Costs must be addressed and mal-practice insurance is a major cost. Failure to address this cost makes any attempt at “reform” a waste of time. I go so far as to allow patients to hold care providers harmless. The cost to educate our medical professionals must also be addressed.
He can’t ask doctors to accepted fee reductions on their services without helping them cut expenses. Reducing malpractice insurance premiums by capping awards is a great first step.
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) admits that the goal is to destroy private health insurance. Obooba said more or less the same thing while campaigning.
The govt plan will set maximum payments schedules for all services.
The private carriers will be overcharged to make up for the loss.
Private companies have to raise their premium rates to make up for it.
Obooba complains that private insurance is getting more expensive.
Citizens shop around for cheaper private insurance.
Smaller companies go outa beusiness, and employers are dropping private plans in favor of the govt subsidized plan that need not make a profit.
Eventually there is the govt plan and maybe 2 or 3 private companies that are so regulated that they serve as nothing but claims processors – until they go belly up leaving only OboobaCare as the Health Rationing Service.
This will cost about one $1M per American per year when it all shakes out.
Alternative: if you want CastroCare, move to Cuba.
Obama is saying the right things. This will pass and it should. The insurance industry doesn’t want to sell insurance to those who are presently uninsured, so the Fed. gov’t should and will. If they can’t compete well then “they reap what they have sowed”.
You’re absolutely on point. Read this from today’s WSJ:
Health Reform and Competitiveness
Article Comments (17) more in Opinion »Email Printer
Friendly Share: Yahoo Buzz ↓ More
facebook
MySpace
LinkedIn
Digg
del.icio.us
NewsVine
StumbleUpon
Mixx
Save This ↓ More
Text
Democrats have spent years arguing that corporate tax rates don’t matter to U.S. competitiveness. But all of a sudden one of their favorite arguments for government-run health care has become . . . U.S. corporate competitiveness. Political conversions on this scale could use a little scrutiny.
“Businesses now recognize that if we don’t get a handle on this stuff then they are going to continue to be operating at a competitive disadvantage with other countries,” President Obama recently remarked. “And so they anxiously seek serious reform.”
Sure enough, many business leaders who should know better have picked up the White House theme. “You won’t fundamentally solve the problems in business until you solve the problem of spiraling health-care costs, which is driving everybody crazy,” said Google CEO Eric Schmidt the other day.
Messrs. Obama and Schmidt need to brush up on their economics. Employers may write the checks to the insurance companies, but workers still pay for the coverage they get from those employers. The total cost of an employee is what matters to businesses, and fringe benefits are as much a part of compensation as cash wages. When health costs rise, firms don’t become less competitive, as if insurance were lopped out of profits. Instead, nonhealth compensation drops. Or wages rise more slowly than they otherwise would.
A recent study from none other than the White House Council of Economic Advisers notes exactly this point: If medical spending continues to accelerate, it expects take-home pay to stagnate. According to the New York Times, White House economic aide Larry Summers pressured CEA chairman Christine Romer to make the competitiveness argument, “adding that it was among the political advisers’ favorite ‘talking points.'” Ms. Romer pointedly retorted, “I’m not going to put schlocky arguments in there.” How the schlock gets into Mr. Obama’s speeches is a different question.
It’s certainly true that the U.S. employer-based insurance system can dampen entrepreneurial spirits. There’s the “job lock” phenomenon, in which employees fear leaving a less productive job because they’re afraid to lose their health benefits. Another problem is that insurance costs more for small groups than the large risk pools that big corporations assemble, meaning that it’s harder to form new businesses that can offer policies. But all this is really an argument for developing the individual health insurance market, where policies would follow workers, not jobs.
As for the competitiveness line, it’s nonsense for most companies. The exceptions are heavily unionized businesses like auto makers that have locked themselves in to gold-plated coverage, especially for retirees. They have a harder time adjusting health costs and wages. Other companies might get a bit more running room in the short run if government assumed all health costs a la the single-payer systems of Western Europe. But over time the market would clear — compensation being determined by the demand for and supply of labor — and wages would rise. Or they might not rise at all if health-care costs are merely replaced by the tax increases necessary to finance Mr. Obama’s new multi-trillion-dollar entitlement.
This is where the real competitiveness argument is precisely the opposite of the one pitched by Messrs. Obama and Schmidt. Consider the European welfare states, where costly entitlements and regulations make it extremely expensive to hire new workers. The nearby table lays out the tax wedge, the share of labor costs that never reaches employees but instead goes straight to government. In Germany, France and Italy, the tax wedge hovers around 50%, in part to pay for state-provided health care.
