The amount of government regulation of the private sector makes me sicker everyday. With the health care debacle passed, we must now begin to pay attention to the other regulatory measures trying to be shoved down our throats. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying forget about health care...we must repeal it! However, I feel issues such as cap and tax, as well as government takeovers are being neglected.
I'll begin with Sen. Dodd's new proposal. In his bill, to make it look good, he has included some consumer safety measures (credit card companies, etc.) that look good to even some conservatives (Rush Limbaugh has even admitted a few are decent). However, these measures are designed to detract from the main piece of legislation in his bill. This bill creates a $50 Billion slush fund that the President and Treasury Secretary can utilize to randomly take over any company, fire its board of directors, or its employees, or even bring it under federal control...this is not a "bailout" persay, more of a "we're gonna shut you down."
What is Dodd's solution? Blame Wall Street. "Cracking down on the biggest players is critical to ending bailouts. And if a Wall Street firm does become too large or too complex and poses a grave threat to our financial stability, the Federal Reserve has the power to restrict its risky activities, restrict its growth, and, Mr. President, even to break up those institutions." It always amuses me how those in Washington are convinced they know how to run a business, where many of them don't even have the slightest idea of working in the private sector...especially Obama. Former Labor Secretary Reich has a similar quote from his interview with Campbell Brown of the C(linton) N(ews) N(etwork); suggesting the tight regulation of banks. "We all pay every time a bank gets into trouble, Campbell. No bank should be too big to fail. In fact, I would personally rather, in the bill, there be a limit on the size of all banks. No bank should be larger than a hundred billion dollars in assets." Thanks Reich. This is how you make an economy fail.
Lastly, cap and trade (cap & tax). This is one bill that makes me ill. I won't discuss this long, because it is just fundamentally wrong in many ways. The one thing that sticks out to me, and that is similar to the health care debate is how the government is once again asserting its authority on how to run a business better than a business owner. It is an inefficient system that punishes a business for either buying too many pollution credits (can't return to gov't), or not buying enough (fines/taxes). It's a lose-lose situation for our job creators.
November 2010 should be very interesting...
Monday, April 19, 2010
More Control: Part One
As a sophomore in high school, college is starting to creep its way up my list of concerns. I have senior friends who are attending top schools in the country; majoring in music and other liberal arts. The schools are costing them over $40,000 per year. Now, I understand some households can afford to put up $160,000 for a four year education, but that is not the case with us. If I leave Iowa for college, I'm going to need a student loan. Not a very large one, but I will likely need one. Unfortunately, under new legislation, the US Dept. of Education will move its share of student loans from 20% (federally backed loans) to 80%. This move will take place before July 1, 2010. According to the Wall Street Journal, by next summer, tax payers will have to fork over over $100 billion per year to lend to students. There are already two things wrong with this plan:
1) If I want to get a student loan, why should I have to go to a government call center to get one? I don't want to be held accountable to such an ineffectively run government, and I'm certain customer service can't be very good...
2) Why should $100B/year be spent on loans, especially during a recession. This country was built upon helping yourself up. It has become less so. I'm not downplaying the need for financial aid for the impoverished trying to bring themselves up, but during a recession, this doesn't seem like a good plan.
Under this new plan, the government is also adding some "hidden" rates. These rates generally speaking, for an average $25k loan, will overcharge the students by about $2,000.
Up until now, 15 million out of 19 million student loans were government backed private loans, where the government usually covered a default, and the banks were able to make a "regulated" profit. Now the 19 million students will receive loans from our people in D.C., who will be borrowing $500 Billion from China to pay for it...this being said, our debt is sure to increase.
One last concern I have for this measure is the effect it will have on the job market. Writers at the National Review are saying up to 31,000 people in community banks and non-profit loan centers will be losing their positions...likely to be thrown onto the government unemployment payroll, which has no end.
Sources:
National Review Online
Wall Street Journal
1) If I want to get a student loan, why should I have to go to a government call center to get one? I don't want to be held accountable to such an ineffectively run government, and I'm certain customer service can't be very good...
