Is Individual Mandate Worse than "Public Option"?

Cato's Michael Cannon has a commentary on the effects of an individual mandate to buy health insurance. His poster child is chief spokesman critic of Obama's health care proposals, Mitt Romney, who signed Massachusetts' individual mandate into law:

In the three years since Massachusetts enacted its individual mandate, providers successfully lobbied to require 16 specific types of coverage under the mandate: prescription drugs, preventive care, diabetes self-management, drug-abuse treatment, early intervention for autism, hospice care, hormone replacement therapy, non-in-vitro fertility services, orthotics, prosthetics, telemedicine, testicular cancer, lay midwives, nurses, nurse practitioners and pediatric specialists.

The Massachusetts Legislature is considering more than 70 additional requirements.

Those requirements can increase premiums by 14 percent or more. Officials further increased premiums by imposing new limits on cost-sharing.

"The effect," writes the Boston Globe, "has been to provide more comprehensive insurance than in most other states but also to raise costs." Premiums are growing 21 to 46 percent faster than the national average, in part because Massachusetts' individual mandate has effectively outlawed affordable health plans.

What's Wrong with Medicare

Defenders of national health care proposals try to make the claim - in response to critics - that government-run health care is pretty good, citing Medicare (and Medicaid).  So what's wrong with "Medicare for All"?

• Medicare's coverage is not that good
  
• Medicare recipients spend more per household (and a much a higher share of their income) on out-of-pocket expenditures than do non-Medicare households
• Over half of all Medicare recipients buy supplemental health insurance, or get it from their employer.  An additional 22% are enrolled in Medicare Advantage, with additional benefits and costs (though Obama is looking to gut Medicare Advantage).
  

• Medicare has higher administrative costs per person than private insurance.

• Medicare is going bankrupt, with $89 trillion in unfunded liability.

• Medicare underpays doctors and providers, resulting in:
  
  
  • An increasing number of doctors who refuse to accept Medicare patients.
  • Cost shifting - Medicare shifts billions in costs on to providers, which results in increasing premiums for private coverage.

The final point would be extremely important to consider when discussing expanding the number on government programs - i.e. it will drive up the costs of private insurance (and of course, their will be fewer left to shift cost on to).

Medicare's Administrative Costs vs. Private Insurance

One of the myths is that Medicare has lower administrative costs than private insurance, and thus is the model for efficient health coverage. (This was an argument made by a woman at a forum I spoke at, before she resorted to labeling me a "tea bagger" and "birther", as though that undermined my factual analysis of health care proposals).

But this idea is a myth; a Heritage Foundation study finds that on a per person basis, Medicaid's administrative costs are higher than private insurance. While Medicare spends a lower percentage on administration, its totals costs per person far exceed those of private insurance (given it serves an older audience), and it administrative costs per-enrollee is higher. CAHI also has a recent report on the administrative costs of Medicare and Tyler Cowen weighs in on this debate with a few comments, including that "administrative costs" include the benefits of investigating fraud abuse, which Medicare - and Medicaid, as the Pennsylvania Auditor General found - does a poor job of.

Paul Krugman tries to "refute" Heritage's analysis by arguing that as a percentage of spending Medicare has lower administrative costs, which is why he doesn't have a Nobel Prize for Refuting. Heritage economist Robert Book then takes Krugman to school in a comment about the administrative costs of Medicare.

The appropriate measure is administrative cost per person, and by that standard Medicare is more expensive than private health plans. This point stands unrefuted.

(HT to Greg Mankiw for some of the links)

The Success of Consumer-Driven Health Care

In the midst of debates over the right kind of health care reform, consumer-driven plans continue to attract consumers while keeping costs in check.

Greg Scandlen of Consumers of Health Care Choices highlights a new survey by United Benefits Advisors:

"enrollment in consumer-driven plans exceeds that of HMOs. The survey included more than 12,000 employers and discovered that 15.4 percent of all employees are now in CD plans, compared to 13.6 percent in HMOs. PPOs remain the Big Daddy with 63.9 percent market share."

If you're not convinced by the numbers read the personal stories on savemyflexplan.org. This national grassroots group is working to prevent a cap on the amount of contributions consumers can make towards their Flexible Spending Plans. About 35 million Americans utilize FSA's and the median income of participants is about $55,000.

