by: Brantley Oakley

We have been fed serving after serving of compelling rhetoric by President Obama and the Spendocrats throughout this healthcare debate telling us that we must act now to help all those poor Americans who are not getting healthcare. The major problem we face in this bill and in many other political issues is that our crafty politicians know that when they shroud their agenda into an argument that plays on Americans’ generosity and desire for equality they can sell us a ticking time-bomb and we’ll buy it with a smile on our face and give our life savings for it. This bill would be a terminal disease for America for so many reasons;I’ve briefly underlined just a few of the major issues involved with passing this bill. Irreversibility

One of the biggest problems I have with socialistic programs like Medicare and this healthcare bill is that they are essentially irreversible. Don’t think for a moment that when this legislation blows up and costs go through the roof that the Democrats will say “oops. We messed up. I guess we’re going to scrap this legislation.” Nor, will the Republicans be able to do reverse the bill because there will be millions of people receiving free healthcare who would be outraged. So, just like Medicare trudges on in spite of the fact that it is a failed program, so too will this legislation continue to grow and overburden Americans until it finally breaks us.

Unaffordability

The fact that this bill is called the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” is a farce. There is nothing affordable about this bill. The CBO estimates that this bill will cost over $1 trillion dollars in the first decade. I think it is rather self-evident that Congress has a long history of underestimating costs of its proposed bills, and it is doing so with this bill. There is no way we can afford this. Please understand, first and foremost, that the estimation is skewed because the government will collect revenue for 10 years to give 7 years of service. So, what happens for the next ten years? Also, keep in mind that Pelosi and the Spendocrats cut out the $250 billion that will be given to doctors. They are going to pass a separate bill for doctors’ compensation to avoid adding the number to the total cost of this bill—only in Washington is such a tactic rational or ethical.

Pelosi plans on paying for this trillion-dollar disaster by taxing the wealthiest people in America; specifically, she wants to raise taxes to an astounding 45% on all persons who earn over $500,000. Mark my words; this will not happen. These people are not going to sit idly by while their wealth is plundered, nor is there any way that this tax will be able to sustain the massive cancer of costs that this bill would create. The cost of running Medicare has doubled every four years since 1966. The reality is that this program will probably cost around $3 trillion by the end of the first decade and will grow unrestrained until it brings us to our death bed.

What about the Medicare cuts? President Obama said this bill would be paid for by Medicare cuts; what about that? Good question. Supposedly, the federal government, which hasn’t cut costs since Regan was there, is going to raise $400 billion by cutting out waste in Medicare. Well, I say if it’s that easy to cut the Medicare costs, why hasn't Washington done it? Do that first and then come talk to me about healthcare reform. Even if Washington can cut $400 billion—I’m not buying it—but even if they can, that’s not going to cover the tab when this thing doubles or triples or worse in the coming years. Remember, Medicare currently has $34 trillion in unpaid liabilities. That’s just for the elderly. What’s going to happen when you allow the government to take over healthcare for everyone.

2048 Pages

Perhaps the single scariest facet of this bill is that it is an incomprehensible mess. You do not need 2048 pages to state what they have said this bill states. No ordinary American and most of Congress does not really know what is in this bill. We don't know what little surprises this behemoth is hiding? If Washington wanted to play straight with Americans, they would write a lucid and legible bill, and I’m not buying this notion that legislative language has to be this way; this bill is deliberately protracted and obscure. To vote for this bill is to hand Obama, Pelosi and the Spendocrats a blank check and say “I don’t know what you’re doing, but I trust you.”

I agree that our healthcare system needs to be reformed, but this bill embodies the worst possible solution to the problem, which is why I only slightly disagree with the Wall Street Journal when it says this bill is the “worst bill ever.” It’s not the worst bill ever; that award goes to the Cap-and-Trade bill, but this healthcare bill is a close second.

