She replied that she agrees with that recommendation, but with health care reform we are trying to eliminate unnecessary tests, so the American Osteopathic Association recommends scans at age 60.

60!

Welcome to state-run medical care, folks.  Enjoy it while you can.  Before you die from something that is currently able to be detected early, but won’t be when we have to wait for basic care.

What?  I’m just using Republican scare tactics?

That’s what everyone said – including our truthful president – when the right claimed that private insurance would be driven out by the government.  Yet, Investor’s Business Daily reports that the House’s health care legislation goes so far as outlawing private coverage.

Of course, as Pres. Obama said, we can keep our current coverage.  We just can’t alter it or ever get another policy, if we move or change jobs.

Government monopoly, baby.

While you revel in it, check out Steven Crowder’s undercover look at Canada’s system.

I hope you have $900 for a check up at a private clinic.  That seems to be the standard advice given by the government run health providers, not once but thrice, in his video.

Hope and Change!

According to President Obama,

“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan, period.”

Last night, the president clarified that statement.

“When I say if you have your plan and you like it, . . . or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don’t have to change plans, what I’m saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.”

The reality is that, for most people, their employers will choose whether or not to abandon the private system for the government plan.

Think about that for a minute.  The government is going to come along with this low-cost, taxpayer-subsidized health care plan and your employer will get to choose between that and the plan they currently offer you.

Cheap government insurance vs. expensive private insurance.  What will they choose?

Hint: your employer probably cares about the cost, not so much the quality – and not so much about how much you like your plan.

Bottom line: You will not be able to keep your health insurance plan.

Once the government has a monopoly, how good do you think your health care will be?

Every honest conversation about health care reform has included talk about changing what we in America expect from our health care system, which is a nice way to say we have to expect less from it, if we want a public system.

One of the proposed savings measures is eliminating “unnecessary” tests.  I don’t know about you, but I want my doctor – not the government – deciding what tests are necessary.

And once the government controls health care, they will be able to regulate almost every aspect of our lives (the few they don’t already) because it is for the common good to keep us healthy, according to what the government deems necessary to that end.

On the bright side, maybe we won’t have to hear that tired old phrase “for the children” any more.  Now it will be “for our health.”

A “public option” would be a government payer (a la medicare or medicaid) as one of the menu choices. Obviously this makes subsidizing easier on the one hand, but also allows the feds more control over the types of coverage. Private insurers are afraid any public option would be too appealing and affordable and draw away business – and both opponents and proponents of a single payer system see this as a way to potentially facilitate a transition to such a model.

The bolded selection is my emphasis, obviously.  That’s the part that’s, let’s say, less than accurate.

How about this?

Private insurers are concerned that any public option will be given an unfair advantage and, as a result, look more appealing and affordable.

The public option will be artificially low in cost, as the current medicaid and medicare systems are.  There’s the obvious, that the public option has the advantage of tax payer funding, but that is not the only advantage.  The government does not pay fair market value for services rendered. This is possible because the rest of us are subsidizing it though our insurance or cash payments.

Once the public option entices unsuspecting consumers with her siren song of low, low prices, the private firms will be driven out of business and all of the sudden the public plan will be in a world of financial hurt, since there won’t be anyone around to offset the below-value payments.

Oh wait, the public option already is in a world of financial hurt.  How about we fix the public plan before we lure more people onto it?

Here’s an analogy the left ought to appreciate: The public option is like when Wal-Mart moves into a neighborhood and puts everyone else out of business with their artificially low prices.  And how does it get such low prices?  By forcing companies to charge them less, in exchange for doing business with the country’s largest retailer.  That’s exactly what the government does to doctors.

The public option: it’s the Wal-Mart of health care.

Sign me up!

Look, health care is expensive.  Next time you are at a hospital, take a look at all of the expensive equipment.  We have made amazing advances in medical science, all of which cost money.  If we want it, we need to pay for it.

Right now, private insurance is paying for most of it.  When private insurance is gone, the public plan will have to pony up the dough.  It’s either that or lower our expectations for care because it’s not going to come for free.

As P.J. O’Rourke says, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”

It’s kind of freeing to be out of the loop on political news, though.  That stuff drives me crazy.

