Judging by the two mail pieces I just received from my congressman, Tim Bishop, it looks like he has settled on his reelection strategy. After all, he doesn’t want to run on his record (ObamaCare, bailouts, Stimulus, trillions in deficit spending); with the demise of earmarks he can’t say he’s bringing home the bacon; since he is facing a re-match in his reelection bid, using the same smear tactics this time around will be harder; so let’s scare the bejeezus out of the seniors.

The Medicare system is going broke. Medicare consumes 10% of GDP today and is forecast to consume 15% of GDP in twenty years, that’s growth of 50%. Tim Bishop says we need to cut spending. Okay, Tim, we’re listening, what would you cut? …Tim?…Anyone out there? Nothing.

Seniors will pay more for care – Tim Bishop

Tim Bishop says seniors will pay more for care. If you are currently on medicare or are over the age of 55, nothing will change. So why is Tim Bishop lying about that? Tim Bishop voted for ObamaCare which has already taking $500 billion away from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare. Remember how they were struggling to get the cost of ObamaCare under $1 trillion? This is how they did it. What Tim Bishop, I believe, is trying to say without telling all the facts, is with regard to future generations, starting in 2021. But Tim Bishop doesn’t want to change Medicare at all and as the table below points out, Medicare will be bankrupt by 2021. So other than scaring people what is Tim’s plan?

In his mail piece Tim Bishop says that “according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, a private health plan as good as Medicare will soon cost $30,000 per year.” Wow! But a little math will show how that is ridiculous. Total spending on all health care in the US runs around 16% of GDP. Total GDP for the US is about $14.6 trillion, so total health care spending comes out to about $2.33 trillion. There are 46.5 million people on Medicare. If they each paid $30,000 just for health care premiums, the premiums alone would total $1.39 trillion. So Tim Bishop wants us to believe that private health insurance premiums for seniors would cost 60% of all health care spending. It just doesn’t add up.

One of the techniques from ObamaCare to “bend the cost curve down” is to pay Medicare providers less and less. It is the same static thinking that the government can do what it wants and nobody will react to it. But in fact, here is one of the chief actuaries of Medicare testifying that 40% of service providers will stop serving Medicare patients. That means rationing and long waits. Who will decide? Not you, but a unelected panel of bureaucrats, accountable to no one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1igPowGu6M

Seniors forced onto for-profit insurance market — Tim Bishop

Tim Bishop makes his plug for socialism by quickly pointing out “for profit” insurance companies. Horrors. Just think of all the damage those “for profit” companies have done to us.

Yes those, for profit companies have made our lives hell compared to the altruistic, benevolent government enterprises. But we all know what happens when a free market is allowed to operate. Calculators that used to cost hundreds of dollars when first introduced are now throw away items; mobile phones that hit the market at $4,000 per copy are now $39; GPS systems that used to cost thousands and require a substantial unit be installed in the trunk of your car, are now a standard feature on your phone. Costs come down, features go up, service improves. Here is the actuary Mr. Foster talking about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z__m5IYoJBg

The True Cost Drivers of Medicare

Despite Tim Bishop’s scare tactics that costs will continue to skyrocket, let’s look at the true drivers of Medicare costs.

• Spending other people’s money. No one is going to spend a lot of time looking int to waste, fraud, and abuse if it is not directly affecting you. But it is about $2,150 per person per year. It is not going to get someone reelected to Congress to fix it, and the individual doesn’t care. If it affects the spending power of their premium and the profits of the evil “for profit” company, you can bet it will be attacked aggressively.
• The Government keeps expanding the goods and services covered by Medicare. I have seen quite enough TV advertisements for “The Scooter Store” telling me how I can get a “free” scooter completely paid for by Medicare.
• The Prescription Drug Plan passed by President Bush had no revenue stream associated with it, so this is all deficit spending. Let drug companies compete for the seniors’ business
• Medicare overpays for many items, because it sets prices higher than the free market would. Are you listening Congressman Bishop?
• Fee for Service – this encourages providers to deliver too many services. When in doubt, add it.

Where “for profit” companies are involved they watch the bottom line. A dollar saved in fraud, waste or abuse, goes straight to the bottom line. The company can decide to either increase profits or cut premiums to grow market share. Medicare is now soviet style centralized planning where a bunch of bureaucrats set prices on 30,000 items and somehow we are to believe they are smarter than all the doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and other health care providers.

