There Is Common Sense In Washington

Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan with a very lucid and direct assessment of the universal health care bill. My only regret is that he does not question the 'myth of the 46 million uninsured'.

Political 'Public Service' Is Akin To Robin Hood

...the only way a politician can "serve others" is to take money and other resources from some people to give it to others. Government has no money of its own, only what it can take as plunder from people who create value in the world. When they do so, they may actually be of help to those who are benefited, but the price is reducing the amount of wealth in a society, meaning there is less to go around. That's what "public service" as a politician -- as compared, for example, to a philanthropist, who uses his own money and/or skills and time to benefit others -- amounts to."

Alan Bock

Excessive Profits?

The previous post talked about Rep. Henry Waxman's witch hunt on drug industry profits. Earlier in the month the president was bemoaning about insurance company profits because of mergers, lack of competition and 'excessive profit'.

According to the graph below which ranks industry profits, health care plans ranked 86th, hospitals 77th, and major drug manufacturers 7th. And before you start pointing at the major drug companies' profits, think of the risk they have with all of their R&D costs. And compare that to the most profitable industry - brewers. Granted they have a special place in my heart (and fridge) but, their R&D centers around what colors to use on the bottle and cans.

Where is the outrage from Rep. Waxman at the beer industry for their profits?

(Click image to enlarge it)

Another Attack On Big Drugmakers

"California Rep. Henry Waxman wants to save Medicare billions by going after drug industry "windfalls."

Waxman's proposal to go after drugmakers to trim Medicare costs is wrong on many levels. For one, it'll shift costs onto those with private insurance. For another, it'll make all of us less healthy by forcing drugmakers to abandon or delay development of new drugs. This is par for the course for members of Congress. They think they can impose whatever costs they want on an industry, with no real-world impact.

For the record, drugmakers are largely responsible for the lengthening of lives worldwide. Yet few Americans realize what goes into making a successful drug. Of every 5,000 to 10,000 new compounds investigated, only about five make it through the lengthy process and will be sold to the public.

This process takes 10 to 15 years on average, data from the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association show. The cost, according to research from Tufts University, is $1.3 billion per drug. And only two of every 10 drugs that make it to the market recoup even their R&D costs.
Every dollar Waxman takes from a drug company today will cost lives tomorrow.

Waxman claims he'll "save" you money. But can he save your life? America's drug companies, the best in the world, can. Quit going after them."

IBD

No Reform Without Skin In The Game

A Doctor Speaks Out...

"Currently, patients largely have no incentive to control health care costs because they do not directly bear the brunt of these costs. Sure they bear it indirectly. But we have become coddled into thinking that if we are not directly writing a check or forking over cash, then we're really not paying.

In reality it's the insurance companies and the government currently that are the purchasers of health care, not patients. In

_________________________

It's easy to spend someone else's money.
It's a different story when
your wallet is on the table.
_________________________

addition, patients have become indoctrinated into believing that, simply because they have health insurance, every band aid, office visit, medication and procedure should automatically be covered. They have come to equate health insurance with health care payment.

Only when patients are the true consumers, paying for their health care out-of-pocket, and physicians, hospitals, and pharmacies are competing with one another for the patient's dollar, can true reform and reigning in of costs occur."

Granted, there are those among us who can ill-afford to pay for such care. For those (estimated to be between 12 and 15 million Americans) it would be far cheaper for the government to issue health care vouchers, enabling those persons and families to shop around for the plan that best meets their needs, than it would to commandeer one-seventh of the U.S. economy. It would also result in much better and cost-effective care.

Paul D. Tortland is a sports medicine physician practicing in the Hartford, Conn., area and former president of the Connecticut Osteopathic Medical Society.

Sound Bite Politics

There are a lot of facets to the cost of health care. However, there is no denying that mandated coverages and insurance laws are a big reason for the some of the high costs - especially in states that have high medical costs. The graph below shows the average costs of medical insurance state-by-state.

