It was a big campaign topic in the 2008 elections, “Healthcare Reform” was particularly a pushing point of the Democratic party as they pushed the “horrible truth” that 46,000,000 Americans are uninsured. The stories of families going bankrupt, people dying while waiting for treatment, and malpractice scare stories abounded. It made it seem that if we didn’t act immediately on healthcare, that we were evil, selfish people.
The Numbers…
Well, that would have been a decent argument had they have at least used factual information. First, let us look at the number 46,000,000:
1: Ten million of those “American’s” aren’t American’s at all, they are illegal aliens and non-citizens.
2: According to Census data, 8,300,000 American’s that are uninsured make between $50,000 and $74,999 a year, and can certainly afford to buy their own health insurance.
3: Also according to the Census data, 8,740,000 American’s that are uninsured make over $75,000 a year, yet choose to not have health insurance.
That leaves us with about 20,000,000 Americans that are uninsured, to which 60% said they were in excellent health, and certainly could be an indicator of why they didn’t have health insurance. So never mind the fact that 14,000,000 would most likely be eligible for pre-existing healthcare options such as Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
So, in the end we have roughly 6,000,000 out of 306,914,050, which equals 1.9549% of our current population is uninsured, unable to pay for their own insurance, and has no current government options for healthcare. So is 2% a crisis? Let’s say that it is, and that the current estimate of $1,000,000,000,000 dollar price tag, that is most assuredly going to inflate rapidly as all government projects do, is correct. That means that each of those 6,000,000 poor American’s healthcare will be $166,666.67 a year. Even if the projected cost goes out to a 10 year span, that is still $16,666.66 a year in health insurance. Does that sound like an accurate number for how much health insurance costs? Not at all, as a reasonable private offering can be had for around $2,400 a year.
Where is the government planning on getting this money from to pay for this plan? Well, they would start by cutting Medicaid by around $500,000,000,000 dollars a year. Then, they plan on filling in the rest of the $500,000,000,000 – $1,000,000,000,000 by raising taxes on the “rich.” Now, since when is $280,000 a year considered rich in this country? Especially when they already have the greatest tax burden of anyone in the country?
“By 2005, the most recent year data are available, our top 1 percent of filers were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent. Every other group saw its share of the tax bill decline, sometimes substantially. Those taxpayers in the 26th to 50th percentile (that is, with an adjusted gross income roughly between $31,000 and $62,000) paid 11 percent of all federal income taxes, down from 20 percent back in 1980, while those in the 11th to 25th percentiles (earning between $62,000 and $104,000 today), paid 16 percent of the federal tax bill, down from 24 percent in 1980.” – Real Clear Markets
Now you decide if it is okay for Medicaid to be cut, and the rich to foot the bill for $6,000,000 uninsured Americans? Most people on Medicaid are living on fixed incomes due to being retired, and having already contributed a lifetime of work to taxes in this country. The “rich” are those that are our employers and provide funding for our venture capitalism, let alone the fact that more taxes may make them move their money and jobs outside of the country, hurting this country even more financially due to the loss in revenue both from their income, but their employees income. So tell me, does this make financial sense having this outrageously priced government program set in place? Well, if you say yes, I would encourage you to read further.
Here is a pie chart for you visual people about statistics in 2001 courtesy Rush:
What healthcare reform promises us…
What is proposed, is a government option for a health insurance plan. Sounds great right? That way it can be competitive and keep private health insurance companies honest with their premiums. Well, that would work if the laws of economics didn’t apply. Insurance companies work on charging premiums (your month to month cost) to fill their bank account with, to pay for expenses that anyone else (and you of course) will encounter while under their plan. The rates change on what risk you are to them. If you are a young, healthy individual that has little risk for diseases and accidents, you will pay a lower premium than someone who is older and has an existing heart condition, or a history of cancer. Why? Because the latter person will most likely require the insurance company to pay more money in doctor and medicine bills in their lifetime. Now, with the government plan, it won’t function like that. Why? Because the ones truly footing the bill for the healthcare will be the American taxpayer, regardless of whether or not they have their own insurance with another company or not. Thus, allowing the government to ALWAYS have a cheaper plan than the private industry.
So logically, as a consumer on a budget, you’d choose the government option so that you could have the spare money for that $200 a month cell phone bill that came with your new iPhone. What does that do to private insurance? Well, less customers means less revenue, meaning that premiums will have to be raised for current plan holders to make up the difference in their books. Sooner or later, private insurance companies would go out of business simply because they could not compete with the unfair, monopolistic practices of the government option.
Now, assuming you don’t want healthcare because you are young, in good health, and don’t believe that you need it, you should be able to choose to not have/pay for healthcare right? Well, in a truly free society that would be correct, but according to what the Democrats and Obama want, you’d have to pay for that “right.”
“Employers who don’t provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers’ wages with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.” – KansasCity.com
So even if you don’t want the healthcare, you are going to pay for it in two ways; once on your taxes, and then as a fine. It is wonderful to live in a free society isn’t it?