By contrast, the U.S. tax wedge was around 30% in 2008, according to the OECD. In other words, the costs of providing insurance would merely be converted into a larger wedge, which would itself eat into compensation. This is why Europe has tended to have higher unemployment and slower economic growth over the past 30 years.
If Democrats really want to increase U.S. competitiveness, they could look at the corporate income tax, which is the second highest in the industrialized world and a major impediment to U.S. job creation when global capital is so fluid. Or drop their proposals to raise personal income-tax rates, which affect thousands of small- and medium-size businesses that have fled the corporate tax regime as limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations. Or cut capital gains rates, which deter risk taking and investment. Or rethink their plans to rig the rules in favor of organized labor by doing away with secret ballots in union elections.
On all these issues and more, Democrats want to increase, not reduce, the burdens on U.S. business. Their health-care line is, per Ms. Romer, “schlocky” political spin.
Excellent, thanks. The reason healthcare is spiralling upward in cost in Medicare/Medicaid. Because providers can’t make a profit on their services to Medicare & Medicaid patients, they gouge private insurers to make up the difference.
King Hussein wants it both ways. Implementation of government run healthcare with no relief to the doctors in the form of malpractice awards. Guess what, if you’re a doctor and want relief you become a government employee. I believe you cannot sue the government. So now the private sector will have less physicians to choose from and Hussein got what he wants, you and I enrolling in their health plan scheme.
He’s smooth.
Is this the TAR I know? How the ehck ya been?
Dr’s have it bad enough already, to ask them to concede more is an insult to their dedication of their profession.They have conceded in treatment pricing to the insurance companies and treat us as cattle. I’m famous in the Dr’s office for a whopping 15 minutes then gotta go!
To ask them to further take a bite is nuts! This will only end up in increases in premium costs and added costs to us.Screw Obama’s health plan it doesn’t work!
Still in the rat race, hawking policies, watching business clients close their doors after years and years in business.
You see King Hussein rapidly making policy after policy, creating new departments, appointing a Czar for everything and no one is outraged. The communists used Czars, now it’s become an accepted word in what used to be a Capitalistic Republic. In a little over 150 days, government has become so sated, taking over public entities without Congressional debate. It’s really astounding what has happened.
So yes, back in the rat race.
I see you haven’t left? Way to stick with it.
Ciao
This Country is headed for disaster!
I don’t normally get involved unless something catches my eye on this site.
I normally scan the subjects only!
With all do respect to this site.
I will mention some names to see if you are the TAR I know,Margaret,Steve,Joe.
Well Joe I guess I am confused as to why they opened all these medical clinics around the world. They don’t keep them open for the ill when they are needed.These walk in clinics should be open 24/7 for the poor but instead when a methadone clinic opens they provide the hours needed for the drugs addicts to obtain their fix. I could go on and on.
I can remember driving by one at 5:30 a.m.watching cars pull in and out as if it were the drive through at a fast food restaurant.
It makes my stomach turn!
Please read this column by a black newspaper writer:
’45 Million Americans’ — Who Are Those Guys? Larry Elder
Thursday, June 18, 2009
About 45 million Americans lack health care insurance. Or do they?
A pro-“universal health care” television host recently cited this widely accepted “fact.” The number is bogus.
Here’s the skinny.
Start with the math. We have 300 million Americans. Subtract the 45 million — 15 percent of us — with no health insurance. That leaves 255 million Americans, or 85 percent, with it.
And the insurance is lousy, right? Not according to a 2006 ABC News/Kaiser Family Foundation/USA Today survey. It found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with the quality of their own health care.
Nearly half of the 45 million fall in the category of my 26-year-old nephew. He smokes cigarettes, dates, eats out, goes to movies and, like all young people, lives through his cell phone. With a slight change in priorities, he could afford health insurance, the cost of which at his age and health starts at about $100 a month. Take a look at a Reason Foundation video of interviews with a bunch of non-health-insured 20-somethings.
These Gen Xers copped to dropping money on clothes, booze, nightlife, the latest tech gizmos and other things of interest to them. With a change in priorities, these young folks — far more representative of those without insurance than the forlorn husband and wife sitting on a porch swing — could both afford and qualify for health insurance. They simply consider it a low priority.
Millions more can access health care — through SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), Medicaid or other government programs. But for whatever reason, 11 million people simply refuse to take advantage of them.
Several million other Americans who want insurance do, indeed, go without it — for a time. Many are, however, between jobs, and most — at some point — will find employment that either offers health insurance or pays enough so that they can buy it. Millions more work at companies that offer health insurance, and for a few dollars out of every paycheck, they could add family members. They choose not to.
