Let me get this straight. He proposed a plan that he claims will accomplish "three basic goals" that he identified as providing "more security and stability to those who have health insurance ... insurance to those who don't" and slowing "the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government."
Now, that all sounds good. Right?
But how, exactly, does all of that get accomplished? Here's part one of his plan:
"As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They 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 – because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives. That's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan – more security and stability."Yea! More coverage. No annual caps. No lifetime caps. More tests covered. More! More!
"And the people said, 'It is good.'"
But ... who, exactly, PAYS for the "More"?
Let's face it, the only way the insurance companies can pay more (and more and more) for everyone they insure is to charge more and more and more. (Remember the old adage: "you get what you pay for"?) Somewhere, someone has to pay the bill. As a middle-class American, I know who usually gets stuck with that bill!
Later in his speech, President Obama claimed that he had "no interest in putting insurance companies out of business." Yet, somehow, he expects them to provide more coverage to more people for less money. I'm a mathematician, a statistician and I've done some accounting work. Any way I figure the numbers, I can't see how that can work.
But, let's go on.
His second promise was insurance for those who don't have it. He says,
"We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. ... For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill."For now, I'll leave alone the whole issue of "a new insurance exchange." Let's look at the other promises. He promises that people can "shop for health insurance at competitive prices" and that there will be "tax credits" for those who can't even afford that. Since it will take 4 years to get this new "insurance exchange" up and running, "we will immediately offer low-cost coverage."
Who is "we"?
Ladies and gentlemen, that's you and me! Oh, it's the government. But, we know that it is "we" who pay for what "they" do!
And just in case someone still doesn't want to "opt-in" to one of his plans, he made it very clear that "under [his] plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance."
He equated this to the requirement that most states have for auto insurance. However, I am personally not aware of any state that requires you to carry comprehensive coverage. What they require is that you carry coverage in case you, in your huge piece of machinery capable of traveling at high speeds but of doing serious damage even at slow ones, happen to injury someone else personally or injure their property (there vehicle or other property), there will be coverage to pay for that damage. If you have a lien on the vehicle, the lien holder usually also requires coverage so they can recoup their money if you damage the property that is their collateral. All of that focuses on protecting someone else from the harm you might do them. It is not forcing you to insure against loss you might incur. If you own the vehicle (there is no lien), it is your decision whether you want to pay the cost to insure it (comprehensive coverage) so that you do not incur loss or take the risk of that loss. That is a cost / benefit analysis that each person must do for themselves.
Typically, those of us who keep our cars for a number of years finally reach a point where we choose to drop that additional coverage, because the premiums for it over two or three years exceed the amount we would receive if it were damaged. We choose to keep our money and, essentially, insure ourselves.
Similarly, today, those who are not provided health coverage in some way have the option to insure themselves for that possibility or not to do so. That is their choice. President Obama's point is that, in the end, "we" end up paying for them.
Well, there's the problem.
In my car analogy, if I choose to drop comprehensive coverage and I damage the car myself, no one (the government included) is going to pay me for that loss. I would have to stand responsible for my decision. But, when it comes to health care bills and people making the choice to have a new car, the latest model & biggest TV, the latest DVD or Blue-Ray device, the latest model iPhone, and hundreds of CDs, DVDs, etc., but they "can't afford insurance," then "we" pay their bills for them. What we have lost in this country is personal responsibility.
Do not get me wrong. I am all for helping those who truly need it - like the Mom who is working two jobs to raise a family alone. But I still remember that notable photo of the guy standing in the soup line where Michelle Obama was helping out waiting to be served his free meal because he couldn't affort food and he was caught in this photo taking a picture of her with his Blackberry. Now, to my way of thinking, there was something wrong with that picture!
So, how much does this cost and how does it get paid for? His estimate was $900 billion over the next 10 years. Okay, for starters have you ever seen a government program that didn't exceed the inital budget estimate? But, not to worry, he made it clear that he
"will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. ... And to prove that [he is] serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize."When have you ever known Congress to go back and make cuts to make up for their overspending?
But, it gets even better. The cost really shouldn't be an issue since they have "estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system – a system that is currently full of waste and abuse."
Now I'm with you. The Medicare and Medicaid systems to which he was referring have SO MUCH WASTE that we can just cut that out and pay for the new health care system for everyone. What a deal!
So, the government that has been so inefficient at administering Medicare & Medicaid that they have that degree of waste and fraud (and the do have a LOT of it) is now going to miraculously turn that around and become so efficient that they can use the excess from that system to pay for the health care for everyone else who isn't getting it today - or may no longer have it provided once they know there is a "free" option available. By the way, he promised seniors that their coverage under these programs would not be changed while all those cuts are made.
He reiterated that
"Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan." He then went on to say that "Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies."Ok, so those companies who now have to provide more people more coverage at reduced rates are going to be making so much money that he is going to tax them to pay for the government-run portion.
That's right, tax the private enterprise to subsidize the government program - until you run all of the insurance companies out of business. Somehow, it just seems that all paths lead back to that state. "That state" being ... The State taking over and running everything. The banks. GM. Chrysler. Health care.
Even if these aren't owned by the government (and if you will do your homework instead of just listening to main-line media, you'll learn that they are, actually, in part owned by the government as part of the bailout), they are told with whom they can - or must - do business, how much they can charge, what services they have to provide, etc. That is not exactly the way I learned that "free enterprise" works. It may still be "private enterprise" but it is getting very difficult to call it a "free" market system.
[I can't help but recall that the whole banking / mortgage crisis was caused by that very issue - the government mandating to banks & lending institutions what they HAD to do ... that they HAD to provide loans to people who did not qualify for them & did not have the resources to repay them. But the very legislators that framed those statutes and pushed them through and into law now take the credit for bailing us out of the crisis they caused.]
When will enough of us wake up to stop this train before it completely mows us all down?