And if you're wondering what an FSA or HSA is check out this short video.

States Offer Valuable Insight into the Dangers of Socialized Medicine

The Commonwealth Foundation and Conservatives for Patients Rights recently hosted a policy forum entitled “State-Run Health Care: Costly Mistakes”, featuring policy experts from across the country who have seen firsthand the devastating effects of state-run health care. Here are some of the highlights:

• Michael Tanner, from The Cato Institute, discussed how state-run universal coverage proved to be one big headache for the state of Massachusetts. As Tanner discussed, in order to facilitate the individual mandate to buy insurance, the state extended subsidies to those up to 3 times the federal poverty line. The state run “connector” provided a pseudo-marketplace to buy private insurance, but only insurance plans that met strict state-mandated guidelines were acceptable, forcing many to drop their current private plans. The results included health insurance premiums rising twice the national average, a massive budget deficit and dramatic increases in waiting times.

• Dr. Eric Fruits, from Oregon’s Cascade Public Policy Institute, illustrated the effects the state’s decision to expand Medicaid had on accessibility. Oregon ranked all common procedures from 1-700, analyzed the costs and drew a line; everything above is covered, everything below is not. The effects of this rationing were devastating. One recent example included a patient being denied cancer treatment, yet assisted suicide was covered under the state plan. After nearly 20 years of the state program, there has only been a 0.6% decrease in the number uninsured.

• Brian Lapps, the former Director of Tennessee’s state-run plan, TennCare, shared the dire situation his state was in after implementing universal coverage. TennCare expanded Medicaid eligibility and allowed those without insurance to buy into the state plan, dramatically increasing the amount of enrollments. Unfortunately, moving to managed care proved to be an overload on the system, forcing cuts in the payments back to doctors by 30% and hospitals by 60%. This even prompted some surgeons to refuse to participate in TennCare. From 2000-2007, medical costs have risen 40% while enrollments have subsequently dropped by over 100,000.

• Tarren Bragdon, from the Maine Heritage Center, expressed the failures of Dirigo, Maine’s universal health care program. Dirigo was originally supposed to cover 128,000 yet today total enrollments are 9,500, only 3% of the total uninsured. In four years, benefits were slashed and premiums rose by 74%. If that wasn’t bad enough, 33% of the total enrolled dropped private insurance to use the tax-payer funded state plan, resulting in $155m in new taxes including taxes on private insurance!

• Finally, Pearl Hahn, from Hawaii’s Grassroots Institute, showed us the dangers of an employer mandate on insurance. In 1974, Hawaii imposed an employer mandate to cover all employees working 20 hours or more, as well as universal coverage for children. The employer mandate forced small businesses to cut back employee hours to 19 or less and led to many people dropping their private plans to opt for the cheaper government-managed care.

For more information on how we can address the concerns over our health care industry using free-market and pro-growth solutions, check out CF’s policy points on health care reform.

Explaining the Town-Hall Protests

John Goodman - the health care policy guru, not the star of Arachnophobia - has an editorial in Friday's Wall Street Journal on those protesting Obama's version of health care reform:

Why are they so angry? The reasons are manifold, but the single biggest reason is the arrogance of our elected officials in Washington. Think about it. For the past seven months a small group of politicians has been meeting behind-closed-doors with powerful special interests to decide whether you will be able to keep your current insurance, where you will be directed to get new insurance and at what price, what fines you and your employer will have to pay if you don't conform, and how they're going to get your doctor to change the way he or she practices medicine. ...

Indeed, most opponents of ObamaCare are much better informed than is commonly believed. At a typical town-hall meeting, the citizens are usually better versed on the Obama plan than the member of Congress. Some have actually read the 1,000-plus page House bill (HR3200), which most representatives have definitely not read. In my opinion, Mr. Obama is losing the health-care debate because his critics are better informed than his defenders. ...

Yet far from accepting this responsibility, the White House is ducking the issue. For example, they have chosen to scapegoat the insurance industry, making them out to be the villains in the health-care debate. These are the very same companies that have been negotiating with the administration behind closed doors in good faith, and are even spending millions of dollars on television ads supporting health reform.

