Back to Basics

Did the Senate forget they are supposed to be representing the American people and are not on the TV game show “Let’s Make a Deal”?  The health care bill has serious, life-threatening consequences and they are putting their votes up for auction – going to the highest bidder.  Are the rest of the Senators wishing they held out for what was behind door number 3?

It is one thing to hold out to negotiate for a change or addition to a bill that will equally impact all people.  It is quite another to hold out and gain an advantage for only your state.  This bill is loaded with special considerations for a number of states and people.  Nebraska and Louisiana received special funding for their votes.  The tax on Cadillac insurance policies no longer applies equally to all policies; if you are in a certain field of business you will be exempt.  These are only a few.  I’m just not quite understanding the new bill writing system of applying only parts of the bill to some states or some people, while others are exempt, and yet others get special advantages.  Special interests are blaring obvious in this bill.

This got me to thinking of days long ago around this time of year when salesmen used to give gifts to the businessmen who had supported their companies.  Simple gifts, such as fruit baskets, a bottle of alcohol, or tickets to a sporting event.  These were all considered thank you gifts.  But alas, the days quickly ended when these “gifts” became a controversial issue and were then viewed as bribes or kickbacks.  Could one be sure the contract given to company A wasn’t because they gave a fruit basket to some manager who could influence that decision?  The gift giving and acceptance quickly ended with reputable companies for fear of being fired or having criminal charges brought upon them for participating in bribes and kickbacks.  Many scandals resulted from these gift exchanges.

So what makes the deals currently being made in the Senate any less criminal?  Didn’t Senator Ben Nelson actually take a bribe or kickback in exchange for his vote?  He negotiated and accepted a deal that gave a monetary advantage to his state, at the expense of the American taxpayer.  Should we not start holding these people accountable and charging them with the criminal activity they are so blatantly participating in?  The persons offering the bribe/kickback, as well as the person accepting the bribe/kickback, should both be criminally charged for their actions.

If I stood outside a polling place and offered to pay for people to vote a certain way, I am sure I would be quickly stopped, arrested and charged with a crime.  Are the Senators not doing the same thing?  Like I said before, it is one thing to negotiate a provision that will equally affect all.  It is quite another to sell your vote.  It’s time to hold them personally responsible.

The latest version of the Pelosi/House health care reform is more of the same, and worse.  It includes the same problems of HR3200 including the public option, the health care exchange, mandates requiring everyone to buy insurance, mandates requiring employers to provide insurance, penalties if you don’t purchase insurance, penalties on companies for not providing insurance, government real-time access to your bank accounts…more and more of the same.

I briefly reviewed the 1990 page bill and found some additional measures that were equally disturbing.

The bill is supposed to help those who have pre-existing conditions as well as those with chronic illnesses that may not otherwise be able to obtain affordable health care insurance.  The bill does mandate that insurance companies accept everyone, regardless of their medical history.  However, in a transition period, the government has allocated a specific budget to cover these people and this must not result in a deficit.  If the expenditures are expected to exceed the budget there are three options available to solve this problem:  (1) deny services, (2) increase premiums, and (3) put people on a waiting list.  So those with current insurance issues may find themselves no better off once this plan goes into affect since the bill gives the government the right to ration or deny services and increase the cost of your premiums.

There are over 360 pages in the bill that directly relate to medical treatment in the Native American populations.  This amounts to additional studies, addressing alcoholism issues and a number of other issues.  However, the bill also allows the government to take Indian reservation lands for the purpose of medicine.  The government will make those decisions and it did not appear as if the Native American population would have any control over what lands they chose to take, or if the medical facilities is even necessary for this population.  How far does this abuse of power run?

I recently read articles on the Pelosi/House reform and found that it creates 111 new bureaucratic departments and/or programs…more expansion of government.  The cost of this bill is estimated at approximately $1.2 trillion for 10 years.

Likewise, just as disturbing is those people who truly believe that this type of government takeover of the insurance industry is the only way they will be able to obtain health insurance.  They don’t want to even consider any other options that may allow them to be covered but not destroy the health care coverage 83% of the population currently has and likes.  They further expect this coverage, because of the public option, to be FREE; they are not expecting to contribute anything to their health insurance costs.  Nothing is free – you will be paying for insurance premiums, co-sharing costs as well as an increase in your income taxes.  If you don’t wake up now you could find yourself facing a huge medical/insurance bill you will be required to pay.

