By Dave Petno

Yes, a government monopoly, socialist mail system is Failing Big time.

2008 losses at $7.7 Billion. 2009 losses projected to be $2.7 Billion.

This is the same government system that regulates what can go into your mail box. That makes an alternative mail system ILLEGAL.

The same system that INCREASES postage prices when use goes down.

If the US Government can lose $7.7 Billion delivering mail, just imagine how much they can lose when we give them our healthcare.

Read Article here

Got FREE SPEECH? Seems like governments are on the March.......taking away freedoms around the world.

by; Jennifer Dudley-Nicholson

November 13, 2008 12:32pm

AUSTRALIA'S mandatory net filter is being primed to block 10,000 websites as part of a blacklist of unspecified "unwanted content".

full article here

From the WSJ August 19, 2008

“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.

Read entire Article Here:

This is where his heart is........so we have to assume that any "Reforms" would take us on the bath of his IDEAL circumstance.

Are you kidding me?

from the NY Times:

The old-fashioned school bake sale, once as American as apple pie, is fast becoming obsolete in California, a result of strict new state nutrition standards for public schools that regulate the types of food that can be sold to students. The guidelines were passed by lawmakers in 2005 and took effect in July 2007. They require that snacks sold during the school day contain no more than 35 percent sugar by weight and derive no more than 35 percent of their calories from fat and no more than 10 percent of their calories from saturated fat.

Full article here.

During a press conference, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) said passing healthcare reform and averting a massive cut in Medicare doctor payments cannot realistically be done unless Congress waives its so-called pay-as-you-go rules (PAYGO).

Full Article Here

via Neil Boortz;
National Health Service officials in Great Britain are rolling out a new plan to pay (overweight) to lose weight. Yep, the government healthcare system of Great Britain will spend about $9 million to reward widebodies for trying to lose weight. And that $9 million, folks, is just for one town – Manchester – which will act as a guinea pig for this scheme. No pun intended.

The Points4Life program will allow obese people to win points on their NHS loyalty card (a loyalty card?). They will earn points by showing up to health clubs or exercise classes ...even if they don't lose any weight! They can also gain points by running or walking in the local park where you can swipe your government issued card at a government-run exercise machine that will track your exercise. They can gain points by simply walking their children to school rather than driving them or taking public transportation to work. If they buy healthy food (according to the government's definition of healthy) they can also earn points.

In exchange for your healthy behavior you can use the points to buy health products and services or get discounts on healthy food.

Are you seeing where this is going, folks? Government healthcare cards that track your exercise. Government-sponsored exercise equipment in parks. And who tracks whether or not you walk your child to school in the morning? Oh and the government will also offer "a new award scheme" to encourage restaurants to stock more healthy food. People living in government housing will be encouraged to join a 'grow your own' fruit and vegetable scheme.

This is the government-run healthcare system of the United Kingdom. And you really want this to happen to our great nation?

By Dave Petno
The AP is reporting that the Capitol Visitor Center, originally estimated at $265 Million, was completed for $621 Million. That is over $360 million ABOVE Budget. That is 235% higher than projected! (It was also 3 years behind schedule)

Could anyone, even Microsoft, function by botching projections that severely? Would this not bankrupt ANY American company?

So Congress cannot accurately project the cost of a construction project literally out the front door of their office.........BUT THEY ARE GOING TO PROJECT TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF HEALTHCARE EXPENSES from sea to shining sea????

Don't worry, they'll get the math correct this time.

I can see it now. The Kennedy Act of 2009......Kennedy Care....

Buckle your safety belts, your freedom is under attack:

Click Here for Full Article:-

Another example that Socialism leads to shortages and rationing:

From the article

SAN FELIX, Venezuela (Reuters) – Despite having some of the world's largest energy reserves, Venezuela is increasingly struggling to maintain basic electrical service, a growing challenge for leftist President Hugo Chavez.

"With so much energy in Venezuela, how can we be without power?" asked Fernando Aponte, 49, whose slum neighborhood of Las Delicias in San Felix spent 15 days without electricity -- leading him to block a nearby avenue with burning tires in protest.

Chavez last year fired up his supporters with a wave of state takeovers including the nationalization of electricity operations, among them Electricidad de Caracas, which was majority owned by U.S.-based AES Corp.

Click Here for Complete Article:

From Heritage Morningbell:

Obama likes to sell his health care plan as similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) that is available to all members of Congress. But there are fundamental differences between Obama’s plan and FEHBP, as Heritage scholars Bob Moffit and Nina Owcharenko detail in an analysis of Obama’s health care proposal:
1. The Obama plan imposes a standardized benefits struc¬ture on both the new government plan and every private health plan that participates in the pro-posed National Health Insurance Exchange. There is no comprehensive, standard benefit package in FEHBP.
2. The Obama plan creates a gov¬ernment-run health plan in the National Health Insurance Exchange. No federal agency offers a government health plan through FEHBP. Only private health insurance plans compete in that program, and even more importantly, they compete on a level playing field.
3. The Obama plan would require price controls, including “fair” premiums and “minimal co-pays.” Either Congress or some government bureaucrat would have to define these terms. This would put the federal government in the business of deciding what constitutes a fair price and a proper co-payment for benefits and ser¬vices, leading to some type of centralized rate set¬ting or standardization of payments for providers. By contrast, prices are market-based in FEHBP. No price regulation is imposed on plans or services.
In addition to having the power to set prices and control benefit packages, the government plan would also enjoy a huge advantage in the marketplace since employers and tax¬payers would subsidize the new government plan and cover any related risks — a unique advantage unavailable to the private health plans in the exchange. Remember, Congress will have ultimate control over Obama’s new government-run health plan and the new health exchange.
It is impossible to imagine how political incentives, not just economic and medical incentives, could not end up paving the way for a government monopoly over health care. At a minimum, the pri¬vate plans could be reduced to operating simply as administrative agents of the federal plan. In either case, without any realistic market options, would-be consumers, patients, individuals and families seeking value for their health care dollars would be the biggest losers.

