It’s About Government, Not Health Care
"the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture"
He's right:
Pelosi: ObamaCare is the beginning of taking America “in a new direction”
Democrats launch ObamaCare bait-and-switch scam
"It revolves around incessantly mentioning only the least unpopular aspects of the legislation."
Mass treasurer slams ObamaCare
A Dem says the "model" for ObamaCare is failing.
The Failure of RomneyCare
"Fifty-six percent of Massachusetts internal medicine physicians no longer are accepting new patients... [For those] who do get an appointment ... the average waiting time is 44 days... [leading to] an increasing number of patients who rely on emergency rooms for basic medical services."
FACT CHECK: Premiums would rise under Obama plan
... meaning costs will too
Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients
When gov't cuts payments, providers can't afford to provide. Hello waiting lists.
Would the Line-Item Veto Ruling Invalidate the Slaughter Rule?
We can only hope.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Do HSAs Hurt the Poor and Sick?
Liberals have finally had to admit that conservatives do more than say "no" to health care reform. There are actual ideas — even bills — on the table. I'm pleased to say some of them are even interacting with those ideas.
Jonathan Chait of The New Republic says, "Democrats propose to shift resources from the rich and the healthy to the poor and the sick. Republicans want to do just the opposite."
One idea he hates is health savings accounts (HSA) which, in his words, "give individuals who buy insurance a tax deduction for money they set aside for a high-deductible plan. Since tax deductions are worth more to people in higher tax brackets, and since high-deductible plans appeal more to those with lower medical expenses, the plans attract the rich and healthy, leaving the poor and sick behind."
Health care costs
He's partly right; in the short-term, going to an HSA-based system would not help the poor or the sick, especially those with chronic illnesses/pre-existing conditions. Could we do something to mitigate that? Of course.
Long-term, though, HSAs — no, let's call it what it is, cash. Long-term, only going to a cash-based system will reduce overall health care costs.
Insurance-based systems of one stripe or another have been tried in every corner of the world, and they have failed to control costs. The simple fact is insurance-based health care makes costs invisible to the user. Make costs visible and felt and patients will force health care costs down — or at the very least to flatten out — quite naturally.
We've seen this in eye care and veterinary medicine. It will work here too.
And reigning in health care costs helps everyone.
How HSAs work
But in his indictment against HSAs, I don't think Chait really understands how they work. First, it's not a "tax deduction" but pre-tax money. A minor difference? Yes and no.
The people he's concerned about largely don't pay income taxes, but this will still increase the amount of money they take in on April 15. And pre-tax money, unlike a deduction, decreases your adjusted gross income no matter what — you can still take the standard deduction and there wouldn't be any cutoffs.
The other key feature of HSAs, at least as envisioned by conservatives, is their permanence. Many people have a "flex" account that has to be used or forfeited every year. Money in an HSA would be yours until you die, and then it is inheritable. So you start saving now for health needs in fifteen years. This gives the young and healthy poor the chance to save up for when they get old and sick.
What about the poor?
I think Chait underestimates how many this can help. Employers who can't afford conventional health insurance could still afford to put a little into your HSA. The same goes for those who don't make enough to buy their own insurance — at least they can put a little in an HSA.
But maybe there would be people who can't put enough back to pay for their medical expenses. Don't we already have a system to deal with that? Most people accept that there is and must be some kind of social safety net. Can we fund HSAs for the poor much like the food stamp debit cards? Could we subsidize care for sudden expenses or chronic diseases?
Of course. That some people might need help under this system doesn't mean it isn't the best option for controlling health care costs long-term.
It is the best option. So far, it's the only option.
If you've got a better idea, we'd love to hear it.
Jonathan Chait of The New Republic says, "Democrats propose to shift resources from the rich and the healthy to the poor and the sick. Republicans want to do just the opposite."
One idea he hates is health savings accounts (HSA) which, in his words, "give individuals who buy insurance a tax deduction for money they set aside for a high-deductible plan. Since tax deductions are worth more to people in higher tax brackets, and since high-deductible plans appeal more to those with lower medical expenses, the plans attract the rich and healthy, leaving the poor and sick behind."
Health care costs
He's partly right; in the short-term, going to an HSA-based system would not help the poor or the sick, especially those with chronic illnesses/pre-existing conditions. Could we do something to mitigate that? Of course.
Long-term, though, HSAs — no, let's call it what it is, cash. Long-term, only going to a cash-based system will reduce overall health care costs.