What about criminals without insurance? More than 2 million Americans — with access to health care, by the way — use jail, prison or penitentiary mailing addresses. And for every one behind bars, how many live among us who survive by theft, drug dealing, prostitution or some similar career path? Taxpayer health insurance for them, too?
So now we’re down to the Americans without health insurance on a persistent, long-term basis. This is approximately 10-15 million, a big number to be sure. But does this warrant a government takeover of the entire health care system?
Lacking health care insurance is not the same as lacking health care . By law, most emergency rooms must provide health care — to both legals and illegals. Yes, they stand in line, but no health insurance does not equal no health care.
Government (aka taxpayers) already pays half of our health care dollar, with programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and other federal and state plans. The stated goals are accessibility and affordability. Congress passed Medicare in 1965. In the 20 years before the program’s inception, the cost of a day in a hospital increased threefold. In the 20 years following Medicare, a day in a hospital increased eightfold — substantially higher than inflation over that period. Because of cost controls on government plans, providers increased the cost on everybody else.
So here’s the question.
Do we allow a complete government takeover of the section of health care it doesn’t already run, for 10-15 million or so without health insurance on a persistent basis? Again, 255 million Americans already have it. Many millions more could get it if they wanted to. And 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with the care they now receive.
What to do? Unleash the free market. Allow greater competition among health care providers. Decrease costly regulations that increase the price tag. Enable consumers to purchase insurance plans across state lines. Allow non-government-licensed paraprofessionals and others — currently prevented by law from offering any medical services — to provide low-cost care.
What about poor care and negligence? We have laws against force and fraud, as well as a common-law duty of care. That’s why God created lawyers. (Just give us “loser pays.”)
What about those who cannot afford it? What about those with pre-existing illnesses whose insurance applications carriers turned down? What’s wrong with charity — people helping people? America remains the most generous nation on the face of the earth. We donate more of our time and money than countries like England, Germany and Japan. During the Great Depression, before the New Deal, charitable giving skyrocketed. After the New Deal, charitable giving continued, but not at nearly the same rate. People expected government to address the problem, and taxpayers felt they gave at the office.
We can provide such “universal” coverage at a “low cost” — through rationing. That means long lines, lower quality and less innovation for services that Americans currently take for granted.
Economists call it T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
Please also read the following site from time-to-time: http://mises.org/
Bdda Bing! Yoiu hit the nail right on the head. The problem in my opinion though is that percentage that is spoken of where they have Insurance available to them cannot afford to make that small payment but as the article says hospitals.the taxpayer does not pick upm the tab! I beg to differ with this article on that.
Hospitals have come after me for $200 so the people that do visit the emergency room are not off the hook to pay.Uncle Sam WILL NOT come in and bailout those who cannot pay the hospital.Thye individuals sign form after form commiting themselves to make good on payment to the hospital PERIOD.
So to a certain degree this article has some truths but it certainly has some falses.
BTW. I am not an advocate of Government controled anything.
What happened to our Country anyway? What happened to the Constitution Of The United States?
The government needs to be downsized if anything and the people that run it need to be brought into check with the dsame provisions that we the people are allowed or offered.
What happened to the constitution? It was voted out on 11/04/08 as Obama, who has not proven he is constitutionally eligible to serve as President, was voted in.
The Constitution? Today’s society believes it is their “Right” to health care. You have revisionists who justify healthcare by stating well it would have been the intentions of our Founding Fathers. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say healthcare is a right.
If insurance companies were smart they would get together and resolve this issue without government intervention, so when a marxist like Hussein Obama is elected government takeover of the private sector is not priority one.
And “Nobody” I am the TAR which you and I have been conversing these past two years.
Of course, I didn’t verify the facts in Mr. Elder’s column, but I’m sure that they could be found on the internet. And I agree that hospitals do go after people to pay bills; however, people such as you, who pay those bills (and I’ve paid such bills myself for services not covered by my insurance) are a small percentage. This is due to the fact that almost all uninsureds use hospital emergency rooms for routine medical care (sore throat, colds, & etc.). So, to this extent, I’d guess that Mr. Elder is correct. Also, his reputation for veracity is unimpeachable.
I’m sorry to say you’re exactly right about our Constitution!
You should see how the good ole Southern people feel but they won’t get their lazy butts out to vote.
The North has accepted all the bull that the liberal dems have dished out for years and it’s spread to the mid-west. I thought were smarter, they were not.They had the potty pulled right out from under their butts when they were taking their UNION breaks!
What you right here has some merit and is already being used.George W passed the Patriot Act when he was in office and it’s being utilized for everything except that for which it was intended.