After 7 months...they scrap the program.

Click here for full story

Via Neil Bortz;

Obama, to absolutely nobody in the universe's surprise, said that health care was a "right."

Let's run through this again:

The standard rights guaranteed and protected by our Constitution are such things as freedom of religion and speech. The right to peacefully assemble and gripe about government. You have the right to keep and bear arms, and then there's the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The point here is that all of these rights can be recognized and honored without any other party having to give up either a portion of their lives or their property. It doesn't cost anyone anything for you to own a gun, speak your mind, worship your God, or stand on the street corner with a like-minded group to gripe about government.

Now what about this "right" to healthcare thing? Healthcare comes in the form of both treatment by health care professionals and the administration of therapies or drugs. For you to exercise your "right" to healthcare some other individual must sacrifice some of their time attending to you, and some other individuals must surrender some of their property (drugs and treatment devices) to be used in your care. So, in saying that you have a "right" to healthcare you are saying that you have a right to a portion of someone else's life as well as a portion of their property.

By Michael Cannon, Cato Inst

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (IL) has proposed an ambitious plan to restructure America’s health care sector. Rather than engage in a detailed critique of Obama’s health care plan, many critics prefer to label it "socialized medicine." Is that a fair description of the Obama plan and similar plans? Over the past year, prominent media outlets and respectable think tanks have investigated that question and come to a unanimous answer: no.

Those investigations leave much to be desired. Indeed, they are little more than attempts to convince the public that policies generally considered socialist really aren’t.

A reasonable definition of socialized medicine is possible. Socialized medicine exists to the extent that government controls medical resources and socializes the costs. Notice that under this definition, it is irrelevant whether we describe medical resources (e.g., hospitals, employees) as "public" or "private." What matters-what determines real as opposed to nominal ownership-is who controls the resources. By that definition, America’s health sector is already more than half socialized, and Obama’s health care plan would socialize medicine even further.

Reasonable people can disagree over whether Obama’s health plan would be good or bad. But to suggest that it is not a step toward socialized medicine is absurd.

Go to 1:55 and they give a clear explanation:

Can the public actually benefit through free market efficiencies? Yes, they can.

The Minnesota Bridge project came in under budget, and ahead of schedule. See this testament to the free market:

By Dave Racer:

What does the mortgage crisis have to do with the future of health care reform? Plenty.

Stan J. Liebowitz, economics professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, tracked the intervention of the federal government into mortgage lending during the past 20 years. Boiling it down: In the name of home ownership, economic laws were suspended so that people without assets could buy houses. Should we be surprised when they cannot pay for them, and when they are foreclosed upon?

Now economists insist that free markets cannot adequately serve the lending industry, and that is why the federal government must step in to rescue it.

The commonality with health care reform is twofold:

1. The federal government, since at least 1965, has continuously ratcheted up its involvement in the payment and delivery of health care. States have either stayed a step ahead of the feds, or followed closely behind. Government has nearly destroyed the health care market economy.

2. The same logic used to justify a federal bailout of mortgage lenders and the banking industry will be used to reform health care. We have been told for decades that health care cannot operate in a free market environment. When it fails to meet governments' goals for it, our vaunted U.S. health system, so the politicos will claim, need to be rescued by the government.

The big difference is that we have time to do something about health reform. An army of health insurance agents can dispatch itself to work overtime to convert the insurance market to consumer-directed health plans.

Only by bringing consumer (aka voter) pressure on Washington, D.C. and state capitals will the United States be able to avoid a national health plan. I am convinced that without such a movement, the march to socialized medicine will reach the tipping point by 2012-2014.

Please, don't let this happen.

Once Government starts "helping" they just can't seem to stop themselves......

Via the Washington Times: Patrice Hill

In the dark of night over the weekend when most people were snoozing, the Treasury dramatically expanded its bailout plan to include buying student loans, car loans, credit card debt and any other "troubled" assets held by banks.

STUDENT, CAR DEBT ADDED TO BAIL OUT PLAN : CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE

Fannie + Freddie provide a case study of how Government programs work in the long term:

Can you see any parallels to the current National Health care Debate? You can remove the terms home ownership and mortgage, and replace it with affordable healthcare or health coverage.

Fannie Mae is the dba of the Federal National Mortgage Association:
yes, that is a Federal Program.

From their web site:

Fannie Mae was created in 1938, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, at a time when millions of families could not become homeowners, or risked losing their homes, for lack of a consistent supply of mortgage funds across America
The government established Fannie Mae in order to expand the flow of mortgage funds in all communities, at all times, under all economic conditions, and to help lower the costs to buy a home.


Freddie Mac is the dba of the Federal Home Lone Mortgage Corporation:
From their web site:
Since Freddie Mac was created in 1970, we have pursued the purpose our Congressional founders set out for us: to provide a continuous and low – cost source of credit to finance America's housing.
Our mission strives to create:
Stability: Freddie Mac's retained portfolio plays an important role in making sure there's a stable supply of money for lenders to make the home loans new homebuyers need and an available supply of workforce housing in our communities.
Affordability: Financing housing for low- and moderate-income families has been a key part of Freddie Mac's business since we opened our doors. Freddie Mac's vision is that families must be able both to afford to purchase a home and to keep that home.
Liquidity: Freddie Mac makes sure there's a stable supply of money for lenders to make the loans new homebuyers need. This gives everyone better access to homefinancing, raising the roof on homeownership opportunity in America.

They are batting 0 for 3

Got Government?

By Dave Petno:
The Feds could use the AIG model as a way to passively nationalize Healthcare.
Step 1) Create all sorts of mandates that require insurance companies to do things that they would not ordinarily do
Step 2) Watch Insurance Companies profits, share prices drop
Step 3) Watch the media scream about the impending colapse
Step 4) Ride in on a white horse, with a "bail-out plan" that leaves the Federal Government owning half the company.

