The public becomes skeptical of such overly-optimistic savings, and it begs the question why we are not pursuing these savings now? Americans are seeing the federal deficit skyrocket and they are concerned about wasteful spending. Even though Obama has spoken of fiscal discipline, thus far he has let Congress write legislation which continues the practice of debt financing and the funding of special interest waste. The President must show leadership in legislation and fiscal restraint rather than outsource these responsibilities to Congress, which has a proven lack of discipline.

The President’s greatest asset -- and his albatross -- are his oratory skills. His ability to inspire people is a gift. However, it also holds him to the standard he is setting for himself and for others. If the American people believe his speeches are not genuine nor his word binding, he runs the risk of alienation and dismissal. His has inspired millions of young people previously skeptical or ambivalent to the political process. Now, many of these young people are losing faith as they see another smooth-talking politician long on rhetoric, but short on substance.

All is not lost for the President. In order for him to regain some of his popular support, and perhaps save his Presidency, he only needs to live to the standard he has set and govern to the promises he has made.

Teacher's Desk: Rx Common Sense

Editor: Some think health policy is terribly complex. Some think all teachers lean left. Both notions are disproved by Kathy Kullback, who usually writes on education issues from her classroom vantage point, but demonstrates here how readily the health riddle yields to market logic. Don't Overthink the Health Issue

I wonder why all the people in Congress and all the White House people can’t figure the health care thing out.

Yes, health care is expensive. Yes, there is a pre-existing condition clause in most policies. Yes, most of us get our policies through our employers. And yes, our employers can only purchase from the companies allowed to do business in our state.

But do we need to revamp the entire thing? NO!

Make insurance companies compete for business by opening up markets. Allow companies and individuals to purchase from insurance companies doing business in the other 49 states. Take away the pre-existing condition clause, but in fairness, allow for a higher yet fair deductible when covering those conditions.

Cap malpractice settlements nationwide (Colorado does so already.) Pro-rate the working poor without insurance and let them buy into Medicaid.

Finally, build more medical schools opening up more seats for more prospective doctors. The field itself limits the amount of persons able to attend medical school. When the field becomes flooded, prices should fall.

If Obamacare’s public option becomes the law of the land, there will be rationing of services and doctors. Medical facilities will need to triage patient care---it could be you or a loved one that gets left out because they never planned for more doctors and licensed care-givers.

What the left misses in the health debate: innovation

Here's the most important question related to health care reform: if you were sick with a serious illness, where would you rather be? England, Canada or the United States?It is no accident that people who are seriously ill come from all over the world to seek treatment in the United States. Centers of excellence like the Mayo Clinic, Sloan-Kettering, Johns Hopkins and others utilize cutting edge technology and treatment protocols that continually advance the treatment of cancer and other serious problems. They do so with the full participation of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are using research and development to drive innovation. It is the reason that American health care is the most advanced in the world and works miracles on a daily basis. This system works centrally on the profit motive -- something that the left seems to think is a dirty concept. Pharma and biotech companies spend billions on R&D to advance the efficacy of drugs and treatment technology with the promise of a return on their investment. It drives innovation -- and is an aspect of our health care system that has been both misunderstood and demogogued by proponents of national health care. The left -- including our president -- has made villains of the pharmaceutical industry for daring to charge prices that allow them to recoup their massive investments and make a profit. It is as if the left thinks that all this innovation and progress should come for free, or at the very least as a public service. It might work in their ideal vision of how the world works, but it doesn't work in reality.

And herein lies the real issue related to health care reform: the real threat to innovation that makes the American health care system the best in the world. As Rupert Darwell writes today in the Wall Street Journal, what characterizes the National Health Service in Britain is a lack of investment in technology -- something that reflects the fact that the system is based on rationing -- not investment:

The case for ObamaCare, as with the NHS, rests on what might be termed the "lump of health care" fallacy. But in a market-based system triggering one person's contractual rights to health care does not invalidate someone else's health policy. Instead, increased demand for health care incentivizes new drugs, new therapies and better ways of delivering health care. Government-administered systems are so slow and clumsy that they turn the lump of health-care fallacy into a reality. According to the 2002 Wanless report, used by Tony Blair's government to justify a large tax hike to fund the higher spending, the NHS is late to adopt and slow to diffuse new technology. Still, NHS spending more than doubled to £103 billion in 2009-10 from £40 billion in 1999-2000, equivalent to an average growth rate of over 7% a year after inflation.

Darwell also writes that the NHS is inherently "ageist" -- making treatment decisions that expressly deny care to the elderly.

It should therefore come as no surprise that the NHS is institutionally ageist. The elderly have fewer years left to them; why then should they get health-care resources that would benefit a younger person more? An analysis by a senior U.K.-based health-care expert earlier this decade found that in the U.S. health-care spending per capita goes up steeply for the elderly, while the U.K. didn't show the same pattern. The U.K.'s pattern of health-care spending by age had more in common with the former Soviet bloc.

I'm quite certain that nobody in the U.S. wants our health care system to be like the former Soviet Union. But I'm equally certain that those who are promoting a "public option" haven't thought through the long-range ramifications of creating a publicly-financed system. The supporters of "universal health care" are invested in the social justice aspect of the issue -- but they ignore vital economic incentives that have made the U.S. system the best in the world.