Now, you may argue that Canada has had wonderful government run health insurance, so is that why they have wait times from 4-22 hours in their Emergency Rooms? Sounds like our system is much more efficient doesn’t it?
So why do we want to ruin the best medical system in the world?
There are more issues at hand… Such as the rationing of healthcare, which this package would no doubt lead to as it has in Europe and Canada where the healthcare systems for the most part have been taken over by the government. What is rationing? It is when the government decides who gets the limited amount of drugs or doctors based on their worth to society. Don’t believe me? Here is an eye-opening editorial on what the elderly can expect under the Obamacare system. And this article poses a great start for the idea that if the government pays for our healthcare, won’t that give them the right to dictate what we eat, drink and do because it will in some way or another, directly impact what they will pay for us in healthcare costs? How would you like G-men coming into your house to see what was in your fridge? We already have them in line to come into your house and survey your electronics and home to make sure it will be “green enough” with the Cap and Trade bill that is going through the Senate, do you really want them monitoring what you eat and do as well now?
People come from all over the world for advanced treatments and procedures that we do here. The rest of the world uses our advancements in drugs and medical devices to extend life expectancies and cure diseases. Do we really want to further hobble a system that is the best out of any nation on the planet, and responsible for saving lives world wide? The reform we need isn’t in government intervention, it is in deregulation. Why forbid a drug that has to potential to alleviate the pain and suffering of a terminal cancer patient if the side affect could possibly be death? Doesn’t that patient sign a waiver anyway saying that they may die? Why not give them the option to live pain free longer? Why do we allow such frivolous lawsuits against doctors raising their malpractice costs?
“Dr. Paul Tudder figures he’s delivered about 4,000 babies in 21 years, and in that time, he’s never been sued.
Yet, as CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports, his malpractice insurance has gone through the roof. His premium was $23,000 in 2002. Then it jumped to $47,000. This year, he got a quote for $84,000.”
Instead, why don’t we work on ways to make the healthcare profession more efficient to work in? Lowering testing costs by getting rid of some of the most ridiculous FDA regulations, protecting doctors from frivolous malpractice lawsuits, and giving tax incentives to insurance companies to take on higher risk patients?
As President Reagan said that we are “a shining city on a hill,” so is our healthcare system to the rest of the world. Let’s not destroy it, when it affects far more than the people in this country.
*UPDATE*
Arizona is yet another step closer to putting a stop to this Healthcare Reform package from destroying their state’s healthcare! HCR2014 Nullifies the Federal bill in the State of Arizona.
Previous 
Next 
Categories
Tag Cloud
Blog RSS
Comments RSS
Last 50 Posts
Back
Void 
Life 
Earth 
Wind 
Water 
Fire
Not to nit-pick, but the Census statistics you mention are from an 10-year-old dataset. That’s kind of important.
The US Census is only performed once every 10 years, making it almost useless for ’statistical’ purposes such as this. There were a lot more affluent 20-somethings making 50k+ a year in 2000 than there are now, to be certain. I wouldn’t be surprised if a very large percentage of those 8 million people were ridding the dotcom bubble to the top (at one level of the schemes or another). And it -was- an entirely different economy then, as well.
That said, you make good conclusions even without the “correct” data. My personal opinion is that there need to be several major changes to insurance, all other things withstanding:
* At the very least, a person should be able to pick-and-chose which health policy benefits they need – not a buffet, but a menu. I do not want to supplement a 50-year-old tub of lard and their fast food addiction with my health policy. I am young and would like to buy what I need (just as I would expect to have to buy *whatever* plan if it were necessary for me to have anticoagulants and blood pressure pills at 50).
* And if we’re not going to get that granular, at least me to pick between “general” health insurance and “emergency” health insurance. I want the emergency coverage as a single-income-household earner in the event that something happens to me short of death (so that I might recover and continue to provide for my family).
* The AMA and the entrenched medical establishment needs to be dismantled from unconstitutional legal protection. They have been institutionalized into the state through various protectionist laws and kick-backs of one sort or another, to the point where people have more faith in medicine than pretty much anything else in this country (even more so than God, for those who are religious). It’s sickening.
You are correct in mentioning that this data is from an almost 10 year old census. However, not only is that using the same data that the Democratic party has used for their figures, but it is more optimistic number than the truth.
The Dot Com Bust was mainly a crash in the market, and not so much a crash in the job market. Although there were significant losses of jobs in the IT sector, this hardly constituted even 500,000 jobs nationwide. As evident in this article from the SF Gate about Silicon Valley, (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/06/09/MN228809.DTL) the unemployment rate had almost a trivial at most increase. Also, many of the startups lacked insurance plans at the time for their employees.
Then you must add in the fact of the rise in illegal aliens in that time as well, and without new census data, one could logically come to the conclusion that there are less than the 6,000,000 American’s that are in need of insurance today, even with the rising unemployment.