Could this sort of thing happen with a Health Insurance Giant like United Healthcare? I think so: See below


From Greg Scandlen:
This week Business Insurance reports that United Healthcare is facing problems similar to other major carriers. Its share price has fallen 49% this year, "worse than its rivals," says the article by Reuters, and it has "significantly reduced its profit expectations for 2008, in part because of pressures in its commercial (non-government) business." The company has shaken up its senior staff and reorganized into regional business units that can respond better to localized trends. It has brought on Gail Boudreaux, who was EVP of Health Care Services Corp. (which runs the Blue plans in Illinois, Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma) to run the division.
Ms. Boudreaux is quoted in the article as saying, "We got a bit out of balance with more of a national focus. Our focus is about making sure we listen to the marketplace. Health care is an inherently local market, especially in the small group (employer) business. We are listening a lot more to our brokers, to our customers." The article suggests that in the future United will emphasize customer service over "leveraging its scale."

Scott Gottlieb, American Enterprise Institute
The Wall Street Journal, 09/02/08

At the University of Chicago Medical Center, Michelle Obama worked to expand a program that encouraged uninsured patients to visit local health clinics in lieu of the hospital emergency room. While she has been criticized for this, Gottlieb writes that the success of these community health clinics is supported by plenty of clinical data proving that patients are helped by the continuity of care that they offer. Also, medical expenses for community health centers run about 40% lower than for patients seen in emergency rooms, saving the country an estimated $17.6 billion a year. The real challenge, Gottlieb says, will be in allowing these clinics to survive under the health reform proposals of an Obama administration.

By Dave Petno;

A major NYT article tells the saga of a young couple who felt the urgency to get married to provide medical benefits to the woman.

Read the Article Here:

What is interesting......is that the woman is already covered BY GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE (Medicare). Her coverage is so poor, that she would do anything to get a private sector plan that would eliminate the gaps in her current government coverage.

Got Government Healthcare?






http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/13/us/13marriage.span.jpg

Could it be that non-Americans use our system for FREE??? Then the rest of us pay for the cost in our insurance premiums / taxes / fees.
Must Watch

Excellent Web site on Government Run Healthcare

www.BigGovHealth.org

By Dave Petno:

Well, Well...so Mitt Romney's "landmark" government takeover of healthcare financing was more expensive than they thought.

How could that be?

I thought "there is more than enough money in the system to pay for this plan without any tax increases?"

Funny how that never works.

Mass Increases Smoking Tax by $1.00 / pack

By Dave Petno
Oddly enough, the founder of the Canadian System, the really "smart" guy who put it all together, now thinks that Private Insurance and Private doctors will repair it.

from the IBD article:
Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."


Read the whole article here:

...the U.K. is restricting access to the use of drugs it knows it will work because the U.K. can't pay for them. There is a drug out, Tarceva, I think it is. It's for lung cancer. Listen to this. "Despite numerous studies showing that the drug significantly prolongs the life of cancer patients and the unanimous endorsement of lung cancer specialists throughout the U.K., the government has determined that a drug is too expensive to cover."...

More from Glenn Beck

But our government will SURELY make better decisions here!

Via Glenn Beck

You know the guy who designed the Canadian healthcare system now admits that it's in a crisis? The guy who designed the Canadian healthcare system says it's in a crisis and he's now advocating private control of much of the system and we're going towards that? What the heck is wrong with us? He said, "We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it." This is the guy who created the Canadian healthcare system. "We thought we would solve the problems by rationing services." Oh, that's fantastic. I love rationing healthcare. He now says it means a radical overhaul. "We're proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so people can exercise their freedom of choice."

June 3, 2008

EUGENE, Ore. — After weeks of bad news, things turned Barbara Wagner’s way this week.

"Last month her lung cancer, in remission for about two years, was back. After her oncologist prescribed a cancer drug that could slow the cancer growth and extend her life, Wagner was notified that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn’t cover it. It would cover comfort and care, including, if she chose, doctor-assisted suicide......."

Also from the Article:

"The Oregon Health Plan started out rationing health care in 1994."

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE

Brett J. Skinner and Mark Rovere
Fraser Institute, 06/16/08

Prices for generic drugs in Canada are more than twice as high as those in the United States because government policies in Canada distort the market for prescription medicines, according to a new study from the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute. The study found that Canadian prices for generic prescription drugs in 2007 were on average 112% higher than U.S. prices for identical drugs in 2007. Of the total prescriptions dispensed in Canada in 2007, 48% were for generic drugs and 52% were for brand name drugs. In the U.S., 67% of prescriptions were for generics with just 33% for brand name drugs. If Canada repealed policies that distort the market for prescription drugs, net savings for Canadians could reach between $2.9 billion and $7.5 billion (2007) annually for total retail pharmacy sales of generic and brand-name drugs.

Study: Most Children Strongly Opposed To Children’s Healthcare

Got GINORMOUS Government?
Click Here for the Link to Obama's Health plan

Barack's plan will regulate virtually every aspect of American Healthcare. The 15 page plan, would soon expand to 150,000 pages of regulations.

Do markets work? Barack does not think so.

From the Heritage Foundation Morning Bell:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Monday that health care spending will “rise relentlessly” unless lawmakers overhaul the health care system. As if trying to prove his point, PriceWaterhouseCoopers released a study yesterday showing employer health care costs will increase 9.9% in 2008, more than double the annual rate of inflation.
Liberals will tell you that health care costs can be controlled through more government regulation of the health care industry. For example, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) says he can save $200 billion in health care spending every year through investing in electronic medical records, more centralized coordination of individual care, and government mandated reduction of unnecessary medical procedures. Problem is, no one with any training in the economics of health care believes that savings will materialize. John Sheils, vice president of the health care consulting firm the Lewin Group, says the savings “are just dramatically overstated .” And MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber calls the numbers “nonsense,” noting that there is “zero credible evidence to support that conclusion.”
Obama is right about one thing, though. In February of this year, he said: “The reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it.” That is true. But the solution to expensive health insurance is not more government mandates and regulations; it’s less. A major why reason health insurance premiums keep rising is because special interests keep successfully lobbying state legislatures to mandate more and more procedures into all insurance plans. So even though a 25-year-old male has no need for in vitro fertilization and no interest in acupuncture, a state like New Jersey forces him to buy a plan that covers those procedures. The result? That 25-year-old could buy a basic health plan in Kentucky for $960 a year, but the cheapest plan in New Jersey (full of mandates he doesn’t want or need) costs him $5,880. A study for the Health Insurance Association of America found that 20% to 25% of uninsured Americans lack insurance due to benefits mandates.