Anyway what you mention really has nothing to do with malpractice but many of your comments are reality.
I have a problem with allowing immigrants total amnesty and award them to the entitlements that people of this country built.(If you paid in you are entitled if not you’re not)It’s that simple!
The problem is with lobbyists constantly persuading our elected officials to lean their way that of corporate amoerica we are stuck between a rock and a hard place and no place to move.
On another note the Unions that swayed the winning of Mr BinObama should be so ticked off at him for what he has done!
I don’t condone $90 an hour to any worker unless they own their own business but now that Uncle Sam will have his fingers in GM I am anxious to see how they handle the pay of such people because that is what has ruined this countries economy businessman and wommen have opted to move their businesses over seas or to Mexico to hire cheap labor so they can still reap the rewards of screwing the rest of the working man!
It will be interesting but is carey at best to sit back and see what happens as TAR says the children of today may be in for big trouble!
Plus, Nobody, you and I paid for the methodone. Of course, there’s a simple, free market solution to drug use that doesn’t require taxpayers to fund the habit, reduces the cost of law enforcement devoted to drug laws, and effectively would de-fund many terrorist organizations and other crime syndicates.
Why not make all drugs legal? This would save taxpayers over $100 billion a year, plus, it’d make it easier for US IRO foreign policy. For example, organizied crime, terrorists, and rogue states, such as N. Korea, Libya, Syria, and the Taliban-controlled and FARC-controlled areas of Afghanistan and Columbia, respectively, would lose a major, if not sole source, of funds for their activities. Not to mention what this would do to reduce, if not eliminate the lawlessness in Mexico. So, there could be additional savings in this area.
However, no drug addict gets any gov’t support for anything related to drug use. Also, employers may test anyone at anytime for any drug use and fire them if they test positive. Or employers may choose to test only for certain drugs and not others. Or employers may choose not to test.
So, employers who don’t test, likely could hire workers for less pay, but at least the druggies would have a job and if drugs were legal, they could afford to buy them. Also, such employees of a non-testing employer would pay more for health ins., b/c the employer likely would have to pay more, the employee contribution would have to increase, unless the lower wages offset the additional health ins costs of such employers.
Also, allow health ins companies to charge more for those who use drugs, just as life companies may charge more for smokers.
Also, drug users would be ineligible for social security disability benefits for disability related to drug use.
Anyway, I threw out several ideas here, in no particular order, but it’s something to consider.
Would it work? Who knows? But nothing is working now and the US is spending billions and having to deal with the foreign policy implications of fighting drug cartels worldwide.
Why should Americans worry about that old document, the President of the United States has no regard for it. He violates it by not producing a valid birth certificate, takes over private business with the debate and consent of Congress and now he seeks to sink his teeth into the government taking over the U.S. healthcare system. “Change” that will leave us and our children with no “hope”.
Sorry for the late reply .I just got the to my computer been ill!
So the majority says BinObama is a jerk! Why was he voted into office is my question?
I guess it was the people that don’t work sit home and watch Oprah all day!
We people need to write our Representatives and tell them to nix this plan BinObama is trying to push through the house.This guy is shoving his backside in everyones face.I would like to see him impeached for not knowing what the heck he is doing or having the knowledge to run our Country,OUR COUNTRY!
We are about to embark on the biggest expense that anybody has every seen in freebies to people that are not legal immigrants and have been in this country working and NOT PAYING TAXES AS WE HAVE FOR YEARS!
They filter their money to Mexico and other small and large countries to get theior families here so that they to can work for pennies and NOT PAY into the system.
Well I am damn tired of paying into the system myself.Why can’t I stoppaying taxes?
I wonder how many people are going to be placed into a higher tax bracket this year when income tax time comes.They lowered the federal taxes withheld so this is going to increase our income hence placing us responsible to pay the government instead of collecting an income tax check at the end of the year.HHHHmmmmm.
I wonder if anyone else saw the Amnesty Bill that Pelosi and those idiots are trying to push through now.
copy and paste this link to your browser and you will see what the Demmies are trying to push through.If the link does not work google (CNN Lou Dobbs Amnesty)
How is the rat race or did you move on?
Costs must be addressed and mal-practice insurance is a major cost. Failure to address this cost makes any attempt at “reform” a waste of time. I go so far as to allow patients to hold care providers harmless. The cost to educate our medical professionals must also be addressed.
He can’t ask doctors to accepted fee reductions on their services without helping them cut expenses. Reducing malpractice insurance premiums by capping awards is a great first step.
The truth behind the headline.
http://www.topix.com/us-house/janice-schakowsky
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050409/content/01125113.guest.html
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) admits that the goal is to destroy private health insurance. Obooba said more or less the same thing while campaigning.
