Reformers' Claims Just Don't Add Up
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Health Reform: Many extravagant claims have been made on behalf of the
various health care "reforms" now emerging from Congress and the White
House. But on closer inspection, virtually all prove to be false.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthca A Prescription For
Failure


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yet even as many Americans start to have second thoughts about our
government's possible takeover of the health care system, Congress is
rushing to make it happen.

On Friday, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bill that
would radically change our current system and expand coverage for the
uninsured. The action came a day after the head of the Congressional
Budget Office said none of the plans under review would slow health
care spending. None of them.

Still, lawmakers and the White House press on, relying on GOP weakness
in the House and a new veto-proof majority in the Senate. They're also
relying on a lack of awareness that claims made on behalf of national
health care may be mostly false. Among them:

• America has a health care crisis.

No, we don't. Forty-seven million people lack insurance. Of the
remaining 85% of the population, or 258 million people, polls show
high satisfaction with the current coverage. Indeed, a 2006 poll by
ABC News, the Kaiser Family Foundation and USA Today found 89% of
Americans were happy with their own health care.

As for the estimated 47 million not covered by health insurance, 20
million can afford to buy it, according to a study by former CBO
Director June O'Neill. Most of the other 27 million are single and
under 35, with as many as a third illegal aliens.

When it's all whittled down, as few as 12 million are unable to buy
insurance — less than 4% of a population of 305 million. For this we
need to nationalize 17% of our nation's $14 trillion economy and
change the current care that 89% like?

• Health care reform will save money.

Few of the plans now coming out of Congress will save anything, says
the CBO's current chief, Douglas Elmendorf. In fact, he says, they'll
lead to substantially higher costs in the future — costs that will be
"unsustainable."

As it is, estimates for reforming health care range from $1 trillion
to $3.6 trillion. Much will be spent on subsidies to make a so-called
public option more attractive to consumers than private plans.

To pay for it, the president has suggested about $600 billion in new
taxes, meaning that $500 billion to $2.1 trillion in new health care
spending over the next decade will be unfunded. This could push up the
nation's already soaring deficit, expected to reach $10 trillion
through 2019 without health care reform. Massive new tax hikes will
probably be needed to close the gap.

• Only the rich will pay for reform.

The 5.4% surtax on millionaires the president is pushing gets all the
attention, but everyone down to $280,000 in income will pay more.
Doesn't that still leave out the middle class and poor? Sorry. Workers
who decline to take part will pay a tax of up to 2% of earnings. And
small-businesses must pony up 8% of their payrolls.

The poor and middle class must pay in other ways, without knowing it.
The biggest hit will be on small businesses, which, due to new payroll
taxes, will be less likely to hire workers. Today's 9.5% jobless rate
may become a permanent feature of our economy — just as it is in
Europe, where nationalized health care is common.

• Government-run health care produces better results.

The biggest potential lie of all. America has the best health care in
the world, and most Americans know it. Yet we hear that many "go
without care" while in nationalized systems it is "guaranteed."

U.S. life expectancy in 2006 was 78.1 years, ranking behind 30 other
countries. So if our health care is so good, why don't we live as long
as everyone else?

Three reasons. One, our homicide rate is two to three times higher
than other countries. Two, because we drive so much, we have a higher
fatality rate on our roads — 14.24 fatalities per 100,000 people vs.
6.19 in Germany, 7.4 in France and 9.25 in Canada. Three, Americans
eat far more than those in other nations, contributing to higher
levels of heart disease, diabetes and some cancers.

These are diseases of wealth, not the fault of the health care system.
A study by Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the
University of Iowa found that if you subtract our higher death rates
from accidents and homicide, Americans actually live longer than
people in other countries.

In countries with nationalized care, medical outcomes are often
catastrophically worse. Take breast cancer. According to the Heritage
Foundation, breast cancer mortality in Germany is 52% higher than in
the U.S.; the U.K.'s rate is 88% higher. For prostate cancer,
mortality is 604% higher in the U.K. and 457% higher in Norway.
Colorectal cancer? Forty percent higher in the U.K.