James C. Capretta, Ethics and Public Policy Center
National Review Online, 05/29/08

Sen. Barack Obama's health reform plan would sow the seeds of destruction for private health insurance, writes Jim Capretta. Sen. Obama's plan would create a new publicly-run insurance plan modeled on Medicare, with the federal government acting as the insurer and collecting premiums from enrollees. Large employers might, for a time, continue providing health insurance for their workers. But with each passing year, the premium differential between private plans and the public option would grow and induce additional migration from private to public insurance, he writes. This would, in turn, increase the government's ability to impose lower prices, further widening the premium gap. The tragedy is that price controls are only effective if they control and limit the supply of services. In time, he warns, that means waiting lists and other barriers to accessing care, along with skyrocketing costs to the taxpayer.

But they can run our healthcare system:

News Story: click here for full story
The Senate Dining Room has lost more than $18 million since 1993 and has dropped about $2 million this year alone. They are now going to privatize the Senate Dining room.

The Senate Dining service is a monopoly in one of the wealthiest spots of real estate in the country.
How could anyone lose money in that situation?
I have a good friend who would make millions in that real estate.

This is exhibit A in why we should not allow government to take over our health care system.

What in the name of Al Gore is this about?
A new American trend is to install the new position of Chief Sustainability Officer. Or Chief Green Officer!

Georgia-Pacific Names Chief Sustainability Officer

CAN YOU SAY OVERHEAD????? Business tip of the day....Try to keep your overhead costs to a minimum. Also, you might want to try to make something that people actually want to buy.

We recently took a field trip to the Dearborn Ford plant with 6th graders. The tour guide spent easily as much time telling us and showing us how having grass on the factory roof and the semi-permeable parking lot WOULD PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT....blah, blah blah.

Tip for Ford: Build some cars that people want to buy.

By Dave Petno;
Should a gas station owner be allowed to sell gas at $10 / gallon?
Yes, no-one is forced to buy.

Should a grocery store be allowed to sell an apple for $15.
Yes, no-one is forced to buy.

Should a business be allowed to loan someone $100, and charge a $15 fee?
Same Answer.

By interjecting themselves into the payday loan industry, the Ohio government is moving into the area of private business where they do not belong.

Whereas, I have never received a payday loan, and don't expect to in the future, IT IS MY CHOICE AND THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT TAKE THAT CHOICE AWAY FROM ME.

It is also the choice of the loan-giver to charge interest based upon the risk of the payback of the loan.

Most affluent, well-educated people do not utilize payday loans....so they are inclined not to care about this issue. As such, they are inclined to look the other way while thousands of small businesses and up to 6,000 jobs are eliminated in Ohio.

Could eliminating healthcare jobs be next? What about consulting jobs?

As free people, we need to recognize government infringement upon free market activity.

In America, the buyer and the seller set the price. Not the government.

Can someone tell me how regulating free-market jobs out of existence helps the people of Ohio?

Not the amazing arrogance of Rep. Maxine Waters as she grills the oil executives. She truly believes the Government could produce and deliver oil better than the free market. (She would also have the government take over healthcare in a minute). What would be next for these people?

Link: sevenload.com

www.ohiodrugcard.com

Residents of Ohio can download a free prescription drug card by visiting the site. It is available to all residents.

Sounds like a free-market solution to me.

The architect of Quebec's now-over burdened health care system is proposing strong changes, and further privatization of the healthcare system in Quebec.

He believes the cost is now out of control.

Some of his recommendations:
==Family doctor fee: $100 / visit
==New Deductible based upon income
==Lifting the ban on private doctor practice
==Raising Sales tax by 1%

Source: Sean Gordon, HIU April 2008

Link to the NY Post:

from the NY Times:

Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.

The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured…

Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy in late February…

A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said candidates would frequently retell stories relayed to them, vetting them when possible. “In this case, we did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Mr. Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that.”

Here is the story:

Great website:

http://www.chronicdiseaseimpact.com/

I admit it, I watch the Daily Show. About 60% of it is irritating, but every now and then they put out a great satire piece like the one below. Enjoy!

From Grace Marie Turner;

Partial list of what they agree upon:

• Requiring insurers to charge basically the same premium to everyone regardless of age, gender, or occupation, called community rating
• Requiring insurers to offer coverage to anyone who applies through guaranteed issue and prohibiting denials for pre-existing conditions
• Requiring insurers to offer health insurance that is at least as generous as the comprehensive coverage available to members of Congress
• Requiring employers to contribute to the health coverage for their workers through a "pay or play" mandate, with small business getting added help to offset costs
• The government would repay businesses for some of the catastrophic costs of employees with large medical expenses, providing certain conditions are met, a proposal similar to one offered in 2004 by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry
• Opening the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program to millions more workers and setting up other regulated health insurance purchasing exchanges
• Expanding Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program
• Allowing people to buy in to Medicare, thereby setting up competition between a taxpayer-subsidized program with federal pricing and policing authority and private health plans
• Curtailing private competition in Medicare by scaling back payments for Medicare Advantage and allowing the government, rather than private companies, to negotiate prescription drug prices for the Medicare drug benefit
• Allowing prescription drug importation from abroad, which means importing other countries' systems of price controls (as Sen. McCain also has proposed), and placing new controls on prescription drug prices
• Greater government involvement in determining the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments and requiring doctors and hospitals to practice according to its evidence-based protocols.