Tim Bishop wants to kick the can down the road. Instead of making a contribution and working to fix the problem, he would prefer to scare seniors into voting for him so he can continue to draw his $174,000 salary and keep a low profile. It’s time to retire Congressman.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

National Debt Clock A Long Time Ago When the Debt was Only $6 Trillion

Today the House of Representatives voted on a bill HR 2650, called the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill to get the runaway debt and deficit spending under control. The bill passed the house 234-190, will all but 9 Republicans voting for it and all but 5 Democrats voting against it. Tim Bishop voted no.

I had an opportunity to watch some of the floor debate and the Democrats wasted no time in going in to scare and distort mode. Almost every Democrat who rose to speak said the bill was an attack on Medicare and protecting the rich.

Medicare

But what are the facts on Medicare?

• Medicare is in dire need of reform. Medicare is the second largest federal program and is growing at a staggering 7% a year.  Its costing taxpayers nearly $500 billion a year, with long-term liabilities in excess of $38 trillion. Medicare spending is expected to double over the next decade.
• Conservatives have a plan to save Medicare. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) has offered a plan, which passed the House on April 15th, that would save Medicare for current retirees and future generations without rationing or benefit cuts. The Ryan plan would inject choice and competition into the program, and thus save money by making Medicare more efficient. The plan would take effect  in 2021, and would not affect current seniors. Everyone born before 1956 could keep their current Medicare, exactly as it is.
• The Democrats’ Medicare plan is rationing and benefit cuts. Democrats vehemently oppose the Ryan plan. Instead, their plan is to cut $500 billion out of Medicare, in order to fund their massive new ObamaCare entitlement. They created a rationing board of 15 unelected bureaucrats, known as IPAB, to impose these cuts. IPAB will slash what Medicare pays doctors and hospitals to the  bone. As a result, seniors will have trouble finding a doctor who will take them. Mr. Obama’s own Medicare experts predict 15% of hospitals will go out of business.
• The Ryan plan will allow patients to choose their Medicare plan. Starting in 2021, the Ryan plan would enroll new Medicare seniors in the same kind of health care program that Members of Congress enjoy today. Seniors will be able to choose the coverage that best meets their individual needs from a list of competing high-quality health plans. Why do Democrats oppose giving seniors the same good health care Congress enjoys?

Congress gave themselves a handsome $174,000 salary. Does anyone believe they would skimp on their own healthcare? So why is it a bad idea if seniors have the same plan as Congress?

President Obama’s Plan

The Democrats also talked about Obama’s plan. What plan? As several Republican lawmakers said, “If you have a copy of that plan on paper, slide it over, we’d like to see it.” But there is no plan from the Democrats, just like there has been no budget for the last two years. They say Obama is proposing $3 in spending cuts for each $1 increase in taxes. Where have I heard that before? Ah, yes, that was the deal Tip O’Neill negotiated with Ronald Reagan. They got the tax increases, but the spending cuts never happened. Reagan was lied to. So now President Obama is playing Lucy and he wants Speaker Boehner to be Charlie Brown. No thanks. If it’s not on paper, it doesn’t exist.

Even as they tried to demonize the Republican proposal they couldn’t help themselves; they had to keep talking about the need for “investment” which to Democrats is just a code word for spending. They don’t invest anything. Investing is what the evil rich do, the Democrats job is to take it from them and give it to their backers.

The Democrats also attacked the Republicans for wanting to change the Constitution. How it would be hard to spend money in an emergency or in a time of war. Which is just another lie. There are provisions in the bill to exceed the limits with a super majority. But leaving these lifetime politicians, many of whom never held a job in the private sector, to curb their own appetites to spend their way to reelection, reminded me of budgeting in the private sector. When the business was facing tough times the word came down for everyone to cut. Inevitably people would push back and say, “everything in my budget is critical, I can’t cut anything, you’ll have to get it elsewhere.” That response was typically met as follows. “You can cut it, or I will, but it will be cut. If you cut it, you can decide how it will least impact your responsibilities, but being further removed if I cut it you probably won’t like it.” That’s how it works in the private sector and that is how it will work with the Balanced Budget Amendment. Tough choices have to be made.