_________________________

That kind of variation couldn't exist in a
competitive market for health insurance.
_________________________

For an insurance company, it is like having 50 bosses. Each state has its own insurance commissioner - as well as its own legislature. To say "We need to be able to sell insurance across state lines" is a great sound bite, but to do that you have to understand what is involved:

• Effectively disband the 50 state insurance departments. If we can sell across state lines, their rules will not be needed? When was the last time you heard of 50 government department getting dis-banded?
• Tell the state politicians that their laws and opinions on insurance do not matter anymore. When was the last time a politician agreed to giving up power?

Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of being able to sell insurance without the mandated coverages currently required (assuming the consumer is aware of the differences in products). As economics professor Mark Perry stated, "The average health insurance ranges from a low of $1,254 in Wisconsin to a high of $8,537 in Massachusetts, and the national average is $2,613. That kind of variation couldn't exist in a competitive market for health insurance. Interstate competition for health insurance would go a long way towards bringing health insurance costs down."

I just think it is not going to be able to be fixed in a sound bite.

(click on image to enlarge it)

Why I Do Not Trust Them

The graph says it all...

(Click on image to enlarge it)

My only question is whether the politician deliberately underestimate the costs pf program (so we buy into them), or do they just not know what they are doing?

Either way, is there ANY good reason for letting them get involved in health care any more than they are?

Why Is This So Difficult To Understand?

Click on the title below to see a short video by John Stossel as he explains why 'Community Rating' (as the term is used in the health care debate) is a bad idea.

'Community Rating' Distorts Health Care

Shared via AddThis

And You Thought Medical Care Costs Were High

(Click image for larger version)

"College tuition and fees in the U.S. have risen 7.74% annually since 1978, which is about twice the inflation rate for all goods and services (3.9% per year), and even higher than the average annual increase in the cost of medical care (6% per year), see chart above."

Mark Perry

Uninsured By Choice

"Many people who are uninsured have incomes from which medical insurance premiums could readily be paid without any undue strain (see chart above, data here). But they choose to spend their money on other things. Many young people, especially, don't buy medical insurance and elderly people already have Medicare. The poor have Medicaid available, even though many do not bother to sign up for it, until they are already in the hospital-- which they can do then.

_________________________

What you can afford depends
not only on how much money you have
but also on what your priorities are.
_________________________

Throwing numbers around about how many people are uninsured may create the impression that the uninsured cannot get medical treatment, when in fact they can get medical treatment at any hospital emergency room."

Thomas Sowell

We have said this lots of times - just because you do not have insurance, does NOT mean you do not have access to health care.

It Only Seems Fair

"As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered House Resolution 615 that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan."

Representative John Fleming (R-LA)

Prevention As Cost Cure-All Is Just A Myth

"If you prevent somebody from getting a heart attack, aren't you necessarily saving money?

The fallacy here is confusing the individual with society. For the individual, catching something early generally reduces later spending for that condition. But, explains Elmendorf, we don't know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses.

To avert one case, "it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway." This costs society money that would not have been spent otherwise.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't be preventing illness. Of course we should. But in medicine, as in life, there is no free lunch. The idea that prevention is somehow intrinsically economically different from treatment — that treatment increases costs and prevention lowers them — is simply nonsense."

Charles Krauthammer

The Biggest Ponzi Schemes

"In fact, the real health care problem is that Medicaid and Medicare have trillions in unfunded future liabilities that cannot be met. If these programs continue in their present form, they will require rationing.

Our politicians have been disgracefully dishonest about the Ponzi element of Medicare and Medicaid. But rationing is something that is done to you, not by you. And the ever-greater government presence in health care makes rationing inevitable with the present system."

Eric Singer

AFTER the federal government fixes the current money pits they have already created (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the USPS), then we can talk about them taking over health care.

Slight Exaggeration

At a recent town hall meeting, President Obama denigrated physicians. He said;

"Let's take the example of something like diabetes... If a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they're taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that's $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 -- immediately the surgeon is reimbursed. Well, why not make sure that we're also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation, right? That will save us money."