The govt plan will set maximum payments schedules for all services.
The private carriers will be overcharged to make up for the loss.
Private companies have to raise their premium rates to make up for it.
Obooba complains that private insurance is getting more expensive.
Citizens shop around for cheaper private insurance.
Smaller companies go outa beusiness, and employers are dropping private plans in favor of the govt subsidized plan that need not make a profit.
Eventually there is the govt plan and maybe 2 or 3 private companies that are so regulated that they serve as nothing but claims processors – until they go belly up leaving only OboobaCare as the Health Rationing Service.
This will cost about one $1M per American per year when it all shakes out.
Alternative: if you want CastroCare, move to Cuba.
Obama is saying the right things. This will pass and it should. The insurance industry doesn’t want to sell insurance to those who are presently uninsured, so the Fed. gov’t should and will. If they can’t compete well then “they reap what they have sowed”.
The private companies cannot compete with the govt, since the govt is backed by infinite taxes and printing presses!
Please move to Cuba right now. Get out if you don’t like it here!!! Why should the rest of us get screwed for your ignorance?
Al,
You’re absolutely on point. Read this from today’s WSJ:
Health Reform and Competitiveness
Article Comments (17) more in Opinion »Email Printer
Friendly Share: Yahoo Buzz ↓ More
facebook
MySpace
LinkedIn
Digg
del.icio.us
NewsVine
StumbleUpon
Mixx
Save This ↓ More
Text
Democrats have spent years arguing that corporate tax rates don’t matter to U.S. competitiveness. But all of a sudden one of their favorite arguments for government-run health care has become . . . U.S. corporate competitiveness. Political conversions on this scale could use a little scrutiny.
“Businesses now recognize that if we don’t get a handle on this stuff then they are going to continue to be operating at a competitive disadvantage with other countries,” President Obama recently remarked. “And so they anxiously seek serious reform.”
Sure enough, many business leaders who should know better have picked up the White House theme. “You won’t fundamentally solve the problems in business until you solve the problem of spiraling health-care costs, which is driving everybody crazy,” said Google CEO Eric Schmidt the other day.
Messrs. Obama and Schmidt need to brush up on their economics. Employers may write the checks to the insurance companies, but workers still pay for the coverage they get from those employers. The total cost of an employee is what matters to businesses, and fringe benefits are as much a part of compensation as cash wages. When health costs rise, firms don’t become less competitive, as if insurance were lopped out of profits. Instead, nonhealth compensation drops. Or wages rise more slowly than they otherwise would.
A recent study from none other than the White House Council of Economic Advisers notes exactly this point: If medical spending continues to accelerate, it expects take-home pay to stagnate. According to the New York Times, White House economic aide Larry Summers pressured CEA chairman Christine Romer to make the competitiveness argument, “adding that it was among the political advisers’ favorite ‘talking points.'” Ms. Romer pointedly retorted, “I’m not going to put schlocky arguments in there.” How the schlock gets into Mr. Obama’s speeches is a different question.
It’s certainly true that the U.S. employer-based insurance system can dampen entrepreneurial spirits. There’s the “job lock” phenomenon, in which employees fear leaving a less productive job because they’re afraid to lose their health benefits. Another problem is that insurance costs more for small groups than the large risk pools that big corporations assemble, meaning that it’s harder to form new businesses that can offer policies. But all this is really an argument for developing the individual health insurance market, where policies would follow workers, not jobs.
As for the competitiveness line, it’s nonsense for most companies. The exceptions are heavily unionized businesses like auto makers that have locked themselves in to gold-plated coverage, especially for retirees. They have a harder time adjusting health costs and wages. Other companies might get a bit more running room in the short run if government assumed all health costs a la the single-payer systems of Western Europe. But over time the market would clear — compensation being determined by the demand for and supply of labor — and wages would rise. Or they might not rise at all if health-care costs are merely replaced by the tax increases necessary to finance Mr. Obama’s new multi-trillion-dollar entitlement.
This is where the real competitiveness argument is precisely the opposite of the one pitched by Messrs. Obama and Schmidt. Consider the European welfare states, where costly entitlements and regulations make it extremely expensive to hire new workers. The nearby table lays out the tax wedge, the share of labor costs that never reaches employees but instead goes straight to government. In Germany, France and Italy, the tax wedge hovers around 50%, in part to pay for state-provided health care.
By contrast, the U.S. tax wedge was around 30% in 2008, according to the OECD. In other words, the costs of providing insurance would merely be converted into a larger wedge, which would itself eat into compensation. This is why Europe has tended to have higher unemployment and slower economic growth over the past 30 years.