For a summary of the bill, check out...
H.R. 3962 Summary

For the full text, go to...
H.R. 3962 Full Text

by: Thomas Craig

Republicans... ENOUGH!  I am exhausted from hearing arguments against healthcare reform from people who clearly have no clue what they are talking about.  Before you go off on how you don't want a public option because it is socialist, perhaps you should consider our streets, libraries, law enforcement, and countless other aspects of our lives.  I am against the public option but not because I am afraid it will be a socialist move.  I think it would be great to provide health insurance to every American.  I, personally, would love to have a public option for my family and I to join in.  (I am aware of the contradiction I just made.) 

The reason I am against the public option is because I don't trust the government to run it properly.  Everything that the government runs becomes a bureaucratic and financial nightmare.  I am not willing to sacrifice the well-being of 250 million Americans for the sake of covering the 50 million (or whatever the number is this week) with low quality healthcare.  We cannot afford the public option plain and simple.  Even if we could afford it, I would not trust the government to change the oil in my car let alone oversee my health insurance.

We need to stop complaining about socialism because it emboldens the liberal base and allows them to point their fingers at you and make you look like a sophmoric flag-waving buffoon.  As I mentioned above, we already have many aspects of our lives socialized.  From now on, when somebody asks you about why you are against the public option, explain to them exactly why.  Ask the person to name you one program or department that the government oversees that is not a financial and bureaucratic nightmare.  When they realize that they are not able to name one, tell them that that is exactly why you don't support the public option.

by: Peter Suderman

The public option has been in critical condition all summer, but, like Jason Voorhees, it stubbornly refuses to stay dead. Indeed, in the last week or so, it's been gaining support. And now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that he's moving forward with a public option that allows individual states to opt out:

Reid announced this afternoon that he plans to push ahead with a public health insurance option that includes an opt-out provision for states—even though he's currently short several votes for passage, according to people close to the situation. 

"It's the fairest way to go," Reid said at a news conference, where he said he’ll send the state opt-out plan to the Congressional Budget Office. States would have until 2014 to opt out. 

Reid, who spoke with virtually every member of his 60-member caucus this weekend, currently has between 56 and 57 votes for a proposal to create a national insurance plan but allow states to opt out of it, according to Democratic aides. 

But Reid said he will not send the "trigger" option to the CBO—which endangers the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who has not signed on to the opt-out idea. Snowe wants a public insurance option to kick in only if private insurers don’t expand coverage fast enough. 

Asked about Snowe's lack of support, Reid said: "We are going to have to move forward on this." 

A month ago, I would have said there's no way any bill with a public option can pass. Now, I'm not so sure. This may simply be a way for Democratic leaders to appease the liberal base. But it also might be a serious attempt at passing a bill with a public option.

Strangely enough, however, one of the most prominent frustrations for Democratic leadership at this point appears to be... the White House. Yes, Obama has consistently had good things to say about the inclusion of the public option (though he's never demanded it be included). But lately, he's waffled about which particular flavor of public option he favors. According to Ezra Klein, that's proven irksome for Senate Democrats trying to figure out what, exactly, the administration supports.

I'm also hearing a lot of irritation from congressional Democrats at the mixed signals being sent by the White House. If the White House wants to advocate for the trigger, fine. If the White House wants to advocate for the public option, fine. But for the White House to host one meeting where they signal that they're uncomfortable with Reid's decision to push the envelope on the public option and then make a big effort to walk that meeting back after the left gets angry is confusing everybody.

...Since the administration is considered the most important actor here, no one knows quite how to structure their strategy so long as the White House refuses to fully show its cards.

The problem with this notion, it seems to me, is that it assumes the White House supports a very particular policy. But as I've pointed out before, what Obama really supports is the passage of a bill—any bill, just so long as it can more or less legitimately be called "health-care reform." Now, it's obviously impossible to know for certain what the White House's thinking is. But my guess is that what he supports isn't so much one version of the public plan or another, but instead, whatever flavor of the public plan is most likely to result in successful passage—and thus, political victory.

by: Tad Dehaven

In 1798, President John Adams signed a law that required the owners of American ships to withhold 20 cents a month for each crewman’s pay and to forward the money to customs offices in various ports. Customs officers were required to forward the money to the secretary of the Treasury, who would use the money to pay the hospital bills of ailing sailors. The funding also supported a network of marine hospitals.