The next day came American College of Surgeons painted a more accurate picture with this statement:

"President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation..."

The hyperbole is ridiculous, even for the most ardent health care reform supporters. $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 vs $1,140? Do they not think the truth will come out. Do they think we are that gullible?

European Health Care Is Cheaper. Really? But At What Cost?

Based upon period survival data for 2000-02 from 47 European cancer registries, 5-year survival rates were found to be higher in the U.S. than in a European composite for cancer at all major sites (see table above, click to enlarge). For men (all sites combined), 47.3% of Europeans survived 5 years, compared to 66.3% of Americans. For women, the contrast was 55.8% vs. 62.9%. The male survival difference was much greater than the female primarily because of the very large difference in survival rates from prostate cancer.

Thus, the US appears to screen more vigorously for cancer than Europe and people in the US who are diagnosed with cancer have higher 5-year survival probabilities.

(Click on chart for a larger image)

End Tax Withholding - Part II

Year ago I read something that has stuck with me. The writer was making much the same point about how withholding taxes from paychecks makes it too easy for the government to collect taxes. The writer suggested that any one of the following suggestions would cause a revolt in this country over the tax code/amount of taxes we pay;

1. End tax withholding. Everyone has to stroke a check for the taxes they owe.
2. Make the tax filing deadline (April 15th) the same day as election day. Have you ever noticed those two days are about as far apart from each other as they can get?
3. Make politicians file their own taxes without the help of anyone. I have my doubts about whether this would do any good. I get the impression most of them really don't care about paying taxes.

Food for thought...

End Tax Withholding

How much is your mortgage? What is your monthly car payment? How much do you pay for cable, or your cell phone? You probably know these numbers because you write a check for them or pay them online every month.

Here is another question for you - How much did you pay in taxes last month? Most people do not have a clue. For those of us who are self-employed and have to write quarterly tax checks, we are painfully aware of how much we pay in taxes.

Tax withholding is (relatively) painless way to pay for taxes. We become insulated to to it. Heck we even do it for employee benefits ("The cost is only $X per paycheck). But it is this insulation from the pain that has allowed the government to grow so fast over the last 50-60 years.

A Wall Street Journal editorial suggests we ought to end tax withholding:

"The finishing touch is to make sure that people understand how much they are paying, which is presently obscured by withholding at the workplace. End withholding, and require everybody to do what millions of Americans already do: write checks for estimated taxes four times a year.

Tax withholding has a wonderfully anesthetizing effect on people whose only income is a paycheck, leaving many of them actually feeling grateful for their tax refund check every year, not noticing how much the government has taken from them."

Level Playing Field?

"In the House bill (H.R. 3200), there is no truly level playing field for competition between the public plan and the private health plans. While the bill says that the public plan will be initially financed by appropriations for start up costs, it also says that the Secretary of HHS can enter into contracts to administer the public plan, just like the Secretary enters into contracts with private firms to administer Medicare, but these contracts cannot, in the words of the House bill, "involve the transfer of insurance risk" to these private firms. In other words, the taxpayer is on the hook for the risks of the public plan. The bill says that the government plan must be self-supporting through premiums. But since the purpose is to create a low-cost plan, one can imagine that this will be quickly eroded, that the government will not want to charge full freight, and future Congresses will appropriate taxpayer money to bail it out.

Members of Congress will say that the public plan should compete on its own, financed by its own premiums, and that it will be allowed to fail. They say that. But they say a lot of things. It is hard to believe that the public plan, another government sponsored enterprise, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would be allowed to fail. If automakers, AIG and other financial institutions are "too big to fail", it strains the imagination that Congress would not bail out its own creation, especially if it enrolls millions of Americans who have been dumped out of their private health insurance coverage. The Lewin Group, one of the nation's top econometric firms, estimates that as many as 88 million Americans would be shifted out of their employer's health insurance coverage under the terms and conditions of the House bill. That is a large consitutency for bailouts."

Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D.

The “Post Office” Of Health Care Plans

"At his orchestrated townhall event today, President Obama defended the notion that his government-run public health care plan wouldn’t crowd out private insurers by referencing the symbiotic relationship between UPS, Fedex and the Post Office. Bad timing Mr. President. On Friday, the New York Times Business Section actually called for the privatization of the post office amid staggering losses, and even said it was in “General Motors territory.” So while the President sells you on his “post office” of health care plans, here are some questions to consider:

1.) The U.S. Post Office is the only entity allowed by federal law to deliver first class mail to your mailbox. In fact, Fedex and UPS are strictly prohibited from delivering “non-urgent” letters. If the government can fairly compete and is setting fair rules, wouldn’t the post office be open to competition at your mailbox?

2.) If Americans were offered “free” postage paid for by massive government spending and tax hikes, would Fedex and UPS still exist?

3.) The Post Office is on track to lose a staggering $7 billion this year alone. How will a government-run health care plan manage taxpayer resources more efficiently?"

Read the rest of the questions here.

Off The Beaten Path... Sea Monsters In Lake Michigan

"Michigan just experienced its coldest July on record; global temperatures haven't risen in more than a decade; Great Lakes water levels have resumed their 30-year cyclical rise (contrary to a decade of media scare stories that they were drying up due to global warming), and polls show that climate change doesn't even make a list of Michigan voters' top-ten concerns.

Yet in an interview with the Detroit News Monday, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) - recently appointed to the Senate Energy Committee - made clear that fighting the climate crisis is her top priority.

"Climate change is very real," she confessed as she embraced cap and trade's massive tax increase on Michigan industry - at the same time claiming, against all the evidence, that it would not lead to an increase in manufacturing costs or energy prices. "Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I'm flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes."

And there are sea monsters in Lake Michigan. I can feel them when I'm boating."

Henry Payne, The Detroit News

Private Health Insurers Doing Just Fine?

It’s hard to know why President Obama said what he said at Tuesday’s health-care town hall in New Hampshire. He actually stated, “If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.”

Oops. Freudian slip? Subliminally speaking, was the president implying that private health insurers are doing just fine?

Government insurance is what’s in trouble today. Medicare is in the hole by about $40 trillion on a discounted present-value basis over the next 40 or 50 years. And if we’re going to equate government care to government mail, according to Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard, the U.S. Postal Service is going bankrupt with a $7 billion net loss this year. With 633,000 career employees, the Post Office won’t be able to make $5.4 billion in retiree health-benefit payments.

Larry Kudlow

The "Un-American, Angry Mob"

Click here for a video that shows some scenes of the "angry mobs" at town hall meetings, and the political leaders' reactions. I had it embedded into the blog, but the video starts as soon as you come to the page and it was annoying to have to turn it off every time you came to the website.

Why Should Insurance Cover Pre-Existing Problems?

"President Obama: A recent report actually shows that, in the past three years, over 12 million Americans were discriminated against by health insurance companies because of a pre-existing condition.

Doesn't this demonstrate a basic misunderstanding on the part of President Obama about how private insurance markets work? Consider these examples:

1. You call the State Farm Insurance Company to purchase homeowners insurance the day after your home has been damaged by hail, a flood, a fire, an earthquake, a tornado; or has just been burglarized. Would you expect State Farm to cover those "pre-existing conditions?"

_________________________

That's not discrimination, that's just
the way insurance markets work.
_________________________

2. You call State Farm the day after your car has been in a major accident, and inquire about getting a quote for car insurance, hoping that your extensive "pre-existing body work" will be covered?

3. You call AAA on your cell phone from the side of the road with a flat tire, and ask about signing up for towing insurance, hoping that your "pre-existing" condition will be covered, and could they please send out a tow truck right away to fix your flat tire?