The new tactics it is employing show the White House is completely out of touch with the American people. Those who attend town-hall meetings know they are not being organized or funded by anyone. And when the administration attacks their character and their motives and intentionally distorts the truth, it only adds to the anger people already feel.

Post-Gazette Combats Health Care "Lies" With Actual Lies

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist Sally Kalson has a ridiculous piece on health care reform (HT PA Watercooler), in which she admittedly fabricates a number of proposals she "imagines" Republicans would propose on health care. She then claims that "Democrats have been strangely absent from this fiction-writing competition" and proceeds to attack any critics of government-run health care ... unfortunately the things she pretends to be honest about are less factual than those she made up.

First off, Obama and Congressional Democrats have made numerous false statements about health care proposals including that it would lower federal deficits, that everyone would be able to keep their current coverage, that it doesn't include an individual mandate.

I have spoken at several forums on health care, attended a few others, and watched a couple televised in full. These have not been rowdy, yelling audiences (with some exceptions, which seems to be all the media will cover), but generally informed and concerned citizens, with specific questions about the various proposals - often referring to details in the legislation and even page numbers from the bills. This calling those who object to Obamacare "the mob" is simply an attack the messenger approach to distract from the real debate (in fact, you will not find any discussion of what is actually in proposed health care legislation in Kalson's column).

Kalson thinks that since the phrase "death panel" seems over-the-top (I'll concede that it is) that we shouldn't be concerned about rationing. But Sarah Palin was mostly right when she said this, as health care policy gurus Greg Scandlen and Michael Cannon point out - the proposed legislation would empower a new federal board with far greater power to deny "unnecessary care" based on their calculation of its worth.

And Kalson tries the easy out by pointing to Medicare and Medicaid as showing that we already have "socialized medicine" ... on that point, she is right, government currently represents half of U.S. health care spending - that is the problem. What Kalso fails to point out is that:

• Medicare and Medicaid are growing ever more costly and threaten to consume federal and state budgets.
• Medicare and Medicaid underpay doctors and hospitals, causing many doctors to not take new patients, and shifting billions in costs onto private coverage.
• Medicare and Medicaid coverage is very poor, which is why those who can afford to (wealthier Medicare recipients) buy supplemental coverage. In fact, the uninsured often get better care than those on government programs.

Perhaps most egregious is Kalson - and many in the media - pretending the debate on of "reform" or "no reform", rather than about the right kind of health care reform. Kalson doesn't have to "imagine" Republican's health care reform plans would look like, she could actually study their proposals (including legislation by Jim Demint, who she demonizes).

I recommend using the useful tool that Conservative's for Patients Rights has created to compare actual health care reform proposals.

Obama’s “Co-operative” Trojan Horse

With the public voicing overwhelming concern over the potential effects Obama’s “public option” could have on America’s healthcare industry, the White House now has its back against the wall. Progressives in Congress threaten mutiny against any bill that fails to include the provision and the far-left blogosphere is not pleased with this perceived concession. Obama’s solution? Simply repackage the government-run program and call it a “co-operative” in an attempt to deceive the American public.

On Sunday, Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, said that the public option was “not the essential element” of healthcare reform and the Administration would carefully consider a government-chartered “co-operative” before flip-flopping on the issue during an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union.

While everyone typically enjoys the notion of cooperation, do not be fooled. A true cooperative program is governed by the enrollees of the plan, not the Secretary of Health and Human Services and Washington bureaucrats.

Here is a commentary from Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner on the fallacy of “co-operative” healthcare, while Michael Cannon from Cato weighed in on the issue in a TownHall.com piece.

Meanwhile, here at the Commonwealth Foundation, the noted economist and former presidential adviser, Dr. Arthur Laffer, and a team of researchers have put together a new policy report on the harm ObamaCare would bring tor Pennsylvania.

Lots More Reasons why ObamaCare isn't Popular

Pete DeCoursey has an interesting column on Capitowire (subscription) about why people oppose ObamaCare. He hits the main point correct – most people are satisfied with their coverage ( in a forthcoming study, we note that 85% of Americans have insurance, and 80% are satisfied with their current coverage), but he misses on a number of statements.