If Democrats really want to increase U.S. competitiveness, they could look at the corporate income tax, which is the second highest in the industrialized world and a major impediment to U.S. job creation when global capital is so fluid. Or drop their proposals to raise personal income-tax rates, which affect thousands of small- and medium-size businesses that have fled the corporate tax regime as limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations. Or cut capital gains rates, which deter risk taking and investment. Or rethink their plans to rig the rules in favor of organized labor by doing away with secret ballots in union elections.
On all these issues and more, Democrats want to increase, not reduce, the burdens on U.S. business. Their health-care line is, per Ms. Romer, “schlocky” political spin.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A12
Joe,
Excellent, thanks. The reason healthcare is spiralling upward in cost in Medicare/Medicaid. Because providers can’t make a profit on their services to Medicare & Medicaid patients, they gouge private insurers to make up the difference.
Check it out:
Dems in retreat on OboobaCare
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/17/dems-retreating-on-healthcare/
If you like the WSJ, you’ll love http://www.hotair.com.
The reason healthcare is spiralling upward in cost ->is
King Hussein wants it both ways. Implementation of government run healthcare with no relief to the doctors in the form of malpractice awards. Guess what, if you’re a doctor and want relief you become a government employee. I believe you cannot sue the government. So now the private sector will have less physicians to choose from and Hussein got what he wants, you and I enrolling in their health plan scheme.
He’s smooth.
Is this the TAR I know? How the ehck ya been?
Dr’s have it bad enough already, to ask them to concede more is an insult to their dedication of their profession.They have conceded in treatment pricing to the insurance companies and treat us as cattle. I’m famous in the Dr’s office for a whopping 15 minutes then gotta go!
To ask them to further take a bite is nuts! This will only end up in increases in premium costs and added costs to us.Screw Obama’s health plan it doesn’t work!
Hey Nobody,
I’mmm back!
This is Tar you know. I’ve been on a little sabaticle. Taking it easy, recharging the batteries. Hope you are well!
Ciao…
Still in the rat race, hawking policies, watching business clients close their doors after years and years in business.
You see King Hussein rapidly making policy after policy, creating new departments, appointing a Czar for everything and no one is outraged. The communists used Czars, now it’s become an accepted word in what used to be a Capitalistic Republic. In a little over 150 days, government has become so sated, taking over public entities without Congressional debate. It’s really astounding what has happened.
So yes, back in the rat race.
I see you haven’t left? Way to stick with it.
Ciao
This Country is headed for disaster!
I don’t normally get involved unless something catches my eye on this site.
I normally scan the subjects only!
With all do respect to this site.
I will mention some names to see if you are the TAR I know,Margaret,Steve,Joe.
Well Joe I guess I am confused as to why they opened all these medical clinics around the world. They don’t keep them open for the ill when they are needed.These walk in clinics should be open 24/7 for the poor but instead when a methadone clinic opens they provide the hours needed for the drugs addicts to obtain their fix. I could go on and on.
I can remember driving by one at 5:30 a.m.watching cars pull in and out as if it were the drive through at a fast food restaurant.
It makes my stomach turn!
Please read this column by a black newspaper writer:
’45 Million Americans’ — Who Are Those Guys? Larry Elder
Thursday, June 18, 2009
About 45 million Americans lack health care insurance. Or do they?
A pro-“universal health care” television host recently cited this widely accepted “fact.” The number is bogus.
Here’s the skinny.
Start with the math. We have 300 million Americans. Subtract the 45 million — 15 percent of us — with no health insurance. That leaves 255 million Americans, or 85 percent, with it.
And the insurance is lousy, right? Not according to a 2006 ABC News/Kaiser Family Foundation/USA Today survey. It found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with the quality of their own health care.
Nearly half of the 45 million fall in the category of my 26-year-old nephew. He smokes cigarettes, dates, eats out, goes to movies and, like all young people, lives through his cell phone. With a slight change in priorities, he could afford health insurance, the cost of which at his age and health starts at about $100 a month. Take a look at a Reason Foundation video of interviews with a bunch of non-health-insured 20-somethings.
These Gen Xers copped to dropping money on clothes, booze, nightlife, the latest tech gizmos and other things of interest to them. With a change in priorities, these young folks — far more representative of those without insurance than the forlorn husband and wife sitting on a porch swing — could both afford and qualify for health insurance. They simply consider it a low priority.
Millions more can access health care — through SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), Medicaid or other government programs. But for whatever reason, 11 million people simply refuse to take advantage of them.