4. You are offered an extended warranty for your new bigscreen TV at BestBuy, and you decline. A month later, you have major problems with your TV and go back to BestBuy and ask if you can now buy that extended warranty, hoping it will cover your "pre-existing" electronic problems?

If the pre-existing conditions wouldn't be covered in those four examples, why would we expect that health insurance companies should, or would cover pre-existing medical conditions? That's not discrimination, that's just the way insurance markets work."

Mark Perry

Food For Thought - Eight Reform Ideas

John Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc. He recently wrote an editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal listing 8 health care reform ideas. They are summarized here:

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and

________________________

Health care is a service that we all
need, but just like food and shelter
it is best provided through voluntary and
mutually beneficial market exchanges.
________________________

move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

1. Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).

2. Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.

3. Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.

4. Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.

5. Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

6.  Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.

7. Enact Medicare reform.

8. Revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.

Wild Misrepresentations Are Contagious

Obama assailed "wild misrepresentations" of his health care plan Tuesday during the town hall, taking on the role of fact-checker-in-chief for his top domestic priority.

At the town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., Obama said, "We have the AARP onboard because they know this is a good deal for our seniors." He added, "AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare."

But Tom Nelson, AARP's chief operating officer, said, "Indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."

Apparently President Obama is not immune to “wild misrepresentations.”

Fox News

Welfare, Not Insurance

"For every person who needs open-heart surgery or chemotherapy, there have to be a certain number of other people who are paying their premiums but haven't gotten seriously ill. If the insurance company has gotten its calculations right, the expenses for any one person's catastrophic care are balanced out by the premiums other people pay "just in case."

________________________

The "public option" is not insurance,
because it is deliberately designed
not to balance premiums against risk.
________________________

You can see how Obama's demands undermine all of these calculations. To ask insurance companies to cover a patient after the tumor is diagnosed is to ask them to take on a known expense. Combine that with another of the president's demands — that insurance companies can't charge higher rates for those who are at higher risk of getting sick.

So if insurance companies have to take on a known expense and can't charge a higher rate for it, how are they going to pay for it? By raising everyone else's premiums, redistributing their wealth to the new freeloaders.

This isn't insurance, it's welfare. And that's the whole point.

Government regulations and enormous government spending have already distorted the health care market for decades, but the current legislation is the coup de grace. Its whole point is to force insurance companies to act as if they are government welfare agencies.

And when the insurance companies collapse under that artificial burden, the government will drop the pretense and have the welfare agencies, under the banner of the "public option," take over.

Don't be fooled by labels. The "public option" is not insurance, because it is deliberately designed not to balance premiums against risk."

Robert Tracinski

How End-Users Suffer Under Socialism

"If you ever wonder why we so resist socialism, consider the latest news out of that collectivist island paradise known as Cuba.

Central planners announced this week that they were fresh out of money to buy toilet paper — yes, toilet paper But not to worry. A nameless official for state-run monopoly Cimex and quoted by Reuters assured that "the corporation has taken all the steps so that at the end of the year there will be an important importation of toilet paper."

_________________________

"The system itself is dysfunctional. Workers
have scarcely any incentive to be productive.”
_________________________

The predicament would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. But toilet tissue is hardly the only item Cuba is lacking.

Food itself is in short supply, with red bean and chickpea rations cut by a third, according to the Miami Herald.

• There's no gas, either. The Associated Press this week reported that state planners have decreed that oxen — yes, oxen — would replace tractors in the fields, a bid to conserve fuel. But again, not to worry: Cuban socialists say the ox represents progress because it's so eco-friendly.
• Hospitals in Cuba have no Band-Aids and are short on aspirin and actual medicine.

As these examples of Cuban progress roll in, CNN is presenting Cuba's socialized health care system as "a model for health care reform in the United States," according to a report on the cable network last week. The report credits low cost and universal coverage.

"The system itself is dysfunctional," explains Brian Latell, a leading expert on Cuba at the University of Miami. "Workers have scarcely any incentive to be productive.”

An economic system that can't supply its people with commodities as basic as toilet paper is no model for anyone."