Source: Health Policy Matters 3-7-08

Massachusetts Enforcement
Brian McManus of the Health Care Freedom Coalition has been circulating the new Massachusetts tax form, "Schedule HC Health Care Information," which must be filed by all taxpayers along with either Form 1 or Form 1-NR/PY. The form requires you to enter the date of birth for yourself and your spouse, indicate whether you were enrolled in a health insurance plan on December 31, 2007, enter the name of the insurance company along with the company's federal tax ID number and your subscriber number, or indicate whether you are enrolled in a government program such as Commonwealth Care, MassHealth, Medicare, Veterans Health, or other. The penalty for failing to comply in 2007 is loss of the personal tax exemption, worth $219 that year. Next year the penalty will be one-half of the lowest cost coverage available through the Connector, or $912.
It appears that one could enroll for just the month of December each year and still be in compliance with the law. On the other hand, someone might be covered for 11 months, lose their job in December and lose their coverage and be penalized for it. It will also be interesting to see how the state plans to verify the coverage, say, if the taxpayer is employed as a
manufacturing rep for a self-funded company in Boise, ID. Oh, boy! The real fun is just beginning!

NCPA's Devon Herrick is quoted in an article on World Net Daily as observing that, "The Massachusetts universal coverage plan is overregulated and largely unworkable. The least expensive plan would cost a 37-year-old male resident of Massachusetts $196 a month and a fine for not having insurance could run half of that, or $98 a month. The same 37-year-old living in Dallas could buy coverage for $98 a month."

SOURCE:
World Net Daily.
Hat tip: Greg Scandlen

Kaiser Foundation does a head to head comparison of the three candidates.

Click Here to review Kaiser Analysis

On the democrat side, the key difference is about the mandate. Obama says no, Hillary says yes. Hillary would be willing to get the IRS Involved in healthcare, and garnish wages of those who do not buy into her plan. (not a tax, mind you.)

Click Here for the full article from WSJ Online

- Sen. Clinton: When you pledge to cover every one of the 47 million uninsured, do you include recent and future newcomers to the United States, legal and illegal?

- Sen. Obama: You have said that you will require all parents to have health insurance for their children. What will you do to enforce this law?

- Sen. Clinton: a question about young adults. They think of themselves as invincible and are not apt to buy insurance. Your "mandate" would force them to do so, and more than that, to pay the same premium as middle aged people whose health care needs generally are much greater. You defend the one-price rule as "shared responsibility," but isn't it an unjust, hidden tax on the younger generation?

- Sen. Obama: You have pledged to make health insurance "affordable." Texas lawmakers have made insurance less affordable by requiring that every plan include in vitro fertilization, acupuncture, marriage counseling and some 50 other features. This is like passing a law saying that the only car you're permitted to buy is a fully loaded luxury sedan.

- Sen. Clinton: You promise that "everyone who is already insured will be able to keep the coverage they have today." Yet your proposal says all health plans must cover services "experts deem necessary."

About 4.5 million people have high-deductible insurance, because it costs less and allows them to make their own decisions about where and when to get medical care. But when Massachusetts passed mandatory health insurance, people with high-deductible plans were forced to switch to more expensive medical policies to meet that state's definition of insurance.

Will that also happen under your proposal?

- Sens. Obama and Clinton: Some doctors and hospitals are worried about your plans to make electronic record-keeping compulsory. What will be the penalty for a doctor who doesn't get computerized?

- Sens. Obama and Clinton: Both your proposals call for limits on the profit margins of insurance companies. Attacking the most unpopular industry in America may sound politically attractive, but if profit margins are legally capped, investors will flee to other industries and private insurance could become a thing of the past. That would leave only a government-run health-care system.

Do you believe the nation should take that risk?

“Government planners are good at producing two things: shortages of goods that people want, and surpluses of goods that they don’t want”

What we want and Use:
In the CATO Letter Winter 2008…………he goes on to illustrate this point by contrasting the congestion of government highways. # of miles driven in urban highways has tripled 300%, but new construction of highways has only grown by 65%..........thus, gridlock, congestion and waiting

What we don’t want and use:
On the other hand, increasing dollars have been spent on public transportation. In 2005, the Average public transit bus had room for 60 people, but carries just 10. The average light-rail car had room for 175 people, but carried just 25.

The Onion sarcastically observes we persist in building expensive rail systems because “98 percent of US commuters favor public transportation for others.”

Excerpts from :
Randal O’Toole, CATO Institute, Winter 2008

Hillary in 1994: Not much support in this Seattle Audience.

The Wages of HillaryCare

The Wall Street Journal, 02/07/08

Sen. Hillary Clinton's individual mandate for the purchase of health insurance is an attempt to force everyone to buy into a highly regulated and price-controlled system where government redistributes income and dictates coverage, writes The Wall Street Journal. In other words, HillaryCare II isn't all about "choice," but would require financial penalties, including garnishing wages. To put it more accurately, the individual mandate is really a government mandate that requires brute force plus huge subsidies to get anywhere near its goal of universal coverage. The news here is that all of this is being exposed now by a fellow Democrat, Sen. Obama. Many Americans are uncomfortable with the coercion of the mandate. The California health-care overhaul was recently done in by liberals concerned about its consequences for the working poor.

Hat Tip: Grace M-Turner

By Neil Boortz

In Massachusetts Mitt Romney touts that he created a state healthcare insurance plan, subsidizing citizens for health insurance. Recent reports disclose that families earning up to $103,000 a year are eligible for these government subsidies. $100,000 ... and the government is paying for their health insurance? Sadly, Massachusetts officials refuse to disclose how many families are making that much and are enrolled in the state insurance program. That's the thing about entitlement spending ... now that they have it, you can't take it away.

What's the cost, you ask? The state's healthcare plan is going to exceed state budget estimates by $400 million in 2009. That is more than 85% more than what the costs were initially projected to be. That is one scary statistic. Scary, but typical. Just take a look at the original estimates of Medicare costs vs. the reality. How about from $9 billion to $70 billion.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Shikha Dalmia also notes that ArnoldCare was shot down mostly because of opposition from labor unions that thought it wasn't fair to working families to make them pay insurance premiums before all the other pressing needs they have. She says in Massachusetts premium are rising 12% largely because once people are forced to spend money on buying coverage, they will squeeze every drop of value out of it. The Bay State is spending $400 million more than budgeted because of unexpected utilization. Not surprisingly, she says, the government is resorting to price controls. The state has warned the insurers not to raise premiums by more than 5%, and not to increase cost-sharing. What's left? Send patients only to the cheapest doctors and hospitals. That oughta make them happy - make them pay full premiums for second-rate care, and fine 'em if they refuse.