In 2007 after the Bush tax cuts of 2003, the Treasury took in more tax revenue than at any time in our history. This is not a revenue problem. It is a spending problem. Congress cannot tax their way out of this and trying to do so will kill the already moribund economy. Tim Bishop, are you listening?

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NddO5yMxicw&feature=player_embedded

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

In article in the New York Times titled, “Squandering Medicare’s Money,” the article itemizes a number of procedures that are routinely perfomed under Medicare, but have little or no medical value. So why are they done? One reason is alluded to in the article while another is not.

The 800 pound gorilla that drives medical costs continually skyward are the personal injury lawyers. Doctors practice defensive medicine because of these lawyers since they don’t want to be sitting in a witness chair answering the question, “Well why didn’t you perform test or procedure X?” Since it wasn’t performed, no one can say what the outcome would have been. In the doctor’s learned opinion he may say that it wasn’t relevant. The lawyer will argue otherwise, but if the doctor can produce negative test results, well, there’s your proof it wasn’t relevant. So the tests get done and billed and medical costs climb.

In Texas, they are reforming the system there. The have put caps on personal injury awards, and are passing legislation that would have someone who brings a frivolous lawsuit pay the legal fees of the winner. Applications for new doctor’s licenses have risen 60% and malpractice insurance premiums have fallen 27%.

The odd thing in the article is it criticizes a number of tests that would be considered preventative. ObamaCare supporters have been pounding the drum for more preventative measures. But sometimes preventative measures are not the best idea. Having a colonoscopy when you are 85 years old, is probably going to be of little value and may actually increase the risk of infection or a perforation of the colon. But when the patient is not involved in the payment process, who cares?

Which brings up the point I make in my book, Liberty’s Lifeline, the need to eliminate third party payers. If you go to a restaurant that has an all you can eat buffet, and you know that someone else is picking up the check, do you not reach for that extra dessert? If you had to lay out the money, or at least part of it, you might question why the procedure was necessary or effective. Gee, that sounds a lot like the Ryan plan. Putting patients in charge of their health and their families, not a nameless, faceless, unaccountable panel of bureaucrats. Just imagine medical care modeled on the Department of Motor Vehicles instead of the doctor’s office that you know today. The former is ObamaCare, the latter is the Paul Ryan plan. Which do you prefer?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

The Democrats are banking on the American people returning to the days of voting by sound bite. They believe the Tea Party is an anomaly that will go down as a blip in the history books, rather than a force for educating the electorate on the issues. It is a strategy that has worked for them, even as recently as the 2010 election. In the First Congressional District of New York, Congressman Tim Bishop ran for reelection entirely on bashing his opponent, and not mentioning his record of voting with Nancy Pelosi 97% of the time.

The most recent trial balloon was in New York’s 26th Congressional District special election. There Democrat Kathy Hochul ran on the demagoguery that Paul Ryan’s budget plan, which her Republican opponent Jane Corwin supported, meant the end of Medicare. Hochul said:

“We had the issues on our side—did we not have the right issues on our side?” Ms. Hochul said at her victory party, as supporters chanted “Medicare! Medicare!”

We had the issues on our side? “We can balance our budget the right way and not on the backs of our seniors,” she said. Democrats said the program [Medicare] should be steadied through other measures. Okay, tell us, just what are those measures? Anyone?

Where is balancing the budget on the back of seniors in the Ryan plan? Better yet, how does the Ryan plan stack up against the Democrats plan? Oh, that’s right, the Democrats don’t have a plan. The Democrats want to continue the status quo of spending us into oblivion. They want to take the only real plan on the table, the Ryan plan, and not challenge it with ideas of their own, but try to hang it around the necks of the Republicans.

Senate Democrats were expected to bring up the House Republicans’ 2012 budget plan for a vote this week, but not their own plan, which remains under lock and key.

The Democrats want to get the Republicans in the Senate on record as supporting the Ryan plan as did all but four Republicans in the House. They believe that by pointing to support for the Ryan plan, they are home free to retake the House while retaining the Senate, reelect President Obama and finish the job of destroying America, the America we know and the America our founders envisioned. But don’t take my word for it, listen to Harry Reid.

“There’s no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion,” Reid told the Los  Angeles Times last week. “It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this  stage.”