IBD

5 Year Cancer Survivor Rates - US vs Europe

"Based upon period survival data for 2000-02 from 47 European cancer registries, 5-year survival rates were found to be higher in the U.S. than in a European composite for cancer at all major sites. For men (all sites combined), 47.3% of Europeans survived 5 years, compared to 66.3% of Americans. For women, the contrast was 55.8% vs. 62.9%. The male survival difference was much greater than the female primarily because of the very large difference in survival rates from prostate cancer."

Click to enlarge

NBER

Potentially?

I read the following opening paragraph in an article about the Massachusetts state health program:

"Massachusetts legislators this year have filed a flurry of bills - more than 70 in all - that, if passed, would substantially expand the medical services insurers are required to cover for patients but also potentially raise healthcare costs."

So, a plan to substantially expand the medical services would only potentially raise health care costs.

It's Risk Management, Stupid

risk management - noun the technique or profession of assessing, minimizing, and preventing accidental loss to a business, as through the use of insurance, safety measures, etc.

In a recent article by John Stossell, he makes the point that risk management is NECESSARY in insurance. Without it, it become welfare. He writes;

"Have they no understanding of risk management? If it is controversial for health insurers to reject sick applicants, it should be controversial for life insurers to refuse to insure the already dead, and for car insurers to refuse to insure cars that have already been wrecked.

It doesn't even make it insurance. It's welfare. We can debate whether such welfare is good policy, but let's discuss it honestly. Calling welfare "insurance" muddies thinking.

Requiring insurance companies to cover the sick takes away insurers' power to encourage safer behavior. This will soon turn insurance into a form of expensive, taxpayer funded welfare."

Free Health Care - From Walgreens - Not The Federal Government

Shovel-Ready Health Care

"Last year, 64-year-old Oregon resident Barbara Wagner received news that her cancer, which had been in remission, had returned. Her only hope was a life-extending drug that her doctor prescribed for her.

The problem was that the drug cost $4,000 a month. The state-run Oregon Health Plan said no, that it was not cost-effective. Oregon's equivalent of a "death panel" sent her a letter saying it would cover drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost only $50 or so. Oregon could afford that.

_________________________

Oregon...would cover drugs for a
physician-assisted death. Those drugs
would cost only $50 or so.
Oregon could afford that.
_________________________

"It was horrible," Wagner told ABCNews.com. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die.

"But we won't give you the medication to live."

The $4,000 could be better spent on someone else."

IBD

Pelosi Logic

In this video clip, you see Nancy Pelosi saying that the health care bill will have, "A cap on your cost, no cap on your benefits." She says it twice - JUST TO BE CLEAR.

Think about that for a minute. Let's apply that logic to other things we buy;

• Food: A cap on your costs, no cap on your groceries.
• Housing: A cap on your costs, no cap on the size of your house (or number of houses for that matter).
• Transportation: A cap on your costs, no cap on the type of car(s) you can have.
• Clothing: A cap on your costs, no cap on the number of shoes, or suits, or fur coats, etc...

How is that sustainable?

How does a health insurance company compete with that?

Is that a level playing field?

Makes me want to beat my head against a wall...

Gov't Care: A Victory For Special Interests

"The Democrats' proposal for health care reform would put more health care decisions in the hands of the government. Government involvement means special interests dominate. This is not a good thing.

Each decision about care would mean millions or billions of dollars for interest groups that pressure legislators with all the means at their disposal. Already the physician lobby — led by the American Medical Association — dominates Medicare reimbursement decisions in this country. Physicians control the codes that are used for reimbursement and the committee that determines Medicare reimbursement rates.

Put the federal government in charge of deciding what is appropriate care, and special- interest groups will fight long and hard for a place on the list.

Politics, not patient needs or the need for increased access to care, will determine which procedures are covered.

This is no way to make health care accessible or affordable or, the evidence suggests, even safer."

