55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 07:20 pm
OBAMA CARE VERSUS REALITY CARE
Quote:

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2009/09/analysis-of-president-obamas-speech-to-congress-on-healthcare.html
September 10, 2009
Analysis of President Obama’s Speech to Congress on Healthcare
Analysis of President Obama’s Speech to Congress on Healthcare
From Tennessee Center for Policy Research
September 10, 2009
Based on a compilation of independent sources, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has analyzed President Obama’s September 9th speech to a joint session of Congress outlining his new healthcare plan. That analysis is below:


The President Said: “Buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer."

The Reality Is: “Premiums for employment-based plans are expected to average about $5,000 per year for single coverage and about $13,000 per year for family coverage in 2009. Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are, on average, much lower"about one-third lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family policies.”

The President Said: “There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get [health insurance] coverage.”

The Reality Is: As many as 75% of the uninsured could afford coverage, meaning that less than 10 million uninsured Americans may be unable to afford coverage.

The President Said: “In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point…More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too.”

The Reality Is: This is a problem because health insurance is directly tied to employer-based coverage. If Americans received the same tax benefits for obtaining individual coverage as their employers, they could take their health insurance with them when they left or lost their job. The President’s proposal not only fails to address the serious problems with employer-based coverage, it promotes it heavily.

The President Said: “We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it.”

The Reality Is: While Americans do in fact spend more on healthcare than any other nation, “When you compare the outcomes for specific diseases, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the world. Whether the disease is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, or AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far higher in the United States than in other countries.”

The President Said: “If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”

The Reality Is: Many employers will be forced to modify their plans to meet the new government standards and still others will simply drop coverage for their employees, forcing employees to obtain their own coverage or join the government-run plan. The Urban Institute estimates that up to 47 million Americans will lose their current coverage, while the Lewin Group estimates that as many as 114 million Americans’ coverage will be dropped.

The President Said: “[Insurance companies] will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies…”

The Reality Is: Forcing insurance companies to eliminate caps and cover routine treatments will drastically increase health insurance costs and compel insurance companies to skimp on important and necessary treatments. Individuals can purchase coverage for the treatments mentioned, but it should be optional, not compulsory.

The President Said: “Under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance…”

The Reality Is: Despite the fact that the President pledged not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year, a senior member of his own Administration admits that a mandate “will act as a very regressive tax, penalizing uninsured people who genuinely cannot afford to buy coverage.”

The President Said: “An additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange.”

The Reality Is: Public entities never compete on a level playing field with private companies. First, public entities have an unlimited supply of investors"the American taxpayer. Second, the public entities set the rules that the private companies must abide by, giving them an unfair advantage. A public option would actually “reduce competition by driving lower-cost private health plans out of business.”

The President Said: “I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.”

The Reality Is: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were also intended to be self-sufficient, but they have been bailed out and could eventually cost taxpayers upwards of $200 billion.

The President Said: “I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.”

The Reality Is: Actually, the President proposes setting up a bureaucracy between patients and doctors, called the Independent Medicare Advisory Council. This new body “would enhance Medicare’s ability to deny care to the elderly and disabled based on government bureaucrats’ arbitrary valuations of those patients’ lives.”

The President Said: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future.”

The Reality Is: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the leading current plan, H.R. 3200, will increase the deficit by $239 billion over the next ten years alone.

The President Said: “This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies.”

The Reality Is: While geared toward “Cadillac” insurance policies, this fee will be passed on to consumers, so those forced to purchase expensive policies because they are unhealthy or need expansive treatment will be hit the hardest.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 07:22 pm
@ican711nm,
Obama Medical Care will squander trillions of dollars.

The cost of private medical insurance is reducible, if all medical insurance companies in America are required to compete with all medical insurance companies in America--not just the ones in their state.

The cost of private medical insurance is reducible, if the cost of medical care provided by medical practicianers were reduced.

The cost of medical care provided by medical practicianers is reducible, if the cost of medical tort insurance for medical practicianers were reduced.

The cost of medical tort insurance for medical practicianers is reducible, if the cost of medical tort rewards were reduced.

The cost of medical tort rewards are reducible, if maximum tort rewards were reduced to a maximum multiple of actual damages.

The maximum multiple of actual damages is reducible, if Congress passes and the President signs a bill specifying what that maximum multiple shall be.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 07:25 pm
@old europe,
oe wrote:
Quote:
I don't see the statements made by spokespersons of private enterprises to be necessarily much more reliable.


If we omit people like Madoff, Lay, Kozlowsky, Skilling, Keating, Boesky, Ebbers, and the list goes on... then one would have to be very naive to trust people of private enterprise also.

How about all them bank and finance company CEOs who traded on derivatives? They must be all outstanding citizens too!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 07:43 pm
Private enterprises are held accountable by the law, by their profits, and by their stockholders for what they spend. Private employees are held accountable by their management for their spending of private enterprise revenue.

While the managers of the federal government are periodically held acountable by voters who have little knowledge of the true magnitude of the squandering of tax dollars perpetrated by government employees, government employees are rarely held accountable by anyone for what they spend.

Currently, the annual pay of federal employees is on the average three times the annual pay of private employees.

What are the annual salaries of Obama's czars?
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 07:50 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
Private enterprises are held accountable by the law, by their profits, and by their stockholders for what they spend. Private employees are held accountable by their management for their spending of private enterprise revenue.