But what about the health care paradise to our north? Americans have
almost uniformly better outcomes and lower mortality rates than
Canada, where breast cancer mortality is 9% higher, prostate cancer
184% higher and colon cancer 10% higher.
Then there are the waiting lists. With a population just under that of
California, 830,000 Canadians are waiting to be admitted to a hospital
or to get treatment. In England, the list is 1.8 million deep.

Universal health care, wrote Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific
Research Institute in her excellent book, "Top Ten Myths Of American
Health Care," will inevitably result in "higher taxes, forced premium
payments, one-size-fits-all policies, long waiting lists, rationed
care and limited access to cutting-edge medicine."

Before you sign up, you might want to check with people in countries
that have the kind of system the White House and Congress have in
mind. Recent polls show that more than 70% of Germans, Australians,
Britons, Canadians and New Zealanders think their systems need
"complete rebuilding" or "fundamental change."
• The poor lack care.

Many may lack insurance, but that doesn't mean they lack care. The law
says anyone who walks into a hospital emergency room must be treated.
America has 37 million people in poverty, but Medicaid covers 55
million — at a cost of $350 billion a year.

Moreover, as many as 11 million of the uninsured qualify for programs
for the indigent, including Medicaid and SCHIP. But for some reason,
they don't sign up. Are they likely to sign up for the "public option"
when it's made available?

"Jack" wrote in message
...
Reformers' Claims Just Don't Add Up
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Health Reform: Many extravagant claims have been made on behalf of the
various health care "reforms" now emerging from Congress and the White
House. But on closer inspection, virtually all prove to be false.


It isn't meant to add up, just a big excuse to jump taxes to keep the
government in a life style in which they are accustomed to.

They will start small, same thing they did in Canada years ago. New taxes
at the top. Years go by and the top becomes the middle class. Over time,
they will notch up taxes, $99 for port and $1 more for health care.

And the governments idea of rich, isn't the same as everyone thinks. Your
not working poor, you are rich and they will tax it from you.

Welcome to modern day slavery, taxation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthca A Prescription For
Failure


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yet even as many Americans start to have second thoughts about our
government's possible takeover of the health care system, Congress is
rushing to make it happen.

On Friday, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bill that
would radically change our current system and expand coverage for the
uninsured. The action came a day after the head of the Congressional
Budget Office said none of the plans under review would slow health
care spending. None of them.

Still, lawmakers and the White House press on, relying on GOP weakness
in the House and a new veto-proof majority in the Senate. They're also
relying on a lack of awareness that claims made on behalf of national
health care may be mostly false. Among them:

• America has a health care crisis.

No, we don't. Forty-seven million people lack insurance. Of the
remaining 85% of the population, or 258 million people, polls show
high satisfaction with the current coverage. Indeed, a 2006 poll by
ABC News, the Kaiser Family Foundation and USA Today found 89% of
Americans were happy with their own health care.

As for the estimated 47 million not covered by health insurance, 20
million can afford to buy it, according to a study by former CBO
Director June O'Neill. Most of the other 27 million are single and
under 35, with as many as a third illegal aliens.

When it's all whittled down, as few as 12 million are unable to buy
insurance — less than 4% of a population of 305 million. For this we
need to nationalize 17% of our nation's $14 trillion economy and
change the current care that 89% like?

• Health care reform will save money.

Few of the plans now coming out of Congress will save anything, says
the CBO's current chief, Douglas Elmendorf. In fact, he says, they'll
lead to substantially higher costs in the future — costs that will be
"unsustainable."

As it is, estimates for reforming health care range from $1 trillion
to $3.6 trillion. Much will be spent on subsidies to make a so-called
public option more attractive to consumers than private plans.

To pay for it, the president has suggested about $600 billion in new
taxes, meaning that $500 billion to $2.1 trillion in new health care
spending over the next decade will be unfunded. This could push up the
nation's already soaring deficit, expected to reach $10 trillion
through 2019 without health care reform. Massive new tax hikes will
probably be needed to close the gap.

• Only the rich will pay for reform.

