Around The World, And Healthcare Non-Reform?

In world news, Germany faces energy decisions that are changing power lines (pun intended). Due to be phased out by 2022 after the Greens passed legislation in 2000, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is trying to revamp and start construction again. Despite the expense of building nuclear plants, they are cheap to run. And, with oil prices still around $70 a barrel, and solar plants still only providing a small portion of power, the attractiveness of cheap power will be hard to ignore. It could also mean Germany misses the greenhouse gas targets it has to achieve. These same issues face Americans, as well. Is there room for solar fields to generate power? Is it possible for America to make a real difference in pollution emissions, besides the new tax structure of the cap-and-trade system currently making it’s way to the Senate?

Closer to home, Russia is financing arms for Hugo Chavez. This time the amount is $2.2 billion, bringing the total value of Russian weapons contracts to almost $4 billion. Chavez is claiming he needs them for “self-defense” against American attacks, now that the US has access to Columbian military bases. Many conservatives in America thought that with President Obama’s election and the power of the Left emerging that there would be a reduction in Chavez’s anti-US rhetoric. Obviously that has not been the case. More distrurbing than the weapons contracts is news that the Venezuelan leader is going to use Russian aid to develop nuclear power. This could easily lead to an Iran like standoff in the west.

Here at home, the big issue is healthcare reform, followed closely by financial reform. Both are high on Obama’s agenda, as well as Democrats in general. Shawn Tully has a series of articles that grade the proposed healthcare reforms. The 8th in the series covers Obama’s latest speech. Tulley’s overall picture paints something along the lines of no improvement, other than more government control through subsidies, giving non-profits and government agencies a huge leg up on private insurers. This follows on the heels of reports indicating that reform won’t reduce cost of healthcare. Now, there are two goals to healthcare reform. The first is to provide healthcare to the uninsured. The second is to cut down on the rising cost of healthcare, which is a major reason so many are uninsured. IF the legislation goes through without reducing costs, what is gained beyond more government domination of private industry? Couple that with the necessity of raising taxes to pay for it, and it’s a wonder so many Americans are in favor of it. What legislation actually comes out of Washington remains to be seen, with much debate about whether a public option will actually be available. But, it will be very important to watch where and how the costs are covered—if they can be.

More Unkept Promises...

Did anyone see the latest ideas from Congress on limits to healthcare? Yep. This makes good stuff available to those UNDER 25, but not over.

The measure -- offered by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. -- would impose new fees on some healthcare industry segments to help offset the estimated $880 billion in initial costs over 10 years, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

The plan would provide a lower-cost insurance plan for catastrophic coverage only to people up to age 25, people familiar with the outline said. It also would expand less comprehensive Medicaid coverage to millions of low-income people who now are ineligible.

With Medicaid losing money, how is this going to be funded? The question still waits a full answer.

A related article at the NYTimes adds a bit more detail about Baucus’ proposal:

To help finance the legislation, Mr. Baucus is expected to propose a new tax on insurance companies selling policies with premiums far exceeding the national average, roughly $13,000 a year for family coverage.

Government healthcare is no longer a government program, apparently. It is a commercial industry killing plan. Risk management implies that higher risk has higher costs…but not according to the government’s coming “guidelines.”

Meanwhile, there is a petition circulating to drum up support for House Bill HR676 to make establishing health care a civil right, giving it equal status with race, sex, and creed. The petition specifically states the Bill

Whereas HR676 provides for Medicare for All, a universal, single payer, not-for-profit health care system which means the end of premiums, copays and deductibles; and

Whereas we are already paying for a universal standard of care but are not getting it because one of every three dollars in the health care system goes to the activities of the for-profit insurance system…

In short, this Bill and the petition openly state the goal is to replace or eliminate the insurance industry. That should do wonders for the deficit effects of the healthcare plan, already planned to be partially funded by money from the insurance industry. (…not to mention Democrats have openly said that is not what they are doing or have planned…)
But, those are not as concerning as the latest changes from President Obama himself. There was a short fact check on some points from his latest speech to Congress. Gone are guarantees about personal choice. Gone is the refusal to require everyone to be insured. Gone as well is his promise to “not increase the deficit by one dime.” Why? Government accounting that lets them say what they want it to say. The article states:

House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill was actually deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn't have to count $245 billion of it — the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don't face big annual pay cuts.

Let’s see…Broken promises…Rising deficits…A not recovering economy…Sounds like Bush all over again…doesn’t it? Or at least that’s what the media and the Left used to accuse him of. Think they might accuse their Golden Boy Obama of the same thing?

Still, all of this legislation aimed at providing healthcare to all fails to address the real problem: rising healthcare costs. None of the legislation as far as I know does anything to reign in costs. It just throws more money into the healthcare system. As education has proven, more money does not solve the problem. The United States spends more per student on education than other countries, but we have a lower student success rate. More money is not a solution to cost control issues. Basic economics says that if more money chases the same amount of goods, the price goes up. So, why do we believe more money is the solution for healthcare when the problem is costs? As the debate and clamor for this legislation goes on, let’s remember that the real problem still remains unaddressed.

Obama And the Ever Increasing Deficit

The AP article headline reads White House, Congress projects record deficits. Honestly, does this surprise anyone?

Both the White House Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted the budget deficit this year would swell to nearly $1.6 trillion, a record, and far above the then-record 2008 budget deficit of $455 billion.

Most of that increase is from stimulus spending. And, many are still arguing over whether the stimulus is actually accomplishing what it was supposed to do: job creation.