After all if you have a plan, people can look at it and evaluate it and from where the Democrats are coming from it would be suicidal to actually admit through a vote what they are trying to do.

Next to the lackluster economy and a persistently high 9 percent unemployment rate, runaway spending and debt remain among the voters’ greatest concerns. But the Democrats‘ strategy right now is not to grab the deficit by the horns and wrestle it into submission. It is to play political games with the issue and with the American people, to help the Democrats win back control of the House and rebuild their dwindling forces in the Senate. — Washington Times, 24 May 2011

The Democrats who have added $5 trillion to the debt since re-taking control of Congress in 2006, have not passed a budget and have no intention of doing so and as every household and business knows, without a budget spending will be out of control.

While the Democrats draw up their battle plans to smear, lie, and distort the issues, and terrorize seniors in the hope that they will remain ignorant and not question the accuracy of their statements, it will fall upon the Tea Party to ramp up another education effort to spread the truth. I’ll let Mr. Ryan lead off here:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJIC7kEq6kw&feature=player_embedded

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Newt Gingrich may have just killed his presidential bid in less than a week after announcing it. Aside from his support of ethanol subsidies, the old commercial sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi, he tops it off by attacking Paul Ryan’s budget that was approved by all but four Republican members of the House of Representatives.

He says the Ryan plan is too radical. Compared to what? ObamaCare?

While Medicare savings under the Democrats’ health care law and pending proposals would come mainly from reduced federal payments to doctors, hospitals and insurance companies, the budget put forth by House Republicans would cut spending by turning Medicare into a system of vouchers for future beneficiaries to buy private insurance, but in amounts that would not keep pace with the projected inflation of health costs.

The Democrats’ plan is to pay doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies less. How does that work in the real world? Doctors will refuse to accept more Medicare patients as will hospitals. So Medicare recipients may have coverage, but won’t have a doctor to serve them. You cannot bring down the cost of medical care by government fiat.

Ryan’s plan actually brings the free market into play by putting the decision making in the hands of the consumer. Of course, the Democrats say that amount Ryan proposes will not keep up with the rising costs of medical care. Aren’t these the same people who said if we did not spend nearly a trillion on the stimulus, unemployment would rise to 9%, wheras if we did, it would go no higher than 8%?

Paul Ryan showed the courage to tackle entitlements and with a credible plan. It may not be perfect, but it is a solid start. The Democrats’ “plan” is just more politbureau control from Washington dictating to the rest of us their failed solutions. It’s time for a change.

As for Newt, he can go back to the think tank, and re-think some of his positions.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

(This is the last of a series of articles focusing on topics presented at the Cato Policy Perspectives 2011 conference held at New York’s Waldorf Astoria hotel on Friday, April 8, 2011)

“What a difference a year makes” is short assessment of ObamaCare presented by Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute. “It cannot be fixed, it has to be repealed,” was his blunt conclusion.

As long as you are not Rip Van Winkle you should know by now that as Nancy Pelosi famously said, “We have to pass the bill, to find out what is in it.” Well, we’re finding out. We found out that it was true ObamaCare does double count $500 billion in savings, there are thousands of organizations asking for waivers from the program, and the individual mandate has been struck down by several courts.

Mr. Cannon pointed out that the indivdual mandate requires people to obtain more healthcare than they want and he also described several case studies:

• Deamonte Driver — He was on Medicaid. He had a toothache. He couldn’t find a dentist that took Medicaid patients. The infection from his abscess spread to his brain. He died.
• Draven Smith — He was expelled from school twice in four years. He could not find a doctor under Medicaid to deal with his behavioral health problem.

ObamaCare is pitching bringing all uninsured people under Medicaid and Medicare. This was the big solution to our national health care problem. I don’t think Deamonte or Draven would agree.

Two other case studies pointed to the perverse incentives for insurance companies to drop certain kinds of coverage such as 24 hour nursing service because it attracts sick people. Child only coverage is being dropped across the country. Doctors are seeing reimbursement rates being curtailed so they are not accepting Medicare patients.

It is almost as if ObamaCare is designed to destroy the health care system we have in this country so that a government run system will have to step into the void. As an example, it effectively killed an insurance product that would have guaranteed that the insured could get coverage at some time in the future. Isn’t that one of the major complaints about our current health care system? The free market came up with a solution, but it has since been dropped because of ObamaCare.