That is what public rationing of health care has done in Canada and Germany and Britain: even out the health care of the non-wealthy. The wealthy can still afford to game the system, but in most of Europe and Canada, if you're not wealthy, you get the same health care. Here, more than half the non-wealthy get vastly better health insurance and health care than the rest, because they work for big or generous employers.

False – In Europe, Canada, Australia and others, the rich (and often non-rich) buy health care outside the government system, often coming to America to do so. In Canada, it is illegal (at least until the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that this denies individuals their right to quality health care) to do so, but the law is ignored as nearly everyone buys private care out of pocket. In France, Michael Moore’s favorite ‘universal’ health care system, 90% buy private coverage above and beyond the government program.

So you occasionally read about someone in England or Germany or Canada having to wait so long for a long-shot, expensive, life-prolonging treatment that by the time they come up on the list, they have died or can no longer survive the treatment.

But more often, people wait and then they get their service, and they pay less than we do.

The number of horror stories from Europe and Canada are greater than you suggest, and on routine treatments, not just “long-shot” care. There are countless examples, like the guy who pulled his own teeth with pliers while waiting for a dentistry or the story from Britain today that access to in-vitro fertilization will depend on where you live. There are there are many more such stories at BigGovHealth.

And as for the US paying more, it is partly because we are a much wealthier nation, and health care appears to be a superior good, so we are willing to pay more or our income on our health (not to mention the fact the US funds virtually all research and development in health care and pharmaceuticals).

So who makes the decision of what is covered and what isn’t right now? Employers and insurers.

Wrong again. Government has a heavy hand in this. Pennsylvania has 52 mandates of services/treatments/providers that must be covered in every health care plan. States have regulations about how insurers can charge and what products they may offer. Of course, these mandates drive up the cost of insurance, and naturally the number of uninsured.

First of all, it wouldn’t save us any money, because the fact is, the president and Congress are going to cover more than businesses and insurers watching profit margins will. Running for re-election every two or four years would tend to make you want that national policy to cover more than a Mother Hubbard dress.

If that were true, then Medicare and Medicaid would provide greater coverage than private insurance—in fact, they cover far less (hence those who can afford to—wealthier individuals on Medicare—buy supplemental coverage). These program also pay doctors and hospitals less for the same services, hence many doctors are refusing new Medicare and Medicaid recipients. This underpayment results in cost shifting, which drives up the cost of private insurance further.

DeCoursey is right when he states that every plan must ration – but the question is who should make that choice. It is not merely a question of “reform” vs. the status quo, but there are reforms we are pushing and that have been introduced in Congress and the state House to give patients – not government, employers, or insurance companies - more control over health care decisions, while preserving the quality of coverage most Americans enjoy.

Scrutinize the Health Care Bill

We've gotten a few calls over the last few days asking where to get and read the 1,200 page health care bill being debated in Congress.  Here are some resources:

• American for Prosperity has some facts about the health care proposals in Congress, a breakdown of the House bill, and a call for volunteers to help read, examine, and comment on the bills.

• Kingdom Studies links to the full text and makes some comments on specific provisions in the House bill, citing the page numbers.

• Open Congress has the bill text and features to comment on the legislation.

Despite what Pete DeCoursey's latest Capitolwire column (subscription) may indicate, citizens are far better versed in the details of these proposals than are members of Congress.  For instance, Arlen Specter seems unaware that proposals include an individual mandate to buy insurance, when posed that question at one of his town hall.

RightOnline Health Care Panel

Right Online held a panel on health care reform today, which I had the honor of speaking at, along with Amy Menefee of Americans for Prosperity and the Patients First campaign, and Eric Singer of Congressional Effect Management (AFP's Phil Kerpen moderated and also provided insights). Rather than describe the great info I and the other panelists presents (along with the intelligent questions and comments from the audience), here is what those in attendance had to say.

Attendees on Twitter:

maggie82: #righton: whoever pays #healthcare gets to determine coverage and service - government, insurance company or patient? that's question #tcot

markdkelly2: Eric Singer in a nutshell at #RightOn health care panel, the government's policies got us into the current health care situation.

bmorekarl:  I think if Obama was being honest, he’d say ‘read my lips, no new hips’ - Eric Singer #righton

markdkelly2 Eric Singer, likes kingdomstudies.blogspot.com 's review of House health care bill. #RightOn @Kerpen says Senate committee bill kept secret

maggie82: #righton: most insurance companies are at the table and supporting #obamacare. So #iamthemob are not pawns of that industry.

markdkelly2: #RightOn Amy Menefee, we've tried government run health care in HI and MA and it didn't work. #handsoff

markdkelly2: crowd fired up & already pretty educated about the health care bill. #RightOn #handsoff

az4vlad: @righton Doctor speaks to healthcare panel: "The AMA does not speak for the majority of doctors in America!"