These programs were the ancestors of today’s giant federal health programs, Medicare and Medicaid, and provide an early illustration of the problem with government-funded health care. On the weekend, I came across a description of these early health care programs from an older book on the history of the Department of Health and Human Services:

In its first years, the [Marine Hospital Service] MHS was plagued by administrative problems…Further problems arose because funds generated by withholding taxes from sailors’ pay frequently fell short of the cost of providing medical services. Eventually, the MHS was forced to impose a four-month limit on the amount of time a patient could stay in a marine hospital and to deny care to those with chronic or incurable ailments. MHS officials constantly had to appeal to Congress to allocate supplemental funds.

We’ve seen these problems of cost overruns, administrative mismanagement, and rationing whenever government has pushed its tentacles further into the health care system. Let’s not make these problems worse with another unaffordable expansion.

by Conservative Patriot

President Obama is devoted to eliminating all the myths that exist around the Health Care Reform plans.  However, the Administration is one of the main sources of those myths.

One of the myths that the Obama Administration is pushing is that the government will be able to provide health care cheaper as they will be able to cut out all the insurance company profits.  In fact, he often refers to “those huge insurance company profits”.  The President is either trying to mislead people or is ignorant of how a business operates.

From conversations that I have had, I belive that many people are misinformed.  I have heard people talk about the evil insurance companies and their 1000% profit increases or the immoral insurance company 150% profit.  With comments similar to those being floated on TV, I am sure that people do not understand or know the truth.

For starters, many people don’t know what a profit is or how it is calculated.  A company’s profit equals its revenue minus expenses.  More simply, the cash it takes in minus all the bills it has to pay.  And as pointed out in a post over at HotAir.com, insurance companies only keep 4 to 5 cents for every dollar they take in which is 4 to 5% profit and not anywhere near 150%.

The simple example of a grocery store can help explain.  When you spend $100 dollars at the grocery store, that $100 dollars is the revenue that the store receives.  However, that $100 is not profit.  Assuming the grocery store has a 50% markup on the products you bought, they had to pay $50 dollars for the goods that you bought.  That leaves them $50 dollars in profits right?  Wrong.  They still have to pay the employees, pay the utilities, advertising, rent, and other expenses.  Then, what ever is left over after paying those expenses is taxed.  What is left over is  the profit which is kept by the company or sometimes distributed to shareholders.

So now that we understand what constitutes profit, where does that leave all those insurance company profits?  When I started hearing all those comments, I went on Yahoo Finance to get the facts.  I looked at the top five insurance companies ranked by size at year end 2008 to see what their profits were.

In 2008, Unitedhealth Group kept 4% of their revenue.  The next two largest, Well Point and Aetna also had 4% profits.  The next two, Cigna and Humana had 2% profit.  Note that the total total profit for the top five companies was approximately $7.8 billion, but that number represents only an average of 4% industry profit. 

The top five insurers also paid $3.5 billion in taxes in 2008 or roughly half of their net profit.

Americans need to wake up and realize that they are being spoon feed misinformation to demonize groups of people and industries for political purposes.

Whenever you hear somebody in person or in the media talk about record profits, high profits, and windfall profits, you need to examine the true numbers to see if you are being mislead.  The surest way to take away freedom is to mislead people with false information.  Americans need to watch government closely and examine the facts since the media is unwilling to publish facts and prefers to stick to their own agendas.

by Thomas Craig

The military has a saying, "Salute the rank, not the man".  The other night during the President's address to Congress, our Leadership and our Party were made to look like ignorant fools due to the disrespect shown to the President.  Congressman Wilson (R-SC) thankfully apologized after shouting out "You Lie!" during the President's address. 