Insurance-based systems of one stripe or another have been tried in every corner of the world, and they have failed to control costs. The simple fact is insurance-based health care makes costs invisible to the user. Make costs visible and felt and patients will force health care costs down — or at the very least to flatten out — quite naturally.
We've seen this in eye care and veterinary medicine. It will work here too.
And reigning in health care costs helps everyone.
How HSAs work
But in his indictment against HSAs, I don't think Chait really understands how they work. First, it's not a "tax deduction" but pre-tax money. A minor difference? Yes and no.
The people he's concerned about largely don't pay income taxes, but this will still increase the amount of money they take in on April 15. And pre-tax money, unlike a deduction, decreases your adjusted gross income no matter what — you can still take the standard deduction and there wouldn't be any cutoffs.
The other key feature of HSAs, at least as envisioned by conservatives, is their permanence. Many people have a "flex" account that has to be used or forfeited every year. Money in an HSA would be yours until you die, and then it is inheritable. So you start saving now for health needs in fifteen years. This gives the young and healthy poor the chance to save up for when they get old and sick.
What about the poor?
I think Chait underestimates how many this can help. Employers who can't afford conventional health insurance could still afford to put a little into your HSA. The same goes for those who don't make enough to buy their own insurance — at least they can put a little in an HSA.
But maybe there would be people who can't put enough back to pay for their medical expenses. Don't we already have a system to deal with that? Most people accept that there is and must be some kind of social safety net. Can we fund HSAs for the poor much like the food stamp debit cards? Could we subsidize care for sudden expenses or chronic diseases?
Of course. That some people might need help under this system doesn't mean it isn't the best option for controlling health care costs long-term.
It is the best option. So far, it's the only option.
If you've got a better idea, we'd love to hear it.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Daylight Saving Time and Gov't Wisdom
Are you suffering a Daylight Saving Time hangover? I am. Twice a year, but especially in the spring, we all complain about having to adjust to the time change.
Who imposed this upon us? Our government. Why? To save energy.
Does it? Probably not. It made sense back when the biggest household energy use was electric lighting. Now that we rev up the air conditioning when we get home, it's probably counter productive.
On top of that, the DST switch has been shown to increase car accidents and heart attacks and to decrease productivity. Even if it actually saved energy, would it be worth this? Probably not.
Will it ever change? Also probably not.
It's very hard to get Congress to admit to its mistakes. Actually, I don't think they've done it since Prohibition was repealed.
What does this have to do with anything (other than whining about the time change)?
Congress plans to make a massive change to our society. The end result will be to fundamentally alter how health care is provided and paid for in our country.
Their plans have never worked in any country where they've been tried.
They are really bad at recognizing their mistakes.
If we let them do this, we're stuck with it.
Respond as you deem appropriate.
Who imposed this upon us? Our government. Why? To save energy.
Does it? Probably not. It made sense back when the biggest household energy use was electric lighting. Now that we rev up the air conditioning when we get home, it's probably counter productive.
On top of that, the DST switch has been shown to increase car accidents and heart attacks and to decrease productivity. Even if it actually saved energy, would it be worth this? Probably not.
Will it ever change? Also probably not.
It's very hard to get Congress to admit to its mistakes. Actually, I don't think they've done it since Prohibition was repealed.
What does this have to do with anything (other than whining about the time change)?
Congress plans to make a massive change to our society. The end result will be to fundamentally alter how health care is provided and paid for in our country.
Their plans have never worked in any country where they've been tried.
They are really bad at recognizing their mistakes.
If we let them do this, we're stuck with it.
Respond as you deem appropriate.
Monday Morning Update
Stories you might have missed over the weekend:
Stupak on Dem opposition to his position:
"If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more."
The Cost-Control Illusion
"ObamaCare's real cost-control plan boils down to this: First subsidize coverage so much that costs explode, raise taxes as much as possible to pay for it, and when that isn't enough hand power to an unelected committee to limit treatment and control prices by government order."
Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam's IOUs
We're broke, and now the bills are coming due. A great time to add a new entitlement.
A succinct explanation of Slaughter's House Rule
Stupak on Dem opposition to his position:
"If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more."
The Cost-Control Illusion
"ObamaCare's real cost-control plan boils down to this: First subsidize coverage so much that costs explode, raise taxes as much as possible to pay for it, and when that isn't enough hand power to an unelected committee to limit treatment and control prices by government order."
Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam's IOUs
We're broke, and now the bills are coming due. A great time to add a new entitlement.
