H.R. 3962: Rationing and Bureaucratic Control

The healthcare bill (H.R. 3962) that barely passed the House of Representatives Nov. 7 contains a clause that should concern all Americans—especially the elderly. On pages 25-26, Title 1, Section 101, subsection (h)(2) the bill clearly states: “If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists.”

If you examine this you know all you need to know about what the current administration wants to do about your healthcare:

The law would direct the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to do one of three things if the healthcare program goes over budget, which it certainly will because government spending always does. The secretary’s first option is to reduce your benefits. The government routinely does this now with its other well managed medical care programs, Medicaid and Medicare. Goodbye routine exams. The second option is to increase your premiums. Goodbye promise of affordable healthcare. The last option is the most ghastly: establishing waiting lists. This is political speak for the R-word: rationing. Goodbye, kidney transplant.

There are two things that should scare the hell out of all Americans in this one section of the Bill. First, that the government will be the sole arbiter of whether you get less care, more expensive care or rationed care. Remember the liberals who claimed that talk of rationing was “scaremongering?” It’s in the bill. We didn’t put it there; the House of Representatives did.

Second, the decision of whether your care gets reduced, costs more or is rationed is the decision of one non-elected bureaucrat: the secretary of DHHS. Not your elected officials. Not your doctor. Not you. Rationing and government bureaucratic control of healthcare have been the two biggest fears of Americans throughout this process. And now that fear is present in black and white in this bill.

The time for debate is over. As Americans we have a decision to make. Do we surrender more control over our lives to the government or do we do what Americans have always done, which is to find innovative, creative, independent solutions that improve the lives of all Americans, not make them worse?

Just thought you might like to know.

46,000,000

With the debate over economic stimulus behind us, the next frontier in remaking America into a European-type socialist society will be healthcare. And more than anything else, a number you'll be hearing a lot about is 46, 000,000. As in "Forty-six million Americans lack health care." Or, "Forty-six million Americans can't afford healthcare." And, "Our healthcare system is in crisis when 46 million Americans can't afford health insurance." Don't believe it.



Now, I'm the first to admit that our system of healthcare is in need of radical surgery. And I think this nation needs a good, healthy debate on the best way to cure this patient. But the best way isn't by pointing to a statistic that's more fact than fiction. The best way to fix the problem is not to accept as Gospel truth an outright distortion. So here's the real scoop:

• The 46 million number was supposedly generated from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, which tracks demographic information on healthcare. In its annual report, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States the Bureau claims that health insurance converage is likely to be underreported in the U.S. So the government agency that initiated the statistic that has become a rallying cry for Euro health care believes that the number of uninsured is smaller than what it reported.


• Second, most people assume that that 46 million is made of up Americans who are chronically uninsured. The fact is that like all surveys the CPS was a snapshot frozen in time. Many of those counted in the 46 million number were transitionally uninsured. For example, they may have just lost a job, graduated from school without having found work yet, or were between policies. So the chronic problem--the number of people uninsured over a long period of time--is probably a lot smaller.


• Third, even if you accept the 46 million number, you owe it to yourself to examine it closely. If you do, you'll find that 18 million of the 46 million make more than $50,000 per year! 40% of the uninsured earn more than the median income in the United States. So far from the picture of Dust Bowl Okies painted by Euro health proponents, 40% of the uninsured are uninsured by choice. Maybe they'd rather spend their money on lux car leases rather than premiums. Maybe a kick-ass sound system is more important to them than annual checkups. I don't know, and I don't care. Not my problem. My problem is being forced to pay for their healthcare while I drive cars that are 11 and 12 years old. Statistically, twenty-somethings make up the fastest growing segment of this population. Insurers call them the "invincibles" because they think they'll live forever (C'mon, didn't you think that when you were 25?) Oh, and by the way--more than half of that 18 million uninsured-by-choice population makes more than $75,00o per year.


• Fourth, of that 46 million uninsureds, about 10 million are non-citizens. In all probability they wouldn't be covered by Euro health anyway.


• Fifth, about 14 million of the 46 million are already eligible for government-sponsored healthcare, like Medicaid, Medicare or SCHIP (the federally funded, state-run insurance plan for working class kids). For whatever reason, they've chosen not to enroll in these healthcare programs. Yet we're being told that we need to adopt Euro health to reach people who for whatever reason have chosen not to take advantage of current government insurance programs.

So who's left? If you do the math, we're left with about four to eight million chronically uninsured people. These are largely the working and underemployed poor. And we have a moral obligation to them as Americans to fix the problem. That's where our responsibility starts and ends. But four million doesn't sound as catastrophic as 46 million, so the administration and the leftist-controlled Congress will chant the mantra of 46 million until they achieve their goal of Euro health. And if it works as well as Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP those eight million people will continue to fall through the government's insurance cracks. We'll have radicalized this country without having any effect on the problem. Don't fall for it.


Just thought you might like to know.

The Truth about Healthcare in America

Needless to say, we'll be hearing more and more about healthcare "reform" over the next year. Pres. Obama made healthcare reform the tall pole in his campaign tent over the last two years. But reform that's not real, just makes a bad system worse. I'm the first to admit that our healthcare system is badly broken. Pretty soon you're going to be hearing proposed solutions from Democratic Washington. But don't take the politicians' word for it. Remember, if it seems too good to be true, it generally is.

If you want to get a balanced view of healthcare, download Sally Pipes' book, The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care.Just click here and it will take yout to the download site. It's completely free and a must-read for anyone who wants an informed opinion on healthcare.

You'll hear a lot of proposed solutions over the next several months. Ms. Pipes looks at 10 of them and exposes them for the myths that they are. Here are three:

• Government healthcare is more efficient. Proponents of a government-run health system say healthcare will be more efficient if the government eliminates the "middleman" and directs it all from Washington. But who's a bigger middleman than Uncle Sam? Think about it...what does government do that's more efficient than you or I or the private sector can do? What's government's efficiency track record? How efficient is our tax code? How about our schools? The government runs most schools. How efficient are they? What results to they produce, compared to private schools? How about our government's current experience with healthcare: Medicaid and Medicare. Every try to fill out Medicare paperwork? Ever read about Medicaid fraud? So why would we trust these people with our health?


• Healthcare costs too much; the government can reduce the cost. I suppose Uncle knows a thing or two about overspending, I'll give him that. But why would we think that a national healthcare system would spend less than we spend now? Healthcare costs a lot because you get a lot for it. The average life span increased 30 years over the 20th century. Over the last 50 years death rates from heart disease--our number one killer--dropped by 60 percent. The issue isn't how much we spend on healthcare; the real issue is what we get for it. And we get a good return: dads who live to walk their daughters down the aisle, grandpas watching their grandkids playing Little League, and great grandmas holding a fourth generation baby. Not a bad ROI. Expensive? Yea. Worthwhile? You bet.


• The cost of drugs is driving up the cost of healthcare. Actually, the opposite is true. It takes 15 years and costs over a billion dollars to bring one drug to market in the U.S. But these drugs drive down the cost of healthcare in the long run. Why? Because, for example, the cost of cholesterol-lowering drugs like Lipitor are cheaper than open heart surgery, that's why. Ms Pipes explains how, for every dollar spent on drugs to fight high blood pressure, cholesterol and diabetes, $4.00 to $7.00 are saved in clinical costs.

There's a ton of scientific evidence and just plain common sense in The Ten Myths of American Health Care. Over the next few months, I'll be blogging about them. But just remember, when somebody tells you something that sounds too good to be true--like nationalizing healthcare will improve coverage, improve quality and lower cost--it probably is.

Just thought you might like to know.