SOURCE:
Wall Street Journal.
Hat Tip:
Greg Scandlen

By Dave Petno
The British system is a socialist system, meaning the government runs all healthcare through the National Healthcare Service (NHS).

From The Guardian:
"The health secretary, Alan Johnson, has threatened to cut the income of practices refusing to work extended hours. He believes evening and weekend surgeries will be more convenient for patients, and businesses hope the plans will reduce employees' sickness absence."

Read the full article Here:


Why do you suppose that British Doctors need to be Mandated to work more hours?
Could it be that their income is paid by the government system, and they have no incentive to work harder, or smarter?

We all know that American Doctors work long and hard hours (60 - 80 hours per week, holidays, and weekends).....and they are well compensated for their efforts!

Exit question: If your salary is capped, or controlled by the government.....how many hours per week do you work? (see answer below)

God Bless America!

Answer: The fewest hours possible to keep your job.

by Dave Petno
Mit Romney is a super-smart guy....but this just proves my point. Even Super-duper, valedictorian-types like Mit can't design an economy that works better than the free market. Read below and you can see the financial fiasco that the his Health Reforms in Mass have become.

Massachusetts, is sinking deeper into the quicksand. About a month ago the state reported they were short about $140 million from what they had budgeted for subsidized care. This month it turns out that they are short $245 million, and expect to be $400 million short next year. It turns out that the expected savings from reduced uncompensated care haven't materialized (surprise!), and more people than expected are enrolling. I guess they figured more people would ignore the mandate. It never occurred to them that most people actually try to obey the laws they enact. Also the expected revenue from the employer assessment hasn't born out. They expected to collect $45 million but only received $5 million from that source.
Now they want the federal government to bail them out. An article in the Boston Globe reports, "the state is counting on getting about half (the money) from the federal government, but officials have just begun negotiations on how much Massachusetts will actually receive."
SOURCE:
Boston Globe.
From Greg Scandon Report
www.chcchoices.org

The Mass Commonwealth Care Plan, passed and promoted by Mitt Romney, includes abortion as a standard covered benefit for a small $50 Copay.

Click Here to see Mass Commonwealth Plan Abortion Coverage

This is generally not covered by insurance except in the most extreme situations.

When the government mandates healthcare insurance on the population, it must define what standard or adequate coverage is, and have alternatives available to the population. In Massachusett’s, the state program/alternative includes Abortion at a very low cost to the subscriber.

How Cute! She has a present to America called Universal Health Care. By that, she means that she will initially have the government approve and control all financing of health care in America, create new and increased taxes on all Americans.....Eliminate, and Destroy the existing health insurance markets.....and eventually creating huge waiting lines like Canada, England and any other Socialized Country.

This document was promoted by SPANOhio. It is a call to Socialism. Yeah, the government will make it better.

They say that we should not have to pay more than 10% on Healthcare, or it will be an undue burden.

Can anyone say Taxes? If 10% is too much, what about 45% in mandatory taxes?

At least my healthcare dollar goes to world class healthcare….the envy of the world.

Click here: http://familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/too-great-a-burden/ohio.pdf

By Dave Petno

A colleague of mine, in the business, Joe Blasko Jr, made this point.

The number of uninsured is not a relevant or important number.

We need to care about the number of uninsurABLE. Those are the people who desire health insurance, would pay a reasonable price for it, yet cannot find coverage due to factors beyond their control.

In healthcare: the three legged stool is always Cost, Quality, and Access....

We would add a fourth: Personal Responsibility.

Without Personal Responsibility, a person will not take the necessary steps to protect himself from unforeseen costs of a major health event!

(From Greg Scandlons email)

" Now that Massachusetts has mandated everyone purchase health insurance, the next steps are already becoming evident --

-- Since everyone must buy, we can't make them pay too much. So the State will require premium increases of no higher than 5%, according to the Boston Globe. This is an arbitrary number having no relationship to underlying costs. "


So if medical costs are going up by 10% and premiums are capped at 5%........will we "approve" less care? How many insurance carriers will want to take part?

Looks like a place where you don't want to be in the private market.

Romney is a great candidate, it is too bad that he decided to interject into the free market of healthcare in Mass.

By Dave Petno
Whoever controls healthcare, controls the population. Once the government controls healthcare, EVERYTHING will be measured with regard to how it effects exposure to the health costs of the population. Are you a Smoker? Overweight? Do you eat cheeseburgers? Bungee jump? IT ALL EFFECTS HEALTHCARE.

Don't believe me? Read below the story of New Zealand (which has a National Health Service), refused to admit a British Immigrant's wife because her BMI was 42 (anything over 25 is overweight).

Limited budgets lead to rationing.

New Zealand bars British man's 'fat' wife

By Paul Chapman in Wellington and Graeme Baker
Last Updated: 7:31pm GMT 19/11/2007

CAN YOU GIVE ME ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHERE THE GOVERNMENT HAS ELIMINATED AN ENTIRE SECTOR OF OUR ECONOMY? ??

OK, there is the Air Port Screeners….who were nationalized after 911. That has worked out so well………..the system is now fail-safe, and no-one needs to wait in lines there….

Our airports are a picture of simplicity, and efficiency.

Dave Petno

So then it finally dawned on me, the only way that Government can do something, is by taking something away from someone else.

Most often the thing that they take away is our tax money, and lots of it.

Taking our taxes is the only way that Government can have schools, libraries, our defense department.

Duh! This is so obvious

What about providing healthcare insurance for all Americans? What would the government need to do in order to make that happen?

