Back to Basics

Corruption in government – it starts with the election process.  Special interest groups, labor unions, big pharma, all making campaign contributions supporting the candidate that is going to give them the back room deals they are after.  Why do you think this country is in this much trouble!  They have all basically bought and paid for the candidate of choice, the one who is looking out for their special interests instead of the interests of the American people.  The corruption needs to stop now, and reform needs to start with the funding of political campaigns.

The democrats seem to want to make everything equal – take from the rich and give to the poor.  So let’s start with campaign funding.  Let’s implement this equal for all system for the politicians, right from the start of the campaign process.  It’s time for a radical campaign funding change.

Instead of companies and individuals supporting one candidate over another, campaign contributions would be made to a government fund for each elected position.  There would be one fund for the president, one for each state senator race, one for each representative of the house race.  All campaign monies would go into this fund and NO OTHER funding for campaigns would be permitted.  The money from these funds would then be divided equally to all candidates running for that position, whether it be two or more.  Everyone would have an equal opportunity in campaigning for the desired position.

How the campaign spends this money would be up to them, but they would have to limit spending to only the money received from the fund.  It would be restricted, of course, to legal activities only.  At the end of the campaign a full disclosure of the money would be required within a specific timeframe and an audit would be completed on the final campaign funds.  Any money remaining from the election would be returned to the fund for the next elections.  There could be no “outstanding balance due” at the end of the campaign.

A radical move, but the problems we see in the government today are because every special interest group and every company has their own agenda and they have all made deals with the politicians to get what they want.  They donate and expect to receive benefits in return – and they don’t just mean a thank you letter.  The government is no longer run by the people, for the people.  It is being run by special interests and big business.  This has got to stop!  Start the reform where the corruption begins – the campaign funding.  Equal opportunity for everyone.

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!

How much will the H.R. 3200 cost?  Historically, the cost estimates of every medical program implemented by government has cost more, often significantly more.  Massachusetts passed a universal-coverage plan in 2006, which required all residents to have health coverage and gave subsidies for lower-income uninsured families.  Sounds like the plan the government wants to pass for the country.  The plan was estimated at $472 million for 2008, yet the actual figures for that year were $628 million.  They made some assumptions that proved incorrect.  They assumed that as more people joined the system the premiums would go down across the board.  They further assumed that as more people became insured the number of people visiting the emergency room would drop dramatically.  They assumed this would save them money.  It backfired!  None of these things happened and the health care reform that was supposed to save money has cost more money than expected!

Similar budgetary problems have been seen in Federally run programs.

When Medicare, Part A was established in 1965, covering the hospital insurance portion of the program, the cost was estimated at $9 billion annually by 1990.  The actual spending in 1990 for Part A was $67 billion.

In 1967 the new Medicare program was estimated at $12 billion for 1990.  The actual Medicare spending for the program in 1990 was $110 billion.

A universal entitlement to kidney dialysis was enacted in 1972 at a cost of $100 million for 1974 and actual spending was $229 million for that year.

The DSH program established in 1987 which states use to provide relief to hospitals serving large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients was estimated at a cost of less than $1 billion in 1992.  The actual cost for that year was $17 billion.

When Medicare’s home care benefit was changed in 1988 the projected cost for 1993 was $4 billion.  The actual cost in 1993 was $10 billion.

In 1988 a catastrophic coverage benefit was added to Medicare to become effective in 1990.  The cost estimates for this program were initially $5.7 billion and then raised to $11.8 billion, and even the revised number they estimated might be too low.  The program was repealed before it could take effect, largely due to the cost estimates.

The State Children’s Insurance Program in 1997 appropriated $40 billion to states over 10 years, with estimates of $5 billion a year once it was implemented.  By 2006 all unspent reserves were nearly exhausted and Congress appropriated an additional $283 million in 2006 and $650 million in 2007.