My situation has me thinking about our health care system in the US and the push to reform it.

I went to my doctor Monday about my hand.  I had forgotten that my co-pay increased from $15 to $20.  I remarked that it was a small price to pay for the care available to me.  It really is.  Obviously, we pay more than that for our monthly premium, and my husband’s employer pays even more than that, but what is it worth to me to be able to see a doctor within days of calling?

After examining me and ordering some blood work, the doctor referred to a rheumatologist.  My appointment is in three weeks.

I was curious what the wait times are on such a non-urgent condition in Canada.  Anecdotally, via message boards, people report waiting 4-6 months to see a rheumatologist.  One person said 6-9 months.  The Arthritis Community Research & Evaluation Unit reported, “In 2000, Ontarians with non-urgent arthritis waited an average of 10 weeks for an initial rheumatology consultation,” but I didn’t find anything more recent from them.

I worry that a shift to a health insurance system administered by the government will increase the wait times we experience here in the US, not just for rheumatology, but for everything.

Another concern I have is that we will see a two-tiered system, with only the rich having access to health care in a timely manner, and the rest of us being forced to wait for care.

I agree that we need changes in our health care/insurance system, but utilizing the government to equalize the system is not the answer.  The government’s version of equality usually involves bringing everyone down.

Some changes that would be beneficial are:

• Universal insurance forms, to reduce administrative costs for doctors and hospitals.

• De-coupling insurance from employment, so people can take their policy with them when they change jobs or become self-employed.

• Making all health insurance related costs tax deductible and allowing the costs to be taken out of our paychecks pre-tax.

• Loosening regulation on what types of policies are available.  Allowing catastrophic policies.  Allowing a la carte options, instead of mandating what must be covered.

There is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to reforming heath care in America.  We have the best, fastest, most innovative health care system in the world.  Let’s keep it that way.

The article opens with the sob story moving account of one factory in Northfield that had to ask employees to pay 7% of their health insurance premiums, due to rising costs.

The company’s cost is now $320,000 a year for 39 employees and 52 family members. Wall said that’s greater than rent, electricity and fuel at the factory.

Wow! That’s a big expense. Bigger than rent, electricity and fuel combined?

But what is $320,000 divided by 39 employees?

$8205 per year, per employee.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say there is another expense at this factory that is greater than rent, electricity, fuel, and health insurance combined.

Wages.

How about a little honesty here, folks?

The reality is that health insurance is a part of the compensation package that employers offer their employees. Compensation is the largest expense for businesses.

And if the above employer was paying that extra $8205 in wages, that money would be subject to the payroll taxes, costing the company even more money.

I am not opposed to the de-coupling of health insurance from employment.

As someone who has been self-employed, I would like to see the health care solution include making health insurance plans more affordable to people who are not traditionally employed.

What I am opposed to are the emotionally-charged red herrings that are frequently thrown out in order to confuse the issue.

Health care is expensive. Health insurance is expensive. Shifting the cost to a different payer will not fix the problem.

The irony of ironies being that it is likely the cost will be shifted away from the businesses, only to be shifted back to them in the form of taxes.

What is that going to do to solve the problem?

Why is health insurance expensive and how can we make it cost less?

Honestly, does anyone on the left have any interest in answering those questions?

Okay, I am no economist, but here is a simplified explanation of why a for-profit entity is better than a government subsidized entity.

Where do profits come from? Profits are made when consumers purchase your product or service. Profit alone is motive to provide a good product or service, when there is choice in the market place.

If your service or product stinks, no one will buy it, ergo, no profit.

When a service provider is funded by the government, there is no motive to provide better service. If your service or product stinks, people still need to use it. Ergo, no motive to make it better.

As to this claim that private insurers care about profit and the government cares about your health, government funded health care programs do not put health over financial sustainability. A government system of health care still has financial constraints that impact quality of care. The only difference is that they lack the motive to improve that quality.

Now, to change the direction back to my original post about different philosophies, I just don’t understand why anyone thinks that it is someone else’s responsibility to pay for health care and not the individual’s.