DonIrvine: Docs against healthcare reform should join AAPS. #righton #tcot http://myloc.me/luK2

The blog North Shore Exponent summarizes the panel:

• Part 1
• Part 2

And here are video highlights of the panel via WVEx



My presentation concluded with a number of links for information and to get involved in patient-centered health care reform:

• http://healthcare.cato.org
• http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/
• http://cprights.org/
  
• http://joinpatientsfirst.com/ 
• http://patientsunitednow.com/
  
• http://healthcarehorserace.com/
• http://www.cahi.org/
  
• http://www.galen.org/
  
• http://www.chcchoices.org/ 
• http://www.ncpa.org/

Universal Health Care is for Primitive Societies

The Wynnewood Institute has a great article on government run health care by Thomas Patrick Burke. It argues that since civilizations value freedom over coercion universal health care is "an offense against human dignity".

Government Managed Health Care isn't the "Reform" We Need

The Independence Institute has another great video on the problems when government makes health care decisions - this time use Oregon as an example, and how they prioritize Medicaid coverage based on which special interests to the best lobbying.



Hat Tip to the Sam Adams Alliance, which has a fantastic new portal on health care reform from the free market perspective.

For another example of failed health care "reform" from the state, NCPA has a new fact sheet on lessons from Massachusetts (which Obama is using as a model for national reform), starting with the lesson that "reform" hasn't lowered costs, but increased them.

Effect of ObamaCare on Pennsylvania

The Heritage Foundation has a new analysis from the Lewin Group on the impact in Pennsylvania on private health care coverage, the uninsured, and physicians and hospitals of the "American Affordable Health Choices Act."

Effects on Private Coverage and the Uninsured

• 51 percent of privately insured Pennsylvania residents would transition out of private insurance. Of the estimated 7.6 million Pennsylvania residents with private health insurance, there would be a decline of 3.9 million people with private coverage.
• 59 percent of Pennsylvania residents with employer-based coverage would lose their current insurance. Of the estimated 7 million Pennsylvania residents with employer-based coverage, 4.1 million people would be shifted out of their current employer-based plan.
• 80 percent of Pennsylvania residents in a health insurance exchange would end up in the public plan. Of the estimated 5.5 million Pennsylvania residents who would obtain coverage through an exchange, 4.4 million would be covered by the public plan.
• 32 percent of the uninsured in Pennsylvania would still lack coverage. Of the estimated 1.4 million Pennsylvania residents without health insurance, the legislation would only reduce the uninsured by 952,600, leaving 447,400 Pennsylvania residents without coverage.

Effects on Physicians and Hospitals

• Physicians in Pennsylvania could see their net annual income decline by $321.4 million, an average loss in income of $6,480 per physician. Of this net loss in income, $1.832 billion is attributable to the public plan using Medicare-based payments. Today, Medicare physician payments in Pennsylvania are 76 percent of private payments.
• Hospitals in Pennsylvania could have their net annual income fall by about $2.7 billion, with hospital total margins dropping to -1.6 percent. This loss in hospital income, greater than total hospital margins, is overwhelmingly attributable to the public plan using Medicare-based payments. Today, Medicare hospital payments in Pennsylvania are 71 percent of private payments.

Rendell Declares Autism Mandate a Failure

In 2008, the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed, and Gov. Rendell signed, a new mandate that private insurers would have to cover autism services. At the time, we said the new mandate would drive up insurance premiums, should be offered as an optional rider, and suggested vouchers for autistic children instead.

Gov. Rendell, however, suggested the mandate would actually save taxpayers, saying in his signing statement,

"By requiring private health insurers to shoulder their fair share of the cost of treatment, we’re taking steps to address the gap in the private insurance market and reduce reliance on government programs as the primary source of services and funding.” [emphasis added].