The 5.4% surtax on millionaires the president is pushing gets all the
attention, but everyone down to $280,000 in income will pay more.
Doesn't that still leave out the middle class and poor? Sorry. Workers
who decline to take part will pay a tax of up to 2% of earnings. And
small-businesses must pony up 8% of their payrolls.

The poor and middle class must pay in other ways, without knowing it.
The biggest hit will be on small businesses, which, due to new payroll
taxes, will be less likely to hire workers. Today's 9.5% jobless rate
may become a permanent feature of our economy — just as it is in
Europe, where nationalized health care is common.

• Government-run health care produces better results.

The biggest potential lie of all. America has the best health care in
the world, and most Americans know it. Yet we hear that many "go
without care" while in nationalized systems it is "guaranteed."

U.S. life expectancy in 2006 was 78.1 years, ranking behind 30 other
countries. So if our health care is so good, why don't we live as long
as everyone else?

Three reasons. One, our homicide rate is two to three times higher
than other countries. Two, because we drive so much, we have a higher
fatality rate on our roads — 14.24 fatalities per 100,000 people vs.
6.19 in Germany, 7.4 in France and 9.25 in Canada. Three, Americans
eat far more than those in other nations, contributing to higher
levels of heart disease, diabetes and some cancers.

These are diseases of wealth, not the fault of the health care system.
A study by Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the
University of Iowa found that if you subtract our higher death rates
from accidents and homicide, Americans actually live longer than
people in other countries.

In countries with nationalized care, medical outcomes are often
catastrophically worse. Take breast cancer. According to the Heritage
Foundation, breast cancer mortality in Germany is 52% higher than in
the U.S.; the U.K.'s rate is 88% higher. For prostate cancer,
mortality is 604% higher in the U.K. and 457% higher in Norway.
Colorectal cancer? Forty percent higher in the U.K.

But what about the health care paradise to our north? Americans have
almost uniformly better outcomes and lower mortality rates than
Canada, where breast cancer mortality is 9% higher, prostate cancer
184% higher and colon cancer 10% higher.
Then there are the waiting lists. With a population just under that of
California, 830,000 Canadians are waiting to be admitted to a hospital
or to get treatment. In England, the list is 1.8 million deep.

Universal health care, wrote Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific
Research Institute in her excellent book, "Top Ten Myths Of American
Health Care," will inevitably result in "higher taxes, forced premium
payments, one-size-fits-all policies, long waiting lists, rationed
care and limited access to cutting-edge medicine."

Before you sign up, you might want to check with people in countries
that have the kind of system the White House and Congress have in
mind. Recent polls show that more than 70% of Germans, Australians,
Britons, Canadians and New Zealanders think their systems need
"complete rebuilding" or "fundamental change."
• The poor lack care.

Many may lack insurance, but that doesn't mean they lack care. The law
says anyone who walks into a hospital emergency room must be treated.
America has 37 million people in poverty, but Medicaid covers 55
million — at a cost of $350 billion a year.

Moreover, as many as 11 million of the uninsured qualify for programs
for the indigent, including Medicaid and SCHIP. But for some reason,
they don't sign up. Are they likely to sign up for the "public option"
when it's made available?

"Jack" wrote in message
...

Reformers' Claims Just Don't Add Up
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 4:20 PM PT


• America has a health care crisis.

---------------------------------

America does not have a health care crisis.

America has a welfare crisis.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message
...

Reformers' Claims Just Don't Add Up
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 4:20 PM PT


• America has a health care crisis.

---------------------------------

America does not have a health care crisis.

America has a welfare crisis.

Eisboch




Spoken like a "true Republican have."
"I've got mine, screw the poor, eh?"

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:24:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message
...

Reformers' Claims Just Don't Add Up
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 4:20 PM PT


• America has a health care crisis.

---------------------------------

America does not have a health care crisis.

America has a welfare crisis.

Eisboch


Spoken like a "true Republican have."
"I've got mine, screw the poor, eh?"

There's a ton of small businesses like mine that are already stressed
by the cost of providing health care. Expect there are a lots having
to drop coverage because of cost. Ours has been going up at more than
10% a year and we've had to opt for inferior coverage to what we had
originally to keep it within our means.