2) Why should $100B/year be spent on loans, especially during a recession. This country was built upon helping yourself up. It has become less so. I'm not downplaying the need for financial aid for the impoverished trying to bring themselves up, but during a recession, this doesn't seem like a good plan.
Under this new plan, the government is also adding some "hidden" rates. These rates generally speaking, for an average $25k loan, will overcharge the students by about $2,000.
Up until now, 15 million out of 19 million student loans were government backed private loans, where the government usually covered a default, and the banks were able to make a "regulated" profit. Now the 19 million students will receive loans from our people in D.C., who will be borrowing $500 Billion from China to pay for it...this being said, our debt is sure to increase.
One last concern I have for this measure is the effect it will have on the job market. Writers at the National Review are saying up to 31,000 people in community banks and non-profit loan centers will be losing their positions...likely to be thrown onto the government unemployment payroll, which has no end.
Sources:
National Review Online
Wall Street Journal
Monday, March 15, 2010
Is Washington Listening? I think not.
Watching the news lately has become more and more troubling. I see the economy in the same condition it was in months ago, with unemployment finally dipping under 10%, and the DJIA finally getting above 10,000. However, the top story is the health care bill.
Recently, the Senate Democrats announced they would use the parliamentary procedure, called reconciliation, where an up-down vote takes place instead of requiring the 60 votes needed in most other scenarios. This procedure seems very tricky and non-democratic. Our country doesn't want this bill--a new poll shows 55% oppose this bill--yet the Senators keep pushing the bill. More and more Americans realize that they don't need the government telling them what's best for themselves, and I for one, find it insulting to hear these Senators and Representatives asserting themselves as knowing what is best for me. They serve us, they don't dictate us.
The news media asserts that Republicans used this controversial measure as well when they were in power, which is true, but the circumstances were much different. The bills where reconciliation was used, such as a tax bill and childhood education bill, still got much more than sixty votes, and had the citizens' support. I fear the day where our country has Congressmen that decide every issue; without any concern for the public's thoughts. However, we appear to be headed down that track.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue. In my mind, any Democrat should be furious at their Congressmen for using such a controversial measure. I can guarantee you that if this bill passes, Democrats will lose BIG in 2010.
Monday, January 25, 2010
My Research-Based article on the downside of Universal Health Care
Gambling on Health Care
In America today, over $6,000 is being spent on health care per person per year, “which amounts to sixteen percent of the nation’s GDP” (Clemmitt, Rising Health Costs 1). This percentage is only expected to rise. To confront this problem, the Democrats in Washington have proposed a massive overhaul of our society’s health care system where bureaucrats decide what benefits are cost-efficient and right for citizens (Clemmit, Health-Care Reform 6). Such an approach could feasibly lead to severe rationing of care. My eighty-eight year old grandmother’s private supplemental insurance covered her stay in the cardiovascular intensive care unit for two days last year. The new plan may reject such stays. My grandmother’s case provides an example that the proposed reforms to the United States health care system would be detrimental to peoples’ health, not to mention financial security, and individual freedom.
The senators in support of this massive overhaul believe that it will improve the country’s public health. This conclusion is not necessarily warranted. Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) changed its recommendation for obtaining mammograms. The Heritage Foundation’s publication, “Backgrounder,” examined the new recommendation. The DHHS has changed their ranking for screening forty- to fifty-year-olds from “B” (recommended) to “C” (not recommended). Under the current proposal, only “A” and “B” rankings can be covered, while procedures ranked “C” or “D” will result in higher costs for the patient (7). Stricter rationing means younger women who will still be at risk for breast cancer cannot be covered by the proposal and would have to pay for the screening themselves. This instance is one of many peeks into life with universal care.