Bill H.R. 3200 is estimated at a cost of $1 trillion over the first 10 years and $2.4 trillion over the first 10 years of full implementation.  With the track record of the government grossly underestimating the cost of medical programs, one can only guess what the actual cost will be.  The country already has serious financial problems with spending in the first 8 months of this administration greater than all presidents combined.  The country just cannot afford to invest that amount of money on a program that has been proven in one state not to obtain the desired results at a significant increase in cost.

I am truly amazed as I continue to read through the bill how anyone could interpret this bill as one that would not increase medical costs, insurance premiums and taxes.  Each section only adds more responsibility to the government, which falls again upon the taxpayer.  This section alone creates a whole new welfare system intended to not only support people requesting assistance, but the bill actually calls for the government to recruit (by identification methods) people to in order to assist them, even when they have not asked for it!

Employers must offer health insurance to all employees, full and part-time, or face penalties, often for actions out of their control.  The pressure on employers could cause adverse consequences in the workplace.  Does the employer start basing hiring decisions on the likelihood that a candidate may or may not participate in the company offered insurance plan?  Will part-time employees now become less of an asset to employers since they too will require benefits?  How does this impact the job market and availability of jobs when the country already has high unemployment?  What appeared to be fairly straightforward (what was I thinking!) turned into many “what if “scenarios.  I’m sure you will develop your own.  If you have any questions regarding the bill, please contact your representatives.

This portion of the bill covers how individuals who cannot afford health insurance coverage or their portion of cost-sharing (co-pays, deductibles) will receive medical insurance and care.  Ultimately these costs have to be absorbed by someone.  The government is going to expand the medical welfare system and pay for premiums, as well as any out of pockets expenses for medical treatment, in the form of affordability credits.  Since it is a known fact that people who have insurance will use medical services more often, then one might expect an increase in medical treatment for newly insured individuals covered by the taxpayer – financed by increased premiums for those who can purchase insurance and higher taxes.

The bill will give eligible individuals affordability credits consisting of affordability premium credits to be applied toward the cost of insurance premiums purchased through the Health Insurance Exchange, and affordability cost-sharing credits to reduce the cost-sharing responsibility of these individuals.

Individuals can apply to the Commissioner for these credits through the Health Insurance Exchange.  The Commissioner can further deem individuals eligible on the basis on information otherwise obtained.  It doesn’t specify what information or how it will be obtain, but somehow the Commissioner is going to get information on individuals without their application or consent, to determine if they may also qualify for affordability credits.  The Commissioner must also establish effective methods that ensure individuals with limited English proficiency are able to apply for affordability credits.  Interpreted by many as a means of providing health insurance and related costs to illegal immigrants or amnesty immigrants – all at the taxpayers expense.

The Commissioner may also determine that a State Medicaid agency has the ability of determining eligibility for affordability premiums and credits, and if that agency does so they will be reimbursed for the costs in conducting those determinations.  So now the intrusion into our private lives is being expanded, not only to the Federal government,. but the state government; and guess who is paying the bill – the taxpayers.

If it is determined the individual is eligible for Medicaid, they will be enrolled under the State Medicaid plan.  No option.  I thought Medicare and Medicaid were already having financial problems, so now the government will add how many more to a failing system?

For the first two years of the plan the affordability premium credits may only be used for the basic plan.  But, beginning in year three the Commissioner will establish a process allowing affordability credits to be used to purchase enhanced or premium plans, but the individual is responsible for any difference in premiums.  So under this new plan we (the taxpayer) will be giving money in the form of affordability credits so these uninsured individuals can purchase a plan through the exchange.  If these individuals decide the basic plan just isn’t good enough for them, they can then use their own money to upgrade their plan to a better one – while the rest of us subsidizing these plans may only be able to afford the basic plan.  Excuse me, but if you can afford to upgrade your plan, then you can afford to pay for the basic plan out of your own pocket.  Why should taxpayers pay for these people to upgrade to a BMW when they are driving a Ford?

The bill describes an Affordable Credit Eligible Individual as one who is lawfully present in the US (other than as a nonimmigrant), enrolled under an Exchange-participating plan and not enrolled under another plan through an employer, with a family income below 400% of the Federal poverty level for the size of the family involved and who is not a Medicaid eligible individual.  So when Obama grants amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants they then become eligible for all the benefits of this program covered by the taxpayers.