But now Rendell is saying we have to increase, not reduce state spending on autism services. He blasts the Senate Republicans for proposing to spend "only" $14.8 million on the line-item. In reality, the Senate budget would spend $19.1 million - using federal stimulus funds to supplement state funds - but don't expect Gov. Rendell to give the straight facts.

That total actual represents about the same as 2008-09 spending (after Rendell's freeze, which reduced the autism line item by $3.7 million, and later revision to the actual spending), and a whopping $9.2 million increase (92%) over 2007-08, when Rendell signed the autism mandate.

I guess it is pretty fair to say that if a 92% increase in autism spending in two years isn't enough, then we have not "reduced reliance on government programs"

Join the "Mob"

You might find it interesting that the special interests who denounce individuals voicing opposition to ObamaCare as "astroturf," a "mob," and part of a vast right-wing conspiracy (and occasionally beating them up) are actually hiring "grassroots" activists to support Obama's version of health care reform.

In response American Liberty Alliance has set up a new site, "The People's Mob" dedicated to defend those who oppose government-run health care and support free market solutions from attacks from the left.

For those interesting in being part of the mob, you can come out for the Patients First Bus Tour in Pennsylvania.

Attacking the Messengers on Health Care Reform

President Obama, Dick Durbin, the unions, and shills at MSNBC have taken to calling protesters who disagree with their health care agenda as shills for corporate interests or "the mob." Of course, this is simply attacking the messenger approach that happens when they are losing the battle of ideas. But more so, these folks have no leg to stand on:

For instance, Rachel Maddow calls conservative activists "shills for corporate interests," without noting the irony that she is a million shill for corporate giant General Electric. Nor does her claims that Big Pharma is behind the protests ring true. Big Pharma is spending millions on pro-ObamaCare ads, and running these ads on Maddow's own show!

Of course, free-market advocates also get attacked for being shills for special interests - but in most cases, as in health care, the special interest groups are the ones supporting big government and making deals on ObamaCare:

Among the groups involved in the deal were the largest insurance industry lobbyist, America’s Health Insurance Plans, as well as the American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

Then in June, Obama announced a deal between PhRMA and AARP to save $80 billion on prescription drug costs over ten years. Separately, PhRMA joined with the liberal Families USA to take out an ad playing off the “Harry and Louise” spots that helped derail health care legislation in 1994, only with the opposite message. “We can get the job done this time,” the Louise character says in the new ads.

And the AMA, which once stood opposed to government-run medicine, endorsed the liberal House Democrats health care bill, which introduces a new government-run plan.

The "astroturf" charges are leveled by groups pouring millions into lobbying for ObamaCare.

Last July, the group Health Care for Americans Now announced the start of a $40 million campaign expressly for this purpose, and the groups were loaded with backers from big labor and groups such as MoveOn, Planned Parenthood, and ACORN. As I've reported elsewhere, the group received a $10 million grant from Atlantic Philanthropies, whose CEO, Gara LaMarche, was previously director of U.S. programs for the Open Society Institute, the philanthropic foundation founded and chaired by George Soros.

In June, I attended a news conference in which HCAN and other liberal groups announced they would spend $82 million in an effort to support President Obama's health care push and press for legislation that includes a new government-run plan modeled after Medicare. Howard Dean, former chair of the DNC, is involved in this supposedly grassroots effort.

And check out how leaders of the AARP walk on their own members who disagree with their pro-ObamaCare message.

What about charges of "unruly mobs?" Certainly there has been some protests where the debate whas less than civil. But ironically, this has been thrown out there by union goons, who have a penchant for trying to intimidate those they disagree with. And now these unions and their affiliates have a plan of attack to shout down (or beat up) any conservative protesters. If fact, their memo encourages pro-ObamaCare advocates to show up, be loud, but to "not debate on their 'policy' points." Great, wouldn't want this to be about the issues. Here are some of the results:

• Supporters of ObamaCare beat up one of the protesters in St. Louis, putting him in the hospital. The newspaper didn't get the whole story, as their lead reporter on scene was arrested for "disrupting" the event.
• Union thugs also got violent against senior citizens in Tampa; Buck Right has the linkage and video.
• Club for Growth has a video blog of health care protests, so you can judge for yourself if they are "the mob" or "corporate shills."
• Here is a photo essay of the "scary people" in "the mob"

Who I'm Going to Report for Spreading Misinformation about Health Care Reform

I'm sure by now everyone has seen the White House's call for reporting anyone who is spreading "misinformation" or anything "fishy" about Obama's proposed health care reform to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Already, folks and Reason Magazine and the National Taxpayers Union have decided to report themselves. However, I think Americans for Tax Reform has the right idea - reporting Barack Obama for spreading misinformation.