Behind the scenes in the real world anticipation over the new bills has already made an impact on the insurance industry.  A health insurance agent was at a recent party we attended and she is all for this new mandate, her mouth watering at the prospect of making lots of money from all the policies she will be selling.  As long as the private market can compete with the public option she will make a fortune, as she gets a commission not only when she sells a policy, but will continue receiving that commission as long as you renew your policy – and she may not have to do a thing.  This bill will make her a rich woman.  On the other hand, her ex voiced his opinion at her enthusiasm and stated that all this was at what expense to us.  He understood the consequences.

Another tip of the hand came when it was open enrollment time for my daughter.  Her options had been greatly diminished in health insurance coverage.  Option A would give her a set office visit cost of $30/visit, a $750 deductible and she would be responsible for 40% of her medical bills.  Option B would have given her a set office visit cost of $35/visit, a $1500 deductible and again she would be responsible for 40% of her medical bills.  For this reduction in coverage she would enjoy a minor increase in premiums.  Yes, she can say she is “covered” by health insurance but with the deductibles and cost-sharing responsibilities she cannot afford medical care or treatment!  This is from a very large insurance company, so one has to ask if this is the direction we can expect the government plans to be heading.  Is this the type of coverage that may be offered in a basic insurance plan?  If so, then although the government could claim more people would be insured, it would not necessarily mean people would be able to obtain medical care or treatment because they may not be able to afford it.

While the House healthcare bill does little or nothing to decrease medical costs and is anticipated to actually increase insurance premiums, one has to wonder what the real motives are behind the bill.  Is this just a bill to grant the government more control over our lives and denying us personal freedoms…with more government expansion?  With insurance agents waiting in the wings to jump at the vast money making opportunities, whose interests – or special interests – were really in mind?  Does being insured actually make medical care and treatment affordable…or will the cost of the insurance policy and cost-sharing expenses make it even more unaffordable?

Time is running out.  The House is expected to start debate on this issue this week.  The people spoke this summer at Town Hall meetings.  Did Congress get the messages?  It is time we remind them.  Call, write, fax and email your representatives before it’s too late.  The life you save may not only be yours but the country.

John Shadegg pic

So Nancy Pelosi and President Obama are adamant that Congress pass their health care bill.  They’ve dismissed the August protesters and are pushing for passage as soon as possible.  But, what does this mean for the average American, we’ll call her Mary Smith, a single mother of two struggling to get by in a down economy.

She hears terms like “individual mandate,” “employer mandate,” and “CBO score.”  But none of this helps her understand what health care reform means for her.

Mary wants to help the uninsured, but why is Congress talking about changing her plan?  And, why does every report now indicate her premiums and her taxes will go up–and her employer could be fined or forced out of business?  President Obama said his plan would control cost.  She worries about losing the health plan she has and the doctors her children know.  And, what about her job?  What if her employer can’t continue to afford coverage?  Will decisions about her family’s coverage and medical care be made by her or someone in Washington?  Will it be a radical change that rations care?

Unfortunately, Washington politicians are ignoring the concerns of average Americans.  Her family’s health care is about to change dramatically.

Mary gets her insurance through her employer.  She has a plan that suits her needs, and has a great relationship with her doctors.  She’d like more personal say in her plan, but like 83% of Americans, she’s basically happy with her care.  Why don’t the politicians just fix what’s broken—cover those without care and people with pre-existing conditions?  Instead, they are forcing her to change her plan.  H.R. 3200, the House bill, changes every plan in America.  Some are outlawed sooner, but virtually all are disqualified in five years.

Mary’s parents also lose the coverage they know, understand, and like.  They have Medicare Advantage, which provides benefits they like over and above regular Medicare.  Under Nancy Pelosi’s proposal and the Senate bill, that program will disappear.

What’s worse: when Mary goes shopping for a new plan, it will have been designed by a government bureaucracy, even if the so-called “public plan” isn’t adopted.  These new, “government-approved” plans will make her pay for services she doesn’t need, and can’t afford, like alcohol and drug counseling, even if these aren’t health care concerns for Mary or her family.  She’ll be forced to buy services she doesn’t want because it will be illegal to buy just what she needs.  It’s like being forced to buy a multipack of cereal boxes when you know you’re only going to eat the corn flakes.