I suppose if you're not currently operating a business, you might be
unaware how challenging the situation is...

jps wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:24:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message
...

Reformers' Claims Just Don't Add Up
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 4:20 PM PT


• America has a health care crisis.

---------------------------------

America does not have a health care crisis.

America has a welfare crisis.

Eisboch

Spoken like a "true Republican have."
"I've got mine, screw the poor, eh?"

There's a ton of small businesses like mine that are already stressed
by the cost of providing health care. Expect there are a lots having
to drop coverage because of cost. Ours has been going up at more than
10% a year and we've had to opt for inferior coverage to what we had
originally to keep it within our means.

I suppose if you're not currently operating a business, you might be
unaware how challenging the situation is...


All the more reason to provide a reasonable way for those whose coverage
has been dropped to obtain same.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:11:16 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:24:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message
...

Reformers' Claims Just Don't Add Up
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 4:20 PM PT


• America has a health care crisis.

---------------------------------

America does not have a health care crisis.

America has a welfare crisis.

Eisboch


Spoken like a "true Republican have."
"I've got mine, screw the poor, eh?"

There's a ton of small businesses like mine that are already stressed
by the cost of providing health care. Expect there are a lots having
to drop coverage because of cost. Ours has been going up at more than
10% a year and we've had to opt for inferior coverage to what we had
originally to keep it within our means.

I suppose if you're not currently operating a business, you might be
unaware how challenging the situation is...

If the business is stressed by providing health care, why provide it?
There is no governmental mandate that you do so. The only mandate in
most states is for the provisioin of Workman's Comp. Are your
employees incapable of providing thier own? Is the compensation given
your employees inadequate for their needs? Do you pay full cost of
their insurance? It is a common practice for businesses to help
relieve the (voluntary) stress of coverage by putting part or all of
the cost of coverage on the employee, even if their coverage is a
group. Have you explored HSA's, HRA's, FSA's? Are you aware that
insurance companies compete for you business? Are you aware that
HDHP's are desgined to keep premiums low? If your insurance is a
group, is it a PPO? If you are genuinely concerned about covering
your employees, have you earnestly explored all insurance options?

(I owned a manufacturing concern for more than a decade. It wouldn't
in your best interest to complain about any naivete on my part, in
asking these questions. (And I am also a licensed insurance agent.))

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:48:34 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:11:16 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:24:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message
...

Reformers' Claims Just Don't Add Up
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 4:20 PM PT


• America has a health care crisis.

---------------------------------

America does not have a health care crisis.

America has a welfare crisis.

Eisboch


Spoken like a "true Republican have."
"I've got mine, screw the poor, eh?"

There's a ton of small businesses like mine that are already stressed
by the cost of providing health care. Expect there are a lots having
to drop coverage because of cost. Ours has been going up at more than
10% a year and we've had to opt for inferior coverage to what we had
originally to keep it within our means.

I suppose if you're not currently operating a business, you might be
unaware how challenging the situation is...

If the business is stressed by providing health care, why provide it?
There is no governmental mandate that you do so. The only mandate in
most states is for the provisioin of Workman's Comp.

It's standard in our industry where I'm a small player. Large
employers provide and I compete in the same market for expert
employess.

Are your
employees incapable of providing thier own? Is the compensation given
your employees inadequate for their needs? Do you pay full cost of
their insurance? It is a common practice for businesses to help
relieve the (voluntary) stress of coverage by putting part or all of
the cost of coverage on the employee, even if their coverage is a
group.

We cover employee only and deduct for spouse and dependents. There's
no way we could cover families.

Have you explored HSA's, HRA's, FSA's?

We have an FSA in place.

Are you aware that
insurance companies compete for you business?

Yes, painfully.

Are you aware that
HDHP's are desgined to keep premiums low?

Yes, we're considering a move to one.

If your insurance is a
group, is it a PPO?

Yes, Regence.

If you are genuinely concerned about covering
your employees, have you earnestly explored all insurance options?

Abso-****ing-lutely.

(I owned a manufacturing concern for more than a decade. It wouldn't
in your best interest to complain about any naivete on my part, in
asking these questions. (And I am also a licensed insurance agent.))