Similar incidents have already occurred in Canada, a country utilizing a universal health plan. In Canada, citizens are prohibited from using private sector insurance for government services. In the book Opposing View Points: Health Care, L. Dean Forman mentions how in 1998, 212,900 Canadians waited for surgery for an average thirteen weeks. Due to the limited, predetermined, budget for health care in Canada, rationing is needed, and occurs (Forman 124). Forman mentions a situation a friend went through:
"A Canadian friend had his mother diagnosed with cancer. Scheduling for follow-up tests would routinely take thirty days, followed by another thirty days for results. The doctor’s response during the two-year ordeal, “You’ve lived a good live, you’re seventy-two years old, we’ll make you comfortable." (Forman 124)
This scenario provides a clear example of the consequences of a universal plan passed by this Congress. The government would be forced to save its resources for only the young and deemed useful, while putting our older and more seasoned citizens at greater risk. In Britain, where a nationalized health system is used, ERs were so crowded that patients remained in gurneys in hallways for as much as a few days. The hospital’s solution: take the wheels off the gurneys. Now the gurneys could classify as hospital beds. Care didn’t improve, but statistics showed otherwise (Turner n. pag.). Many also believe that turning over such a vital portion of our economy “to the same unresponsive, anti-entrepreneurial culture that gave us the response to Hurricane Katrina” would be devastating (Gingrich 7).
Another clear concern with this plan is the price tag. Harry Reid originally said this bill would be under $900 Billion, but according to Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus, the total price on this proposal would be either $1 Trillion or $2.5 Trillion. These massive figures depend on when the count starts—now or once the bill goes into effect, in 2014 (Backgrounder 4). The discrepancy between Reid and Baucus’s estimates is easily explained. Congress will collect revenue for the first ten years of enactment, while only paying out benefits the last six years. This spending plan makes the bill look much cheaper than actuality (Backgrounder 5). Unrestricted government spending has become the new norm. The bigger concern in this fiscal debate focuses on the mandate that everyone acquire insurance through some form or face a penalty. Many proponents believe that an individual mandate will encourage personal responsibility by making free riders pay their share. In a publication by the National Federation of Independent business, Michael Cannon explains how this measure discourages personal responsibility. Cannon says,
"[…] There will always be a cost associated with people who take advantage of that generosity. It is part of the price of living in a compassionate society, and right now it comes to less than three percent of medical spending. Forcing others to purchase health insurance via an individual mandate so that you don’t have to pay the costs generated by your own preferences and decisions is the opposite of personal responsibility." (Cannon 2)
An even more destructive idea is to have a mandate for employers to purchase insurance for their employees. In 1993, newly elected President Bill Clinton sums up his concern for an employer mandate: “If you impose an individual mandate [on employers], what is to stop every other employer from just dumping his employees or her employees?” Health insurance is much more expensive for small business owners compared to big business owners given the limited purchasing power of small employers. If an employer mandate were enacted, small businesses would be in jeopardy all across America (Cannon 3).
It is ironic that the congressmen and women who are self-proclaimed pro choice are supporting this bill that limits an individual’s freedom to choose. The issue of personal responsibility should also be viewed as a violation of individual liberty. Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., the director of the center for health policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, says that, “personal responsibility is not the product of external coercion, rather the fruit of internal decision and the exercise of personal freedom” (Moffit 4). By saying those who would not pay before will become personally responsible by paying now is totally incorrect. One cannot be truly responsible when a government body is forcing him/her to be responsible. This mandate also violates small businesses’ liberties and freedoms. Cannon points out that an employer mandate does not allow businesses to run the way the owner sees fit. Cannon suggests tax reforms and deregulation would help small businesses compete. He argues that individuals should be able to purchase insurance out of state to avoid regulatory costs infringing upon their liberty (3).