Several million other Americans who want insurance do, indeed, go without it — for a time. Many are, however, between jobs, and most — at some point — will find employment that either offers health insurance or pays enough so that they can buy it. Millions more work at companies that offer health insurance, and for a few dollars out of every paycheck, they could add family members. They choose not to.
What about criminals without insurance? More than 2 million Americans — with access to health care, by the way — use jail, prison or penitentiary mailing addresses. And for every one behind bars, how many live among us who survive by theft, drug dealing, prostitution or some similar career path? Taxpayer health insurance for them, too?
So now we’re down to the Americans without health insurance on a persistent, long-term basis. This is approximately 10-15 million, a big number to be sure. But does this warrant a government takeover of the entire health care system?
Lacking health care insurance is not the same as lacking health care . By law, most emergency rooms must provide health care — to both legals and illegals. Yes, they stand in line, but no health insurance does not equal no health care.
Government (aka taxpayers) already pays half of our health care dollar, with programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and other federal and state plans. The stated goals are accessibility and affordability. Congress passed Medicare in 1965. In the 20 years before the program’s inception, the cost of a day in a hospital increased threefold. In the 20 years following Medicare, a day in a hospital increased eightfold — substantially higher than inflation over that period. Because of cost controls on government plans, providers increased the cost on everybody else.
So here’s the question.
Do we allow a complete government takeover of the section of health care it doesn’t already run, for 10-15 million or so without health insurance on a persistent basis? Again, 255 million Americans already have it. Many millions more could get it if they wanted to. And 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with the care they now receive.
What to do? Unleash the free market. Allow greater competition among health care providers. Decrease costly regulations that increase the price tag. Enable consumers to purchase insurance plans across state lines. Allow non-government-licensed paraprofessionals and others — currently prevented by law from offering any medical services — to provide low-cost care.
What about poor care and negligence? We have laws against force and fraud, as well as a common-law duty of care. That’s why God created lawyers. (Just give us “loser pays.”)
What about those who cannot afford it? What about those with pre-existing illnesses whose insurance applications carriers turned down? What’s wrong with charity — people helping people? America remains the most generous nation on the face of the earth. We donate more of our time and money than countries like England, Germany and Japan. During the Great Depression, before the New Deal, charitable giving skyrocketed. After the New Deal, charitable giving continued, but not at nearly the same rate. People expected government to address the problem, and taxpayers felt they gave at the office.
We can provide such “universal” coverage at a “low cost” — through rationing. That means long lines, lower quality and less innovation for services that Americans currently take for granted.
Economists call it T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
Please also read the following site from time-to-time: http://mises.org/
Bdda Bing! Yoiu hit the nail right on the head. The problem in my opinion though is that percentage that is spoken of where they have Insurance available to them cannot afford to make that small payment but as the article says hospitals.the taxpayer does not pick upm the tab! I beg to differ with this article on that.
Hospitals have come after me for $200 so the people that do visit the emergency room are not off the hook to pay.Uncle Sam WILL NOT come in and bailout those who cannot pay the hospital.Thye individuals sign form after form commiting themselves to make good on payment to the hospital PERIOD.
So to a certain degree this article has some truths but it certainly has some falses.
BTW. I am not an advocate of Government controled anything.
What happened to our Country anyway? What happened to the Constitution Of The United States?
The government needs to be downsized if anything and the people that run it need to be brought into check with the dsame provisions that we the people are allowed or offered.
What happened to the constitution? It was voted out on 11/04/08 as Obama, who has not proven he is constitutionally eligible to serve as President, was voted in.
The Constitution? Today’s society believes it is their “Right” to health care. You have revisionists who justify healthcare by stating well it would have been the intentions of our Founding Fathers. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say healthcare is a right.
If insurance companies were smart they would get together and resolve this issue without government intervention, so when a marxist like Hussein Obama is elected government takeover of the private sector is not priority one.
And “Nobody” I am the TAR which you and I have been conversing these past two years.
Nobody,
Of course, I didn’t verify the facts in Mr. Elder’s column, but I’m sure that they could be found on the internet. And I agree that hospitals do go after people to pay bills; however, people such as you, who pay those bills (and I’ve paid such bills myself for services not covered by my insurance) are a small percentage. This is due to the fact that almost all uninsureds use hospital emergency rooms for routine medical care (sore throat, colds, & etc.). So, to this extent, I’d guess that Mr. Elder is correct. Also, his reputation for veracity is unimpeachable.
I’m sorry to say you’re exactly right about our Constitution!
You should see how the good ole Southern people feel but they won’t get their lazy butts out to vote.