The government will dictate coverage requirements, reimbursement rates, prices—even “approved” marketing practices and “free” wellness coverage.  “Free” wellness coverage?  Who’s kidding who?  She knows nothing is free.  Of course costs will go up.

Like it or not, Mary’s family will lose the plan they have and maybe the doctors they like and trust.  And, the government is serious about making that happen.  If Mary doesn’t comply and purchase a “government-approved” plan, she’ll be fined.  If her conduct is willful, she’ll be guilty of a misdemeanor.  When did health care “reform” become about punishing people instead of controlling costs and helping the uninsured?

By JOHN SHADEGG AND PETER HOEKSTRA

We are nominating Sen. Baucus’ health care reform bill for the Pulitzer Prize — for fiction.

John Shadegg

Like works of great fiction writers such as Ernest Hemingway, Joseph Conrad and F. Scott Fitzgerald, the story line of the Baucus bill is not what it seems and is in fact a clever subterfuge of what health care reform will mean for the American people.

Hiding behind this facade is another story about a massive power grab by the Washington political establishment.

The bill is loaded with fiction. To begin with, it purports to reduce the deficit. This is really an Enron-style scam with the bill’s massive new taxes starting on day one and its dramatic new health care expenditures, which will far exceed the tax revenues, beginning in year four.

Hence its favorable score: 10 years of revenue, seven of expenditures. In the private sector, people go to jail for this type of accounting; in the U.S. Senate, they trumpet it as good news.

The Baucus bill claims to treat all Americans equitably, yet four states receive Medicaid exemptions — the federal government will pick up the state’s share of Medicaid costs — for five years. That means taxpayers in 46 states will subsidize other states, including Nevada, so Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can bring home the bacon and get re-elected.

Sen. Chuck Schumer put in a little-noticed provision that exempts New Yorkers and taxpayers from some other states from the bill’s tax on gold-plated insurance plans. The result: The rest of the nation will subsidize the health care of New Yorkers and a few others.

If you’re lucky enough to live in one of the favored states, you win. If not, you lose. Guess how many of those states are blue and have Democratic senators up for re-election? Hardly seems fair, does it? Huge earmarks and health care favoritism for states served by powerful Washington elites.

It is quite obvious we have two completely different views on the role of government, as well as health care, in the United States.  We have those on the far left that believe everything belongs to them and everyone should work for the government so they can all receive their handouts.  We have those on the right that believe the government should be limited in power and that those who work should be able to keep what they earn.  Those that earn have paid taxes so those that want to receive have been able to do so.  But the balance is slipping and those who earn can no longer afford to pay for those who don’t.  Thus the battle.  Unfortunately, the left is pulling the race card at every opportunity, even when it doesn’t exist.  You’d think we were back in the 1960’s!  I’ve read comments that include all the racial innuendos, foul language and demands that the right get out of the country.  If the right left where would you get your handouts?

So I put forth a totally radical option to be considered.  Create a uniform income tax for everyone (yes, I know the left is screaming already that this isn’t fair – get over it).  Say this tax, as an example, is 25% no matter what your income.  This money is put into the actual government operations given in the powers of the constitution.  Those that have paid into the Social Security system and Medicare will also continue receiving benefits from those programs as it was long ago promised to them.  They’ve paid their dues, they deserve their benefits.  As for the other “social” programs, each individual may opt in or out of the program by a simple check of a box on their tax returns and W-4 filing status.  If you choose to opt in to the social programs, then you will pay an additional 25% of your income to taxes to help pay for these programs.  Monies collected from the additional tax must be put into a fund and held specifically to cover the costs of these programs.  If you choose to opt out of the social programs then you will not pay any additional tax to cover these programs but you will also not be eligible to participate in any of these programs.  No money in, no money out.

These social programs would have to be self-funded.  Only monies collected from the additional taxes can be used, no other federal monies could be diverted to cover these programs.  If the programs ran out of funds then they would be out of funds until the next tax season.  People could also voluntarily donate to these social programs if they choose, whether they wanted to participate or not.

Those on the left get all the social programs they want.  They can determine how many and what types of social programs they want and their elected officials can determine the budgets and monies available based on the taxes collected for these programs.  Those on the right get what they want – limited government into their daily lives.  If you want the social programs then put your money where your mouth is!  Start paying into the programs you want to collect from.  Your free ride is over!