Another violation of freedom lies within an additional nationalized insurance plan. These plans, designed to compete with private insurance, would use government price control authority to guarantee a win in the market place (Turner n pag). Private insurance could no longer compete, leaving the government plan as the only option (Turner n pag). Much better plans exist; plans that allow for the exercise of individual liberty. President Bush focused heavily on making consumers aware of the quality and price of plans. He encouraged employers to publish price and quality information. He supported the idea of a consumer driven health plan (CDHPs). Individuals pay more out of pocket costs with CDHPs, but many costs are offset by health savings accounts (HSAs). HSAs are tax deductible that employers can contribute to as well. HSAs also roll over year-to-year and follow the individual when changing jobs. The primary goal behind Bush’s CDHP plan is to encourage people to “shop around until you get the best treatment for the best price” (Clemmit, Rising Health Costs 17).
The health care system in America does need reform. The reform needed, though, is not in the form of a government takeover of one-sixth of the private sector. As mentioned earlier, the reform lies within taxation laws and the deregulation of the insurance and health care industries. Our congressmen and women need to support reforms that are market-based and will keep our country from going completely bankrupt, as Tennessee did when it instated its Medicaid for all policy. Congress must support reforms that preserve the outstanding medical innovativeness we currently experience. This current bill is doing just the opposite. It puts our public health, financial security, and individual freedom at great risk. The decision lies in the hands of Congress, but the American people must be heard, and must stand up for what is right.
In America today, over $6,000 is being spent on health care per person per year, “which amounts to sixteen percent of the nation’s GDP” (Clemmitt, Rising Health Costs 1). This percentage is only expected to rise. To confront this problem, the Democrats in Washington have proposed a massive overhaul of our society’s health care system where bureaucrats decide what benefits are cost-efficient and right for citizens (Clemmit, Health-Care Reform 6). Such an approach could feasibly lead to severe rationing of care. My eighty-eight year old grandmother’s private supplemental insurance covered her stay in the cardiovascular intensive care unit for two days last year. The new plan may reject such stays. My grandmother’s case provides an example that the proposed reforms to the United States health care system would be detrimental to peoples’ health, not to mention financial security, and individual freedom.
The senators in support of this massive overhaul believe that it will improve the country’s public health. This conclusion is not necessarily warranted. Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) changed its recommendation for obtaining mammograms. The Heritage Foundation’s publication, “Backgrounder,” examined the new recommendation. The DHHS has changed their ranking for screening forty- to fifty-year-olds from “B” (recommended) to “C” (not recommended). Under the current proposal, only “A” and “B” rankings can be covered, while procedures ranked “C” or “D” will result in higher costs for the patient (7). Stricter rationing means younger women who will still be at risk for breast cancer cannot be covered by the proposal and would have to pay for the screening themselves. This instance is one of many peeks into life with universal care.
Similar incidents have already occurred in Canada, a country utilizing a universal health plan. In Canada, citizens are prohibited from using private sector insurance for government services. In the book Opposing View Points: Health Care, L. Dean Forman mentions how in 1998, 212,900 Canadians waited for surgery for an average thirteen weeks. Due to the limited, predetermined, budget for health care in Canada, rationing is needed, and occurs (Forman 124). Forman mentions a situation a friend went through:
"A Canadian friend had his mother diagnosed with cancer. Scheduling for follow-up tests would routinely take thirty days, followed by another thirty days for results. The doctor’s response during the two-year ordeal, “You’ve lived a good live, you’re seventy-two years old, we’ll make you comfortable." (Forman 124)
This scenario provides a clear example of the consequences of a universal plan passed by this Congress. The government would be forced to save its resources for only the young and deemed useful, while putting our older and more seasoned citizens at greater risk. In Britain, where a nationalized health system is used, ERs were so crowded that patients remained in gurneys in hallways for as much as a few days. The hospital’s solution: take the wheels off the gurneys. Now the gurneys could classify as hospital beds. Care didn’t improve, but statistics showed otherwise (Turner n. pag.). Many also believe that turning over such a vital portion of our economy “to the same unresponsive, anti-entrepreneurial culture that gave us the response to Hurricane Katrina” would be devastating (Gingrich 7).