For instance:

• Obama claims that his health care reform bill would reduced federal spending, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates it would be a $2.7 billion increase.
• Obama claims (in fact, the call to report misinformation itself states) that "you can keep your current insurance." But the While House had to add the caveat that he "shouldn't be taken literally" - your employer may drop your current coverage, or private plans may be crowded out, or your plan may not meet new federal mandates - only that you would not be forced to enroll in the government program.
• Obama's infomercial on health care reform contained a lot of fluffy words - 'choice,' 'freedom,' 'marketplace.' But the actual legislation has few of those, and more words like 'prohibit,' 'taxes,' and 'regulate.'
• Obama attacked John McCain during last year's presidential campaign for proposing taxing employer-provided health care benefits as compensation, even though McCain also proposed a tax credit more than compensating for taxing employer benefits. Obama now supports a plan that would tax employer provided health care benefits - only without an offsetting tax credit.
• Obama said he would veto any tax on anyone making under $250,000 per year. The proposal he support would tax everyone who doesn't have insurance - most of whom make under $250,000 per year.
• Obama said he would not raise tax rates above what they were under Bill Clinton. However, the health care "surtax" he supports would certainly do this.
• Obama claims countries with single-payer systems have better health care then the United States with a free market system. But the U.S. does not have a free market in health care and other countries rely on private care as well. And the quality of care in the U.S. is better.
• Obama claims his plan would reduce the cost of health care. It won't. In fact, it will likely increase health care inflation.
• Obama denies his plan will "ration care", but it would have to.
• Obama claims critics support the status quo and offer no alternative. We don't endorse the status quo, and we do offer alternatives.

For those who want to get more information about the problems with ObamaCare and free market alternatives - and aren't afraid of being put on the White House's enemies list - the Patients First Bus Tour will hit Pennsylvania next week.

Is Dissent Still the Highest Form of Patriotism?

It seems that the President is very upset that people are actually questioning his health care plan. So much so that the White House wants to be informed of any forwarded emails, blog posts, or any “casual conversations” that could be taken as opposition to their health care overhaul plan.

What's more, those of you who object to government-run health care have been labeled "extremists" by AFL-CIO. They accuse citizens that are concerned about government run healthcare of using mob rule to disrupt town hall meetings and community forums set for the congressional recess. Senator Durbin also thinks that the people voicing their opinions in townhalls represent a very small portion of the populous that are puppets of evil insurance companies, and that, in reality, there is no dissent.

Universal Healthcare Will Render Us Poorer

The democrat health-care system is a systematic move toward a single payer universal health-care system. President Barack Obama has contended that the private system will continue to exist, but on an interview with SEIU, said that the public system will eventually crowd out private insurance, affirming his ultimate goal.

Driving out private insurance is especially dangerous for the American economy. A recent study by economist Arthur Laffer says that the current proposal will increase costs, medical price inflation, and still leave 30 million uninsured. He further says that this kind of reform "would render U.S. citizens poorer and their federal and state governments sorely pressed for revenues."

Dr. Laffer’s research concluded that the current proposals being discussed in Washington would:

• raise total federal government expenditures by 5.6 percent more than otherwise, adding $285.6 billion to the federal deficit in 2019;
• increase national health care expenditures by an additional 8.9 percent;
• raise medical price inflation 5.2 percent above what it would have been otherwise;
• slow U.S. economic growth in 2019 by 4.9 percent less than the baseline scenario of doing nothing;
• increase the current net present value of funding health care reform based on President Obama’s priorities by $1.3 trillion (due to higher medical inflation and expenditures), or $4,354 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.; and
• still only insure about one-third of those currently without insurance – at a cost of approximately $62,500 per new person insured.