A succinct explanation of Slaughter's House Rule
Friday, March 12, 2010
Headlines 3/12/10
House Dems look at 'Slaughter Solution' to pass Obamacare without a vote
They're about to slaughter the Constitution.
U.S. considers some free wireless broadband service
"Free" only for some. Another entitlement.
U.S. Sitting on Mother Lode of Rare Tech-Crucial Minerals
But do we have the will to use them?
An end to fishing?
Fish are, after all, more important than people.
They're about to slaughter the Constitution.
U.S. considers some free wireless broadband service
"Free" only for some. Another entitlement.
U.S. Sitting on Mother Lode of Rare Tech-Crucial Minerals
But do we have the will to use them?
An end to fishing?
Fish are, after all, more important than people.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Who Cares About Public Opinion?
Polls consistently show the public doesn't like the current health care reform proposals — whether they think they're too conservative, too liberal, or too stupid is beside the point. They don't like them and don't want any of them.
Many are asking: So what?
Should every policy be based on polls? Are we not a republic instead of a democracy? We elect people to govern, and they must govern, right?
Yes and no.
Every issue is not the same, and there are times when leaders must lead. As the columnist for The New Republic pointed out, public opinion was against the Iraq surge, but Bush did it anyway. That was totally appropriate.
National security and foreign policy often require the consideration of classified information. Decisions frequently have to be made quickly. The issues are complex and have repercussions that are difficult to predict; specialists spend their entire lives studying them and give their educated opinions to our leaders. Only our leaders have all the information, and they must act.
Domestic policy is different. It can be complicated but less so than foreign policy. Issues are less likely to involve state secrets and time sensitive decisions.
Most importantly, they directly affect us.
Foreign policy is about what our country does somewhere else. Domestic policy is about what our country does to us. Decisions about health care reform will directly affect all of us for the rest of our lives.
To argue that the government knows best and should do what is best for us is to advocate treating us like children. I make my kids go to bed, eat healthy food, and get their booster shots because it's good for them. But no one makes me do any of those things. I am an adult and have the right and responsibility to make my own decisions which I must then live with.
If Washington decides to treat us like children and force us to do "what's best for us," I think they'll find out who cares about public opinion: the public. People are very upset about how this whole thing appears to be going down, and November is not that far away.
What do you think? Should the government do what's "best" for us? Do we only have a voice on election day, or should our representatives care what we say every day?
Many are asking: So what?
Should every policy be based on polls? Are we not a republic instead of a democracy? We elect people to govern, and they must govern, right?
Yes and no.
Every issue is not the same, and there are times when leaders must lead. As the columnist for The New Republic pointed out, public opinion was against the Iraq surge, but Bush did it anyway. That was totally appropriate.
National security and foreign policy often require the consideration of classified information. Decisions frequently have to be made quickly. The issues are complex and have repercussions that are difficult to predict; specialists spend their entire lives studying them and give their educated opinions to our leaders. Only our leaders have all the information, and they must act.
Domestic policy is different. It can be complicated but less so than foreign policy. Issues are less likely to involve state secrets and time sensitive decisions.
Most importantly, they directly affect us.
Foreign policy is about what our country does somewhere else. Domestic policy is about what our country does to us. Decisions about health care reform will directly affect all of us for the rest of our lives.
To argue that the government knows best and should do what is best for us is to advocate treating us like children. I make my kids go to bed, eat healthy food, and get their booster shots because it's good for them. But no one makes me do any of those things. I am an adult and have the right and responsibility to make my own decisions which I must then live with.
If Washington decides to treat us like children and force us to do "what's best for us," I think they'll find out who cares about public opinion: the public. People are very upset about how this whole thing appears to be going down, and November is not that far away.
What do you think? Should the government do what's "best" for us? Do we only have a voice on election day, or should our representatives care what we say every day?
Friday, March 5, 2010
Headlines and Links
... and nary a health care reform article in sight.
Tea Party Diversity
It's not just white people.
Authorities bust 3 in infection of 13M computers
Is calling for the death penalty too harsh?
'Archaic' Network Provides Data Behind Global Warming Theory
So the data have to be massaged, leaving ample opportunity to make it say what you want.
To Keep and Bear Arms
An excellent piece on the right and need of self-protection.
Tea Party Diversity
It's not just white people.
Authorities bust 3 in infection of 13M computers
Is calling for the death penalty too harsh?
'Archaic' Network Provides Data Behind Global Warming Theory
So the data have to be massaged, leaving ample opportunity to make it say what you want.
To Keep and Bear Arms
An excellent piece on the right and need of self-protection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