If you are a full-time employee and your employer offers employee coverage (for the employee and dependents) then you may not qualify as an affordable credit eligible individual.  Exceptions can be made in cases of divorce or separated individuals.  But, beginning in year two, if the cost in obtaining coverage under that employer-based plan exceeds 11 percent of your current family income, then that is considered unaffordable employer coverage.  This has the potential of expanding the current problem and government spending, resulting again in the increase in premiums and taxes.  If a family or individual currently has insurance and is paying for those premiums now, regardless of the cost, under this exception, those premiums could be determined as unaffordable employer coverage and then the government (taxpayer) would also subsidize this coverage!

I do not usually watch mainstream television and therefore may not ever see the propaganda being pushed in the ads for Obamacare, but I’ve heard about them. So I watched it on the internet. On the surface it all sounds wonderful, the utopia everyone is looking for. EVERYONE will be covered by insurance, NO ONE will be denied, EVERYONE will have access to health care. LOWER out-of-pockets costs. But at what cost?

They claim everyone will be covered by insurance. Not true. This legislation is estimated at only adding 16 million to the ranks of the insured, leaving another 29 million still uninsured. The rest will be insured, not by choice, but because it will become law. How many people still drive a car without auto insurance? Yet everyone will purchase health care insurance – very doubtful. If you do not obtain acceptable coverage then you will be taxed 2.5% for failing to do so. That tax still doesn’t insure those people, it just imposes a penalty for not getting insurance. Illegal immigrants fair even better because the 2.5% tax cannot be imposed on them. They still remain uninsured with no penalties.

Insurance coverage costs money. That is why many people don’t obtain it now! By adding the uninsured to the mix, the cost of insurance will increase, not decrease. Many of these people will be receiving affordability credits from the government – meaning the taxpayers get to foot the bill in the form of higher premiums and additional taxes – free services to one group means someone else has to pay for it. Still, millions of people will remain uninsured, at the taxpayers’ expense, continuing to drive up health care premiums and medical costs.

What if the plan required everyone to obtain health care insurance and the government would not subsidize a dime? Would it still look as good as advertised?

No one can be denied. How can you deny someone from obtaining insurance when you make it a law to have it? If you are one of the people with a pre-existing condition then you may feel this is the only option open to you. Think again. Other bills are being developed that will also make sure you can obtain insurance coverage without the government raping the system.

Everyone will have access to health care. Sure you may have access but will you be able to get in. What will that care be once you do get to see a medical professional? Access does not equal quality. If the government has a fixed amount of money to spend (and in many parts of the bill that is a fact) and the cost of providing service to the people wanting or needing care exceeds that amount, how do, or do you, cover those expenses? It will result in increased premiums and taxes the following year – it states that in the bill. If the service is in one of the areas that cannot go over budget, then there is only one option – either deny service or reduce care to those in need of it. So to treat your condition your medical professional might recommend one procedure, but because of budgetary reasons you may be given something else, less affective, because it costs less. That’s not quality care – that’s rationing of care.

Lower out-of-pocket costs are promised. Well that depends on if you are insured now and what your current coverage is. The bill does set annuals limits – 4 times what my current annual limits are. That’s not lower costs – that’s HIGHER. Once you reach the new government limits, then what happens? Will you continue to receive care or will that care be “postponed” until the following year when you get to start paying out again? Treatments get delayed for all sorts of reasons. When the government mandates and rewards “efficient” care, keeping you in check with low cost options until you can pay in again might become a real medical standard.

Look at who is behind the push in sponsoring these new ads. One major contributor is the drug companies – they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. People who have health insurance typically spend more money on drugs than those who don’t. Guess who’s going to benefit – the drug company! Just look in Wikipedia at one of the major pharmacy and brokerage companies. Of course they’d back this legislation, look at their track record!

So while it may look like a pretty package, beware! Before you drink the Kool-Aid and enter the land of utopia, look at the ingredients. There’s a snake in there just waiting to bite.