We all remember the disrespect shown to President Bush.  We all believed in the prestige of the office and we thought of those who blatantly disrespected Bush as un-American.  Many in our Party feel that the GOP should simply show the same respect to Obama as the Democrats had shown to Bush.  The problem with this mentality is that people seem to forget that the pendulum always swings back.  When Republicans were in power, we felt confidant that we will hold on to that power.  Now, Democrats honestly think that they will hold on to the reins forever.  We didn't forget the actions of the minority when we were in charge and the Democrats won't forget our actions now when we take back Washington. 

Perhaps Congressman Wilson had a point.  Personally, I think he had a very valid point in his statement.  By doing what he did though, he cheapened the argument and emboldened the opposition.  We need to stop the hysterics and make our arguments loud and clear.  The time for baseless distractions are over, whether they are "Obama is a muslim", "Obama isn't a citizen", or "Obama is an alien".  They are ridiculous and they take away from our credibility. 

Healthcare needs to be reformed, plain and simple.  Instead of shouting down every idea the Democrats come up with, we should be using our voices to pitch our own ideas on reform.  This will not only be more productive but it will point out the misguided notions of Liberals who have good intentions but would bury this Nation in a mound of debt so large our grandchildren will be born with sore backs. 

Its time to cut the bs and get down to business!

by Jeremiah Norris

The health overhaul debate has generated plenty of heat. Yet no one has offered a solution to one vital and unavoidable dimension: the future.
In 20 years the country will have many more retired people as a proportion of the population. The population will therefore suffer from far higher rates of chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer.

If a public option will exist for health insurance, the cost of paying these bills will be an intolerable burden on the dwindling band of economically active U.S. taxpayers.

The costs of treating chronic diseases already weigh heavily on the health sector. Nearly half of Americans suffer from one or more chronic (long-lasting) diseases. These are frequently only manageable rather than curable and come with a big price tag.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, 75% of every dollar spent on health care is for treatment of patients with one or more chronic conditions, rising to 96% in public programs. These costs will increase massively the next 30 years.

The management of diabetes requires expensive monitoring and drugs for the life of the patient. One-third of children born in 2000 will develop diabetes.

Obesity is another portent of trouble ahead for U.S. medical care: 67% of Americans are officially obese — with an alarming increase in children and teenagers.

The Milken Institute predicts that by 2015, 75% of Americans will be obese, significantly contributing to the rise in chronic diseases such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes and renal failure.

According to Emory University, the doubling of obesity rates is responsible for about one-third of the rise in health care costs since the mid-1980s.

Old age inevitably means increased health care costs. According to the National Cancer Institute, the risk of being diagnosed with cancer doubles from age 50 to 60. In 1900, the average U.S. life expectancy was 47.3 years, and in 2008 it reached 78. By 2020, it is estimated at 82 years.

It is little wonder, therefore, that health spending as a proportion of GDP has risen from 1% in 1900 to 16% today.

The current debate simply does not factor in the massive increased costs of an aging population. In 2000, America had 4.6 workers per retired person. By 2040, that will plummet to just 2.6.

These few workers will be asked to underwrite existing Medicare and Medicaid commitments, plus President Obama's proposed public insurance option, on behalf of an aging and increasingly sickly society. This is just not sustainable.

Proponents of an overhaul argue that it will lead to new techniques for preventing illness and saving costs, such as computerized medical records. These claims just don't add up. Almost all savings from prevention are achieved by age 5, when childhood immunizations end. Chronic illnesses, developed later in life, are managed rather than prevented by early intervention.

A 2008 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

Many analysts have emphasized what is wrong and what is worsening in our medical system.

In fact, the rise of chronic diseases is a result of innovative drugs, improving health care and rising prosperity, giving more and more people unprecedented longevity.

The final decisions on a medical overhaul rest atop Capitol Hill. One-sixth of the nation's economy will be decided without reference to the massive changes in disease and population that are set to render America a very difference place from today.

By increasing government's role in health care, the proposed public option will make the health system less flexible and innovative — the opposite of what is needed to adapt to these unstoppable demographic and epidemiological changes.

It won't be today's voters who will pay for this error. It will be their children and grandchildren.