First, there would need to be massive taxation. The US spends over $2 Trillion dollars in healthcare per year. That money currently comes from many sources such as :

• Insurance companies
• Private pay dollars
• State / Federal / Local Governements
• Private Charities / foundations
• Unions
• Donations

How are the feds going to absorb all of this money?

Pretend that Employer A has 20 employees and is currently paying $20,000/month in medical premium, $244,000/year. Will that money automatically be sent to Washington? How?

What if Employer B (same size pays) $40,000 / month…..will they continue to pay double of the first employer?

Employer C pays $10,000 / month. Will they continue to pay ½ of employer A?

What about money collected from private charities? Will that money go to Washington? I doubt it.

Could it be that a massive new tax is created, and assessed upon all employers in an equal way? LIKELY

So if you are an employer who has worked hard to keep these costs controlled, and you currently pay less than the national average….through your hard work…..you are going to pay more in the new system?


CAN AND SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT EVER ELIMINATE AN INDUSTRY?

If the government pays for healthcare for Americans, will there be a need for private insurance companies?

Some might say “yes” to fill in the gaps from the government program. If this is the case, then we are basically admitting that there will be a 2-tier system, where people with means pay twice. They will pay once through their taxes, and another time in insurance premiums. How is this reducing costs?

If you say “No”, private insurance is no longer necessary, the next question is ….would additional coverage be legal?

If the answer is “not legal’, the question I have is…..on what basis are we going to make a product that is currently owned by over 100 million American’s illegal??

Either way, the government’s “take-over” of the payment system of healthcare eliminates entire sectors of the local economy

The following people would lose their jobs:
• People who work at insurance companies
• Insurance agents
• Staff at Insurance agencies
• Third party adiminstrators
• Employer-based benefit administrators
• Wellness programs
• Disease Management programs
• Dental Insurance plans

People create businesses to provides goods and services to their clients in order to turn a profit, and build value in the business.

“You create a business to sell a business”

Given that many politicians (All the leading Democrats, and some of the Republicans) would be glad to nationalize the entire system……………..would it be wise to invest in Health Insurance stocks today? Would you buy United Healthcare?

Would it be wise for me to purchase a small health insurance agency as a strategy to grow?

Would it be wise for me to purchase an agency from someone else right now?

The answer is clearly “no”

So what has happened to the value of my business RIGHT NOW? I have a nice sized block of business, housed inside my partner’s agency?

Who would want to buy it now?

So, my value has already been degraded. My net-worth already diminished…

By a politician.

Now assume that Hillary wins the election, and the congress approves her plan. They determine to implement the plan within 2 years, perhaps.

How many businesses linked to health insurance will disappear?

How many entrepreneurs like myself will lose all of the value of our property that we have built over the years?

What if my business is worth $1 Million at the time of the government takeover?

Will I be compensated for the loss of my business?

by Dave Petno

“I’m for it” so said a friend of mine regarding government take-over of health care “have you ever seen what I have to pay for health insurance?” she continued?

So my friend would be glad to have Hillarycare or something similar….she thinks it will make her life better, less expensive.

I asked her some questions:

Are you aware of how Government involvement in healthcare leads to massive waiting lists for you and kids everywhere it is tried?

Are you willing to see our healthcare system degraded due to this change?

Do you realize that I have been building a business for the past 6 years, and that these programs will put me out of business?

Do you think we should do this if it causes 100s of thousands of people to lose their jobs? (those who work in the insurance business)

October 11,2007
By Dave Petno

Governor Strickland wants to provide a solution (FREE) to bring 500,000 of the current uninsured, into the fold of those who have health insurance.

So free coverage will be offered.

How can we be sure this coverage will go to the uninsured?

Could those with current coverage, ditch their current coverage and go get some of that FREE stuff?

Image.......
A grocery store worker makes $25k / year, and pays $50 / month to participate in his employer's company sponsored plan.

What if he can get the coverage for free? Is free better than $50 / month? Is that real money?

Americans like Free Stuff......so as soon as Free Insurance becomes available, people will try to get it......yes, even if they currently pay for it....especially if they currently pay for it.

By Dave Petno

Here are some basics about America.

In America, we buy our own stuff.
In America, we take care of our own kids.

In America, we have compassion for the poor.
Americans are generous people, and don't like to see the poor suffer.

We contribute privately, and we are taxed to take care of people who are in need.

The key phrase is "who are in need".

We do not want to create more people in need.

S-CHIP was implemented to take care of a very small segment of children who live in very low income families.

Congress wants to expand it to provide FREE STUFF to non-poor families. This reaching out to give FREE STUFF to the middle class is inherently un-American.

It disrupts the Free Market, where most middle class kids are already covered.

It removes an entire sector of health plan members from the private sector.

S-CHIP is problematic to the very fabric of our free market system.

Bravo for your Veto President Bush!

By Dave Petno

So GM is paying the Union $35 Billion to establish a healthcare trust for it's retirees, with promises to make additional giant payment in the future.....

This poses several questions that lead me to believe that the UAW will exempt itself from Hillarycare 2.0 if it happens.

Why should they be a part of a national plan if they already have this resolved?

Do you think they will be subject to Government Run healthcare?

That $35 Billion is a part of the national expenditures for healthcare.....do you think the UAW will just hand that over to Hillary to manage their care?

The UAW Retirees have Cadillac care....do you think they will be subject to the premium taxes that are going to be assessed against people who have better plans than the standard plan?

Is the UAW going to be exempt from any national government run system? ......let's just wait and see....

by Dave Petno

We keep hearing about 45 million uninsured, and how our system is broken because of it (the actual number is closer to 8 million who really deserve our attention...but I will leave that to another blog)

Lets assume that there are 45 million.

We have 300 million citizens.

45 million / 300 million = 15%

That means that 255 Million people are current covered with Insurance.

That means that 85% of our population is currently Insured. Since when is an 85% score the sign of a failing system.