The North has accepted all the bull that the liberal dems have dished out for years and it’s spread to the mid-west. I thought were smarter, they were not.They had the potty pulled right out from under their butts when they were taking their UNION breaks!
Well glad to hear from you.I’ll have to look up your number and give you a call. A lot has changed since we last spoke!
Be well!
What you right here has some merit and is already being used.George W passed the Patriot Act when he was in office and it’s being utilized for everything except that for which it was intended.
Anyway what you mention really has nothing to do with malpractice but many of your comments are reality.
I have a problem with allowing immigrants total amnesty and award them to the entitlements that people of this country built.(If you paid in you are entitled if not you’re not)It’s that simple!
The problem is with lobbyists constantly persuading our elected officials to lean their way that of corporate amoerica we are stuck between a rock and a hard place and no place to move.
On another note the Unions that swayed the winning of Mr BinObama should be so ticked off at him for what he has done!
I don’t condone $90 an hour to any worker unless they own their own business but now that Uncle Sam will have his fingers in GM I am anxious to see how they handle the pay of such people because that is what has ruined this countries economy businessman and wommen have opted to move their businesses over seas or to Mexico to hire cheap labor so they can still reap the rewards of screwing the rest of the working man!
It will be interesting but is carey at best to sit back and see what happens as TAR says the children of today may be in for big trouble!
Plus, Nobody, you and I paid for the methodone. Of course, there’s a simple, free market solution to drug use that doesn’t require taxpayers to fund the habit, reduces the cost of law enforcement devoted to drug laws, and effectively would de-fund many terrorist organizations and other crime syndicates.
Why not make all drugs legal? This would save taxpayers over $100 billion a year, plus, it’d make it easier for US IRO foreign policy. For example, organizied crime, terrorists, and rogue states, such as N. Korea, Libya, Syria, and the Taliban-controlled and FARC-controlled areas of Afghanistan and Columbia, respectively, would lose a major, if not sole source, of funds for their activities. Not to mention what this would do to reduce, if not eliminate the lawlessness in Mexico. So, there could be additional savings in this area.
However, no drug addict gets any gov’t support for anything related to drug use. Also, employers may test anyone at anytime for any drug use and fire them if they test positive. Or employers may choose to test only for certain drugs and not others. Or employers may choose not to test.
So, employers who don’t test, likely could hire workers for less pay, but at least the druggies would have a job and if drugs were legal, they could afford to buy them. Also, such employees of a non-testing employer would pay more for health ins., b/c the employer likely would have to pay more, the employee contribution would have to increase, unless the lower wages offset the additional health ins costs of such employers.
Also, allow health ins companies to charge more for those who use drugs, just as life companies may charge more for smokers.
Also, drug users would be ineligible for social security disability benefits for disability related to drug use.
Anyway, I threw out several ideas here, in no particular order, but it’s something to consider.
Would it work? Who knows? But nothing is working now and the US is spending billions and having to deal with the foreign policy implications of fighting drug cartels worldwide.
So, is it worth a try? Maybe.
Why should Americans worry about that old document, the President of the United States has no regard for it. He violates it by not producing a valid birth certificate, takes over private business with the debate and consent of Congress and now he seeks to sink his teeth into the government taking over the U.S. healthcare system. “Change” that will leave us and our children with no “hope”.
Sorry for the late reply .I just got the to my computer been ill!
So the majority says BinObama is a jerk! Why was he voted into office is my question?
I guess it was the people that don’t work sit home and watch Oprah all day!
We people need to write our Representatives and tell them to nix this plan BinObama is trying to push through the house.This guy is shoving his backside in everyones face.I would like to see him impeached for not knowing what the heck he is doing or having the knowledge to run our Country,OUR COUNTRY!
We are about to embark on the biggest expense that anybody has every seen in freebies to people that are not legal immigrants and have been in this country working and NOT PAYING TAXES AS WE HAVE FOR YEARS!
They filter their money to Mexico and other small and large countries to get theior families here so that they to can work for pennies and NOT PAY into the system.
Well I am damn tired of paying into the system myself.Why can’t I stoppaying taxes?
I wonder how many people are going to be placed into a higher tax bracket this year when income tax time comes.They lowered the federal taxes withheld so this is going to increase our income hence placing us responsible to pay the government instead of collecting an income tax check at the end of the year.HHHHmmmmm.
I wonder if anyone else saw the Amnesty Bill that Pelosi and those idiots are trying to push through now.
copy and paste this link to your browser and you will see what the Demmies are trying to push through.If the link does not work google (CNN Lou Dobbs Amnesty)
Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP1UQMd7VMw
This is insane!
TAR Love ya kiddo say hi to sher for me!