We don’t have universal food distribution. We don’t have universal housing. Surely those are more necessary to live than health care, at least on a daily basis.

Where do we draw the line at requiring someone else to pay for our needs?

While looking up some information on a completely unrelated topic, I happened across this article (link opens a PDF) written by a Canadian about the problems with their health care system.

After outlining one of the leading problems with Canada’s health care system,

The average wait time in Quebec is now 16 hours and 18 minutes—half an hour longer than two years ago.

And patients aren’t just waiting in the emergency room. In 1993, Canadians referred by their doctors to specialists waited an average of 9.3 weeks for treatment. By 2006, it was 17.8 weeks.

she goes on to explain one of the root causes.

While [Michael] Moore is correct when he says that the United States is the only western country without universal public care, he fails to mention that Canada is the only country in the developed world where it is forbidden to pay for private care—one of the reasons for our long wait times.

She then concludes by letting us know what is being done about it.

Here in Quebec, the Castonguay Commission is currently conducting hearings into improving our health care system, including specifying the role the private sector can play in increasing access to health care and cutting wait times.

Emphasis mine.

This might not be evidence to you that the private sector always does better, but it sure goes a long way toward explaining why the private sector is needed.

Tell me, how many times does this little socialist experiment have to be tried before y’all fold and admit that it doesn’t work?

I did, however, get a chance to stop by Green Mountain Daily to see what the VT left is up to these days and I couldn’t ignore the post Wow…. just, wow: National GOP smear machine charts new depths of sleaze .

It is about the Republican response to the Democratic radio address that was delivered by a 12-year-old car accident victim, and how he would have died if not for SCHIP.

This is the first I have read about this. I have not been surfing much politics lately due to my sick family, so I read the post and the associated links.

Go ahead and click over and get caught up if you need to. I’ll wait.

Caught up? Good.

If it is sleaze to look into the question of whether this family is indeed unable to provide health insurance for their children, I ask, then why isn’t it considered sleaze to exploit a 12-year-old child for political gain?

The fact is that there are two competing philosophies at odds here, neither of which is that 12-year-old car accident victims should die, by the way.

One is that the government is the means through which we should provide health insurance/health care. The other is that the private sector is the means through which we should provide health insurance/health care.

The same goes for caring for the poor – government vs. private sector. These are the two views at odds here.

If I believed that health insurance should be a matter of personal choice and a service that should be provided by the private sector, and that the government should not get to control what my policy looks like or where I can buy it from, I would not support expanding a government health insurance program. In fact, I would support abolishing it entirely, which I do.

So what about this 12-year-old car accident victim? Do I think he should have died because his parents could not afford insurance? No.

For one, any parent can tell you, if there was no tax-payer funded health insurance, the parents would have found a way to pay for the insurance. If they were making $45,000 a year and insurance was going to cost them $14,400/year, they would have still been at 150% of the poverty limit. (These numbers come from the article.) I’m sure that would be a small price to pay for your child’s life. But that’s just me.

I mean, one of the issues that is being debated – or would be if there was an honest debate about policy for a change – is what the cut off should be for government health insurance programs. Some say the poverty level. Some say higher. Some say a lot higher. Some say higher still. And some say we should all have it and abolish the private sector all together.

Perhaps the Democrats would have been better off choosing as their poster child a family that really did not have it within their means to purchase insurance.

Another, perhaps more important, point – a question, really – is what kind of people are we if we would all just stand around and let this kid die? Is that what the left really thinks about us (and themselves)?

People who would rally to donate millions to a presidential candidate do not think they would rally to help out a family with a dying child?

Why is it so wrong to hold the view – as I do – that we as communities should be providing for each other and not relying on a far-away, and more often than not out-of-touch, federal government to take care of our neighbors? (And with someone else’s money, to boot.)

I cannot imagine what this family went through and continues to go through, but when the Democrats wrote a script for the boy to read from for a Democratic Party radio address, well, they opened this child’s life up to public scrutiny. It’s fair game. The real shame lies with parents that would bring this sort of thing upon themselves and their children. And with the Democrats who, instead of having a substantive debate about the issues, decided to exploit a family’s tragedy in order to win the emotions debate.