When I moved my company from CA to WA we enjoyed significantly lower
premiums. CA had already started the steep climb. After double digit
hikes in rates, it has become painful.

I identified the problem to a state representative 5 years ago at a
small dinner reception. And while it was a known problem, it wasn't
the state's only problem nor high on the priority list. I expect it's
higher now.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:11:16 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:24:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message
...

Reformers' Claims Just Don't Add Up
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 4:20 PM PT


. America has a health care crisis.

---------------------------------

America does not have a health care crisis.

America has a welfare crisis.

Eisboch


Spoken like a "true Republican have."
"I've got mine, screw the poor, eh?"

There's a ton of small businesses like mine that are already stressed
by the cost of providing health care. Expect there are a lots having
to drop coverage because of cost. Ours has been going up at more than
10% a year and we've had to opt for inferior coverage to what we had
originally to keep it within our means.

I suppose if you're not currently operating a business, you might be
unaware how challenging the situation is...

If the business is stressed by providing health care, why provide it?
There is no governmental mandate that you do so. The only mandate in
most states is for the provisioin of Workman's Comp. Are your
employees incapable of providing thier own? Is the compensation given
your employees inadequate for their needs? Do you pay full cost of
their insurance? It is a common practice for businesses to help
relieve the (voluntary) stress of coverage by putting part or all of
the cost of coverage on the employee, even if their coverage is a
group. Have you explored HSA's, HRA's, FSA's? Are you aware that
insurance companies compete for you business? Are you aware that
HDHP's are desgined to keep premiums low? If your insurance is a
group, is it a PPO? If you are genuinely concerned about covering
your employees, have you earnestly explored all insurance options?

(I owned a manufacturing concern for more than a decade. It wouldn't
in your best interest to complain about any naivete on my part, in
asking these questions. (And I am also a licensed insurance agent.))



One of the weaknesses of your arguement is the competitive nature of
attracting desireable employees for your small business. In my experience,
employer health plans is a major consideration in the eyes of people
accepting positions in a company.

My state, (MA) also has had some screwy insurance laws over the years.
Things like requirements for 100 percent employee participation in the group
plan your company offers. I couldn't have multiple plans. If we had a Blue
Cross plan, I couldn't also offer a Tufts or Harvard plan as well.
This presented problems when a prospective employee's family doctor was
affiliated with one plan, but not with the company's plan. We had
situation once, early in the company's beginnings, where a key employee had
a youngster with a medical problem that was being managed by a doctor who
was affiliated with Harvard but not with Blue Cross. We ended up having to
change the whole company plan over to Harvard to make sure his kid and
family remained covered.

Eisboch

"jps" wrote in message
...

There's a ton of small businesses like mine that are already stressed
by the cost of providing health care. Expect there are a lots having
to drop coverage because of cost. Ours has been going up at more than
10% a year and we've had to opt for inferior coverage to what we had
originally to keep it within our means.

I suppose if you're not currently operating a business, you might be
unaware how challenging the situation is...


I, for one, am well aware of the challenge presented to small businesses
with regard to health insurance programs. I witnessed it go from an
affordable benefit that a company could offer and pay 100 percent of the
premiums for to a major component of operating costs over a relatively short
period of time.

For this reason, I've long been an advocate of returning to the "Major
Medical" form of health insurance coverage that existed before the HMO/PPO
programs became popular, starting back in the 80's. They marked the
beginning of the expodential rise in health insurance premiums that small
businesses have had to absorb since. Large corporations can often (and do)
self-insure, but a small business can't.

Health insurance, like other forms of insurance, should be to prevent the
financial wipeout of an individual and his/her family in the event of a
catastrophic injury or health problem. It should not be designed to cover
every little ailment or boo-boo that comes along that can easily and
routinely treated at home.

It's another example of passing personal responsibily off to someone else to
take care of, just like how school systems are now expected to teach kids
about everything under the sun in addition to traditional academic subjects.

The current administration's plan for health plan responsibilities are
certainly not in the best interests of your small business.

Eisboch