Shirley Svorny

Throttling U.S. Creativity

"We Americans tend to take the great strengths of our country for granted. In the hubbub of political debate, we concentrate on things that are allegedly wrong with America and lose sight of our great achievements.

We make up only 4% of the world's population. Yet we lead the world in many ways, and the rest of the world depends on us for many of the things necessary to the good life.

_________________________

It is ironic that an administration
that promised hope and change
is instead pursuing policies that could
stifle American creativity.
_________________________

Cases in point: Most people in the rest of the world are free riders on the productivity and ingenuity of the American military and American medicine. They get the benefits of American military protection and American medical innovation without paying, or without paying in full, for them.

• the top five American hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in all other developed countries.
• America has outpointed all other countries combined in Nobel Prizes for medical and physiology since 1970.

Pharmaceutical companies that produce benefits for patients and consumers get the profits that support their research disproportionately from Americans, because other countries refuse to spend much more than the cost of producing pills, which is trivial next to the huge cost of research and regulatory approval.

The danger is that we will freeze medicine in place and no longer be the nation that produces innovations that do so much for us and the rest of the world."

Michael Barone

Note: This article makes an important point that has gotten very little traction in the mainstream debate: It is the pursuit of profit that has given the United States (and by extension, the rest of the world), most of the innovations in medicine.

Health Plan Is 'Voodoo Economics'

"It is not possible to simultaneously reduce government health spending and add millions of Americans to government health care rolls. After all, providing more health care costs more money.

Ironically, many of the same people who use "voodoo economics" to describe the idea that lower tax rates can increase revenues are effectively practicing their own voodoo economics by asserting that, in the words of Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., "We've got to spend money to keep from going bankrupt."

_________________________

"If you think health care is expensive now,
wait until you see what it costs when it's free."
_________________________

The White House is correct that government health care costs are trending toward bankruptcy. Since 1990, federal Medicare and Medicaid costs have doubled to 6.3 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), and Medicaid also threatens to bankrupt states. Rising health care costs and 77 million retiring baby boomers are projected to push federal health spending to 16.6 percent of GDP by 2050. To put that in context, this 10.3 percent of GDP cost increase today would come to $1.44 trillion ($12,000 per household) annually.

Yet rather than restrain health spending, the Democratic health plans pour gasoline on the fire. The House plan would increase health spending by approximately $1 trillion in the first decade, and perhaps $2 trillion in the second decade. Millions of Americans would be moved into either a failed Medicaid system, or a government health plan that would likely receive taxpayer subsidies in order to undercut private health plans.

A better approach to health care reform would expand coverage based on choice and competition among private plans, as is approximated in the health plan that federal employees currently enjoy. Reform also should include tax and regulatory changes that provide individuals with more control over their health care dollars."

Brian M. Reidl

John Stossel Looks At Health Care Reform

Be careful what you wish for...

_________________________

So yes, our profit-driven system
is expensive and sometimes wasteful,
but it is that pursuit of profit that has
given us inventions that save lives.
_________________________

How House Bill Runs Over Grandma

"This administration, pledging to cut medical costs and for which "cost-effectiveness" is a new mantra, knows that a quarter of Medicare spending is made in a patient's final year of life. Certainly the British were aware when they nationalized their medical system.

The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof are legendary. The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror movie script.

_________________________

The British have succeeded in
putting a price tag on human life,
as we are about to.
_________________________

The U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) basically figures out who deserves treatment by using a cost-utility analysis based on the "quality adjusted life year."

One year in perfect health gets you one point. Deductions are taken for blindness, for being in a wheelchair and so on."

Investor's Business Daily

Shift In Tactics - Beat Up Insurance Companies

In typical Washington fashion, President Obama and other politicians are re-framing the health care debate as a typical "us vs. them" fight, with the insurance companies as the villains.

Seems the people of this country were leery of the government taking over 'health care', so the pollsters told them to attack the insurance companies.

_________________________

recent polling shows growing anxiety
about what health-care change would
mean, and about the role of government
in any new system.

_________________________