About those 255 Million people: Last year's Kaiser Foundation survey showed that almost 90% of them would rate their coverage as good or excellent. In the same poll, 93 percent were happy with the quality of care, and 86% were satisfied with their ability to get an appointment. (Source: Levin as printed in The Weekly Standard Oct1, 2007)

Now how is that a crisis of Uninsured?

by Dave Petno

The outline of her plan is out. It’s comprehensive nature is astounding. The new reach and regulation of Government as a result of the plan is larger than any other government program ever.

Hillarycare 2.0

Hillary is one who believes that Government (aka “really smart people”) can rearrange an economy as easily as moving chess pieces on a chess board……..little do they know that each piece has its own momentum, and continues in motion , long after it is moved, and effecting all of the other pieces on the board…….(that is my version of a quote who’s source I cannot remember or find).

Her plan demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how insurance works. It is as if I were to describe how one would make a car…….out of the junk that I have in my garage. (Absurd)

Hillary’s clear agenda is to one day move us all to a Government Run Health system. She does this in her plan by allowing Americans to buy into government run programs. No doubt the government programs will be subsidized, and enticing. The net result of Hillarycare 2.0 would be the collapse of the American health insurance markets as we now know them.

American capitalism requires that capital and investments flow to the area of greatest financial return. What investor will want to invest in a market where the government is offering massive regulation, and dreaming of making them insolvent and unnecessary…or perhaps illegal?

Here are some basic questions to address with Hillary’s plan:

The plan is based upon a mandate of all Americans to purchase a plan:

Who determines what is a bon a fide plan?

My wife and I have a HSA plan with a $5,000 deductible. Would we have to buy a more expensive plan?

What is covered in the plan? Who makes that call? Will it include abortion?

What is my penalty if I choose not to buy one? Jail? Fines? Will they ban me from the healthcare system? Really?

The plan says that it will be Guarantee Issue: That means anyone can buy in at any time, regardless of health conditions.

So why would I not just wait until my disease is greater than the premium that I would need to pay? Why would I buy before I am sick?

How will they know if I have a plan? Will there be a new IRS?

Why would insurance companies want to provide insurance when they cannot manage their risk? (by mandating guaranteed issue?).

Other Thoughts:

Has ANY government program ever resulted in INCREASED QUALITY, and LOWER COST?

Will your plan slow medical innovations? Will there even be any private market innovations?

Finally, what assurances do we have that your cost estimates are even close to reality?

Read through my blog for more discussion of Free Market vs. Government run systems.

Nationalized Health Care is Broken
By John Stossel

Last week I pointed out that Michael Moore, maker of the documentary "Sicko," portrayed the Cuban health-care system as though it were utopia -- until I hit him with some inconvenient facts. So he backed off and said, "Let's stick to Canada and Britain because I think these are legitimate arguments that are made against the film and against the so-called idea of socialized medicine. And I think you should challenge me on these things."

OK, here we go.

One basic problem with nationalized health care is that it makes medical services seem free. That pushes demand beyond supply. Governments deal with that by limiting what's available.

That's why the British National Health Service recently made the pathetic promise to reduce wait times for hospital care to four months.

click here for full article

from Consumer Power #96

-- to Hayak. The Cato institute has published an article by Glen Whitman, an economics professor at Cal State, Northridge disputing individual mandates from a very different perspective. He says the "free rider" problem is exaggerated, that uncompensated care is not a huge problem in the American health system and that the uninsured are a small part of it in any case. He further notes, as we have repeatedly, that mandatory coverage hasn't worked very well in auto insurance and is unlikely to work any better in health. He also notes that mandatory coverage "does nothing to make insurance more affordable." Yes, it can be subsidized, but "it would be possible to have the subsidy without the mandate." Further, "to the extent the public has to subsidize the formerly uninsured, the free riding problem has not been solved, it has merely been shifted." And "taxpayers could actually be subject to more cost shifting than before" because it is impossible to confine the subsidies to only those who were uninsured.

SOURCE:
Cato Institute.

by Dave Petno

It is clear that programs like SCHIP "crowd out" private insurance companies. CATO is reporting that in 1996, more than 60% of eligible children had access to private health insurance. In 2005, only 55 already had private health insurance.

It only makes sense, if government will provide it for "free" why would the private sector want to pay for it?

See Michael Cannon's Sinking SCHIP

YOU WILL HAVE YOUR GOVERNMENT MANDATED CHECKUP EACH YEAR.....OR YOU WILL GO TO JAIL???

Only the first 2 minutes of this video really matter.



OR ELSE!

By Dave Petno

USA Today is reporting a story of mom who delivered Quadruplets IN MONTANA because there were not enough neo-natal beds available in the ENTIRE COUNTRY CANADA

Once again, the USA free-market system bails out Canadian socialism.

In the USA, we have excess capacity so that people can access care when they need it. In Canada, they have restricted capacity, to slow the utilization of care....in order to control costs.

from USA Today Posted by Michael Winter at 08:34 PM/ET
Autumn, Brooke, Calissa and Dahlia were born within five minutes of each other Sunday afternoon at 31 weeks, at Benefis Healthcare.

Why Great Falls? As the Toronto Globe & Mail explains, Jepp and her husband, J.P., were sent across the border because no neonatal intensive care unit in Canada had enough beds for them. She was two-centimeters dilated and having contractions when airlifted 300 miles.

Full USA TODAY STORY HERE

by Dave Petno
Ohio's "uninsured" spent $3.5 billion of their own money, and donations from charities last year for their medical care. Yes that is BILLION.

That is $3,500 per each of the alleged 1million uninsured (a number that is actually grossly inflated by the media...probably around 270,000).

That is a significant amount of resources from people who are supposedly not capable of paying their own bills.

So it appears as if, the uninsured get health care, and they pay significant amounts for it.

Where is the crisis?


August 29, Cleveland Plain Dealer reports:
"And Ohio has done a very good job of insuring kids," said Jason Sanford, spokesman for the nonprofit, nonpartisan Health Policy Institute of Ohio. "We have a very low rate of uninsured kids." ......

(The Uninsured)
They spent $3.5 billion of their own money and donations from charity last year to pay doctor and hospital bills. And that only met half their needs, Sanford said.

"Healthcare cannot be free, because nothing is ever free"