That didn't stop Lehman Brothers from collapsing.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 08:00 pm
@old europe,
It's not only that, but often times it's the management who are guilty of the crimes.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 08:04 pm
Actually, might as well cut to the chase here, if anyone thinks single payer health care is the way to go, why not single payer housing, or single payer transportation, or single payer jobs for that matter? If thats what you want, why don't you just go to North Korea, or Cuba, or Venezuela, where you can be happy. They should welcome you with open arms, and we will be glad to see you go. We might could bend the rules to institute a one time single payer system for one way tickets.
Rockhead
 
  4  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 08:13 pm
@okie,
because healthcare is different, okie.

it's about people's very lives. not their possessions.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 08:33 pm
@okie,
The problem you have, okie, is that it's not going to be a "single-payer" anything. With all the information about choice, you're still stuck on mis-information like the rest of the conservatives on these threads.

It's no wonder you never learn anything.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 08:39 pm
@JPB,
JPB Wrote:
Quote:
"All of which are artificially low because high-risk individuals are excluded. You may think they're high enough but my premise is that if people really understood the cost of HC and other insured services, they would be much more concerned about where these dollars are being spent. By segmenting the population into low-risk and uninsured we're kidding ourselves into thinking we have a handle on costs. "


How did you feel about John McCain's campaign proposal to tax HC benefits and allow a 7 grand tax credit to those that purchased such benefits? This seemed to me to be able to provide those so purchasing with information about the costs of their health care costs and an incentive to lower them.

JM
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 08:44 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

because healthcare is different, okie.

it's about people's very lives. not their possessions.

I think all the more reason to have control of it personally. Besides, we do and we can provide health care for those that simply cannot afford it. Thats what Medicaid is for. And in case you haven't heard, Medicaid is one of the reasons states are going broke. If you want the governments to go broke faster, just fork over the whole thing into their lap.

Republicans and conservatives do have solutions that will work, at least help, why not try fixing the system instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water?
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 08:47 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
I think all the more reason to have control of it personally.


If an insurance company can drop you in the middle of treatment when you actually get sick, how much personal control do you think you really have?
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 08:51 pm
@JamesMorrison,
JamesMorrison wrote:

JPB Wrote:
Quote:
"All of which are artificially low because high-risk individuals are excluded. You may think they're high enough but my premise is that if people really understood the cost of HC and other insured services, they would be much more concerned about where these dollars are being spent. By segmenting the population into low-risk and uninsured we're kidding ourselves into thinking we have a handle on costs. "


How did you feel about John McCain's campaign proposal to tax HC benefits and allow a 7 grand tax credit to those that purchased such benefits? This seemed to me to be able to provide those so purchasing with information about the costs of their health care costs and an incentive to lower them.

JM


I hope you don't mind me answering as well? I actually thought McCains idea was sound, based upon principle. After all, anything paid to an employee is income, whether it be in cash or a benefit, so to make things an even playing field, it should be taxed as income. Then as you say, McCain also proposed a credit for what is paid out so that it can be allowed for in the income tax system. It ends up being a wash, but it effectively treats all people more fairly, and it also makes people more directly tied into the service.

In reality, I think it would make more sense for people to buy their own insurance separately, apart from payroll deductions. Let them get paid, and then they can organize in various ways if they so desire in group plans. This way, the insurance becomes more portable and separated from employment.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 08:51 pm
@okie,
there's a lot of poor folks don't qualify for government assistance right now okie.

what about them?
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 08:54 pm
thinking ahead...

do you know what COBRA is, okie?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 08:55 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
I think all the more reason to have control of it personally.


If an insurance company can drop you in the middle of treatment when you actually get sick, how much personal control do you think you really have?

That was one of the pre-requisites for my choice of company, they cannot drop my policy. I belong to a group policy that prohibits that.

Buyers of services must compare and choose, and the market should allow for that. I would not rule out some kind of reform however that encourages companies to not drop their customers unless there was some kind of fraud involved.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 08:58 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

there's a lot of poor folks don't qualify for government assistance right now okie.

what about them?

Then perhaps the thresholds need reform then. That would be better than reforming the entire system. As I understand it, if you don't count the illegals, the people that are elgible for Medicaid but don't avail themselves of it, and the people that can afford insurance but don't buy it, the number of uninsured is really not that high of a percentage, probably below 10% or less. Why screw up the other 90% plus people when most of them are happy with their health care, that is my point? Fix the less than 10% area.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 09:00 pm
@okie,
because your system is broken.

unsustainable.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 09:03 pm
and unfair.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Sep, 2009 09:07 pm
@JamesMorrison,
I'd rather see the workplace removed from the HC "benefit" business entirely, but I have no issue with taxing insurance benefits as income along with a credit to those who are put under undo hardship with the change. It doesn't do anything for those who work for small companies that don't provide insurance, the self-employed, or those otherwise required to purchase private insurance or go without.

Those who have made COBRA payment know that the premium costs to the company far exceed those paid by the employee, but they still qualify for reduced group rates.

My reasoning for endorsing a public option for the 7% of individuals who purchase private insurance and the 25-45 million uninsured is the availability of becoming part of a "group". That alone won't make insurance affordable. It will still need to be subsidized for a portion of those individuals.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 02/20/2025 at 02:28:51