Meanwhile, there is a very important, and very over-looked, point in all of this:

Both see the national debt — the accumulation of annual budget deficits — as nearly doubling over the next day. The total national debt, made up of amounts the government owes to the public, including foreign governments, as well as money it has borrowed from itself, stood Tuesday at a staggering $11.7 trillion.

How many people realize the government has been borrowing from itself? This is one reason why Social Security is nearly broke. But, in the double entry world of accounting that becomes OK. I have money, I loan it to myself at interst, and that creates an asset to counter balance the liability. The problem is, in effective reality, the government is now out the money twice...and still can't pay it back.

And, the fiscal responsibility mud should get slung both ways. As much as the Democrats and the media slung it at Bush and the Republicans, we should expect to see it fly the other way. But, the media is already hiding things in these articles to gloss things over. For example, this article ends by saying:

The Obama administration did tout one number in its budget review: The 2009 deficit is now expected to be $1.58 trillion, $263 billion less than projected by the White House in May. That's largely because the White House removed a $250 billion item that it had inserted as a "place holder" in case banks needed another bailout.

The effect of ending on such a note is to say "Obama did good, so everything is OK." Which basically means the media will gloss over this. And, the American public will be hoodwinked again.

Oh! Haven't you realized? The media and government is playing the same games it did over the Vietnam War protests and 60s economy. Only this time, it's the liberals in control of what's being fed to the public.

(...my how the times they are a-changin...)

Revealing Leftism and Healthcare Lies In the Media

For those who wonder just how leftist the media and the country are going, take a look at this CNBC discussion of the second round of AIG bonuses. Kindly notice that Leslie Marshall (from national Radio) and Tanya Acker (from the Huffington Post) are in favor of throwing legal obligations to the wind based on the income or situation of the average American. In other words, what is right by law has nothing to with what is right from a socialistic viewpoint. What that boils down to, ladies and gentlemen, is that your contract can be voided if it does not meet the social norm, or average, in terms of benefits, salary, and so forth. And, if you don’t think that’s important, look how successfully they were allowed to out-voice the more business minded speakers (leftist though they are).


On the subject of leftists taking over with media help, have you been paying attention to what it will cost for the government to get back to fiscal responsibility? According to an article at CNNMoney last week:

Under Obama's budget, Gale and Auerbach (Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center) estimate the fiscal gap would be 9% of GDP. Conceptually, that means to restore fiscal balance over the long-term the federal government would need to increase taxes by 9% of GDP or cut spending by that amount starting now and lasting "until the end of time," Gale said.

They go on to note that neither the Republican (“no new taxes”) or Democrat (“only tax the rich”) stance on taxes has any fiscal responsibility.

That article is actually about the cost of healthcare legislation. But, there are interesting points on other items, too. But, on the healthcare point:

Gale and Auerbach (Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center) estimate that for health cost savings alone to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio over time, the growth rate in health costs would need to be slowed by 3 percentage points a year -- for 75 years.

In other words, Obama’s healthcare savings, without major tax increases, are a fiction. Of course, this goes along with the CBO report that the healthcare legislation will actually increase the deficit by $1 trillion. Liberals were quick to change that verbiage to “increase the cost”, but the report specifically said it would increase the deficit. (…make sure you pay attention to how things are said…)

We also need to remember that all the projections on budgets are based on economic growth and output. Tax increases equal to 9% of Gross Domestic Product is based on the projected economy. For those who don’t know, 9% of GDP is A LOT! So, what if the economy continues to crater, instead of responding to the first (and expected second) stimulus?

It is, after all, a real possibility. There are many who say the market increases are not backed by real economic activity to match it. Unemployment projections during the campaign and early days of the administration said it would not reach these levels, and now Obama is projecting double-digit unemployment. And, several prominent economists are now saying no economic recovery in the second half of 2009.

Over spending got the world into this mess. And, government wants you to believe that increased borrowing will solve the problem of overspending. Congress, specifically the banking committees chaired by Democrats, allowed this mess to happen in the US. Deregulation may have played a part, but it was not the whole story.

I know this goes contrary to what the media and Liberal leaders are telling Americans. So, take some action. Hold the media accountable. Hold your Congressmen and Senators accountable. Let your voice be heard.

The Benefit of Government Healthcare...and related lies...

Isn’t it interesting that since the Youtube video where Democrats announced they were out to eliminate the private insurance industry, the Democrats and the media are going to great lengths to make Americans believe otherwise? In their latest move, Democrats are faulting CBO calculations that government healthcare would eliminate private coverage for 23 million Americans. Always quick to cite Congressional Budget Office figures against Republican opponents, Dems are slighting the office for it’s work on this. Among other things, the CBO has determined the Kennedy heathcare legislation—which is not as broad as the one Obama is pushing--will also increase the federal deficit.

Enacting the Kennedy plan, nonetheless, “would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficits of about $1 trillion," says the CBO. "That estimate primarily reflects the subsidies that would be provided to purchase coverage through the new insurance exchanges, which would amount to nearly $1.3 trillion in that period.”

The CBO also noted this would break a key promise of the Obama platform that those with existing coverage would get to keep it. The NY Times had this comment in their article:

Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, a senior Republican on both committees drafting health legislation, said he found the office’s numbers stunning. He calculated that the Kennedy bill would cost taxpayers $62,500 per uninsured person over the 10 years.

Even at Sen. Hatch’s numbers, that is a huge expense—and Congress knew about that number.

I only have one question. Government is taking over business. Government is saying how and who can be insured. And, it has been said by one Senator that the elderly will have to do without some levels of healthcare. At what point do stop believing the media and our government when it says socialism, or even communism, is not taking over America?