To be honest, I do not feel sorry for families making up to $60,000 (the SCHIP income limit). That number does not scream “poverty” to me.

Health insurance is a necessity and if you can’t be bothered to put it in your budget to make sure your own children have health care, then you need to take a serious look at your priorities. My guess is that if the state program did not exist, these parents would have made sure their children did have health insurance. No matter what it took.

Of course, that sort of championing of individual responsibility makes me the bad guy. So be it. Someone’s gotta be.

I was going to follow this up with a post about why I think that the income limits should be lower, but I am too sick. Instead, you can just read what I said about it four years ago. I said it just as well as, if not better than, I would today. (Except, I would say “neediest” instead of “most needy.”)

Somethings never change.

****************************************************************

Thanks to broadband, we have a new windows hosting company sprouting up every minute. With a domain a dime, a number of cheap web hosting companies are spoiling the working of seo, resulting in malfunctioning sites with internet phone etc. One needs to be careful and trust only reliable names.

As evidenced by the statement I quoted yesterday, Sen. Clinton is still recovering from the wounds she received the first time she unveiled her plan for national health care.

I know my Republican opponents will try to equate health care for all Americans with government-run health care. Don’t let them fool us again. This is not government-run.

She’s not going to let that happen this time.

Instead, she is going with the focus-group tested, and all-time favorite liberal buzz word, choices. Hillary has introduced The American Health Choices Plan.

You might say Hillary is pro-choice when it comes to health care. And who can possible be against choice, right?

The basic premise is that everyone will have a choice to keep their employer-provided health insurance, or to choose from a variety of government-administered programs.

But don’t you nay-saying conservatives worry; there will be no new bureaucracy! None!

But how can that be, the discerning small government types among you might be asking.

In typical doublespeak fashion, this is one promise Clinton actually intends to keep. Her plan will not require any new bureaucracy because the bureaucracy already is in place.

The Clinton health care plan involves expanding Medicare and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, and any other existing government program, to cover anyone who does not have insurance.

Or should I say, everyone who does not have insurance.

See, when Hillary Clinton says choices, she does not mean that you have a choice to not have insurance. Under her plan, you must.

Say you are a healthy, young guy, who likes to make your money work for you. You eat well, exercise and take care of your body, so instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars on insurance that you probably won’t need, you instead want to place the money in a high-interest account, or something. That way you have the money if you need it, but you aren’t helping the insurance company get rich.

Well, you can’t. It’s not on the “Menu.”

Of course, everyone will want health insurance because they will benefit from the lower premiums and higher quality that will result from Hillary’s plan.

Just how does Lady Hillary propose to work that magic?

By removing hidden taxes!

Oh, yeah, and by instituting new taxes. Taxes on businesses and mandates that they provide insurance to their employees. Taxes on “the rich,” or those who make over $250,000.

But that’s not all!

Over half the savings come from the public savings generated from Senator Clinton’s broader agenda to modernize the heath systems and reduce wasteful health spending.

So let me get this straight. Hillary Clinton has been a United States Senator for over six-and-a-half years and all this time she has had a plan to save half of health care costs just by modernizing the system and she has been holding out on us?

The beauty of this plan is that it offers tax credits and lower premiums to the majority of Americans. Well, beauty only if you consider bribing a majority of Americans into supporting something by making someone else pay for it a beautiful thing.

Support Hillary’s plan and you will see only benefits: lowered cost, increased care, and never again worry about being without health insurance.

What’s more, there will be no new bureaucracy and you will have a “Menu” of private and public choices. An amalgamation of the greatest features of the government and the private sector; the best of both worlds, if you will.

Behind the facade of the health care solution we have all been waiting for is the harsh reality that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay for this. Sen. Clinton has no magical bag of tricks that will suddenly make health care cost half of what it does.

This is a massive expansion of the role of government, and of the cost of government.

Senator Clinton is luring people into supporting her plan with the use of feel good words and duplicitous phrases, and the promise to the average American that this is their right and they will not have to pay for it.

There’s a reason that this sounds too good to be true.

“I know my Republican opponents will try to equate health care for all Americans with government-run health care. Don’t let them fool us again. This is not government-run.”