Another clear concern with this plan is the price tag. Harry Reid originally said this bill would be under $900 Billion, but according to Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus, the total price on this proposal would be either $1 Trillion or $2.5 Trillion. These massive figures depend on when the count starts—now or once the bill goes into effect, in 2014 (Backgrounder 4). The discrepancy between Reid and Baucus’s estimates is easily explained. Congress will collect revenue for the first ten years of enactment, while only paying out benefits the last six years. This spending plan makes the bill look much cheaper than actuality (Backgrounder 5). Unrestricted government spending has become the new norm. The bigger concern in this fiscal debate focuses on the mandate that everyone acquire insurance through some form or face a penalty. Many proponents believe that an individual mandate will encourage personal responsibility by making free riders pay their share. In a publication by the National Federation of Independent business, Michael Cannon explains how this measure discourages personal responsibility. Cannon says,
"[…] There will always be a cost associated with people who take advantage of that generosity. It is part of the price of living in a compassionate society, and right now it comes to less than three percent of medical spending. Forcing others to purchase health insurance via an individual mandate so that you don’t have to pay the costs generated by your own preferences and decisions is the opposite of personal responsibility." (Cannon 2)
An even more destructive idea is to have a mandate for employers to purchase insurance for their employees. In 1993, newly elected President Bill Clinton sums up his concern for an employer mandate: “If you impose an individual mandate [on employers], what is to stop every other employer from just dumping his employees or her employees?” Health insurance is much more expensive for small business owners compared to big business owners given the limited purchasing power of small employers. If an employer mandate were enacted, small businesses would be in jeopardy all across America (Cannon 3).
It is ironic that the congressmen and women who are self-proclaimed pro choice are supporting this bill that limits an individual’s freedom to choose. The issue of personal responsibility should also be viewed as a violation of individual liberty. Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., the director of the center for health policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, says that, “personal responsibility is not the product of external coercion, rather the fruit of internal decision and the exercise of personal freedom” (Moffit 4). By saying those who would not pay before will become personally responsible by paying now is totally incorrect. One cannot be truly responsible when a government body is forcing him/her to be responsible. This mandate also violates small businesses’ liberties and freedoms. Cannon points out that an employer mandate does not allow businesses to run the way the owner sees fit. Cannon suggests tax reforms and deregulation would help small businesses compete. He argues that individuals should be able to purchase insurance out of state to avoid regulatory costs infringing upon their liberty (3).
Another violation of freedom lies within an additional nationalized insurance plan. These plans, designed to compete with private insurance, would use government price control authority to guarantee a win in the market place (Turner n pag). Private insurance could no longer compete, leaving the government plan as the only option (Turner n pag). Much better plans exist; plans that allow for the exercise of individual liberty. President Bush focused heavily on making consumers aware of the quality and price of plans. He encouraged employers to publish price and quality information. He supported the idea of a consumer driven health plan (CDHPs). Individuals pay more out of pocket costs with CDHPs, but many costs are offset by health savings accounts (HSAs). HSAs are tax deductible that employers can contribute to as well. HSAs also roll over year-to-year and follow the individual when changing jobs. The primary goal behind Bush’s CDHP plan is to encourage people to “shop around until you get the best treatment for the best price” (Clemmit, Rising Health Costs 17).
The health care system in America does need reform. The reform needed, though, is not in the form of a government takeover of one-sixth of the private sector. As mentioned earlier, the reform lies within taxation laws and the deregulation of the insurance and health care industries. Our congressmen and women need to support reforms that are market-based and will keep our country from going completely bankrupt, as Tennessee did when it instated its Medicaid for all policy. Congress must support reforms that preserve the outstanding medical innovativeness we currently experience. This current bill is doing just the opposite. It puts our public health, financial security, and individual freedom at great risk. The decision lies in the hands of Congress, but the American people must be heard, and must stand up for what is right.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Supplementary Update
I have recently been doing a lot of research on the health care debacle for an English essay. I have found a lot of really interesting information. I will be posting my entire five to six page essay on this site within the next week. I will also be commenting on the horrific destruction going on in Haiti now. Please pray for all those living there and for our troops in the Middle East.
Joe
Joe
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)