Repeal and replace.

Not to leave this subject on a grim note, I had the privelage of meeting economist Mark Skousen at the event and he told me that he was the star of a recent video I had seen parodying ObamaCare. I share it with you here.

httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkH_aaaSOP0&feature=youtu.be&hd=1

Maybe it’s just me. Perhaps not having lived in the rarefied air of academia or politics, I have a more roll up the sleeves, get some dirt under the fingernails approach to what a job entails. Today it seems that politicians like to get in front of the cameras, fire off a sound bite and then go do something more interesting.

President Obama puts our troops in harm’s way and then jets off to Brazil to be photographed doing the samba, and saying he wants to be first in line to buy more foreign oil, this time from Brazil. Didn’t he just say that he wants to cut our imports of foreign oil by one third? Shouldn’t we be drilling here rather than lining up new suppliers?

We have a myriad of problems that include spending, the crisis in the Middle East, North Korea, unemployment, the budget, and yet the president has found time to play sixty-one rounds of golf, at last count. Who’s minding the store?

Newly elected Delaware Senator Chris Coons got on television to lament that he is holding a job fair at his Delaware office and if the government shuts down Friday night, he won’t have any staffers to run the job fair. This is very, very bad. Er, excuse me, senator but your job is to pass a budget not to be the local employment office. Cancel the job fair, as I am sure there are plenty of government and private agencies that handle that, and get back to work doing what you were elected to do.

In a similar vein, Congressman Tim Bishop is scheduled to kick off his 2012 reelection campaign this Sunday so that he can plan on continuing to pick up his $174,000 salary for failing to pass a budget. I am sure his quick retort will be that he is in the minority and therefore powerless to move those stubborn Republicans. But it was his failure a few short months ago when he and Nancy Pelosi were in the majority to pass a budget resolution for the first time since budget resolutions became standard practice. They also failed to pass the appropriation bills to fund the government until the end of the fiscal year in October.

A cynic might look at it as a designed power play. “Look, we’re going to get clobbered in 2010, so let’s not vote on a budget or spending bills and it will be a twofer. One, we won’t be held accountable for voting for higher spending and that may save a couple of seats in November 2010; two, it will dump this mess in the Republicans lap and if we hold the Senate we can force a government shutdown and blame them like we did in 1995. Then we can coast back into power in 2012.” Of course, you would have to be a cynic to believe that, wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you?

In the midst of the current budget crisis we hear an announcement by Harry Reid that their staffs will be working through the night, and the politicians will be back in front of the microphones tomorrow.

I worked a number of years in Information Technology, specifically in the credit card business. I can remember sitting at my desk on New Year’s Eve 1999. Perhaps the biggest New Year’s celebration of a lifetime and I was at my desk. Why? Remember the Year 2000 software bug? Well, we had to be ready to respond instantly if anying we worked endless hours to prevent slipped through. Nothing did and around 3AM or so, we started to head home. On the day after Thanksgiving, known as Black Friday, in the retail world it was “all hands on deck” to make sure that things worked and if there were any hiccups, we were on top of them immediately. Although I was a VP, I was there on the floor with the first line folks. The same went for any major software releases. If a critical decision had to be made we were there to make them. That’s the way it was done. We didn’t make pronouncements and go play golf. We were there onsite. But that is in the private sector, where things like profits and losses matter, accountability is real, and lifetime employment is unheard of. We could be fired any day, not just one day every two, four or six years.

We have a right to that accountability from our political leaders. Instead of raising funds for the next run for office, these politicians should have their salary cut off and be dipping into their savings to pay for the skyrocketing gasoline prices that are a result of not exploring for energy here, and instead destroying the dollar. Instead of doing their jobs, those on the left are ramping up their slime machines to give every reason under the sun why they can’t possibly cut any spending. There was some Congressman on the news talking about how wonderfully efficient Medicare is and how those evil Republicans want to put that in the hands of private insurers, horrors! It is common knowledge that between $60 – $100 billion is STOLEN from Medicare every year. How is that for efficiency? As I point out in my book Liberty’s Lifeline Steve Kroft of Sixty Minutes reported that stealing from Medicare pushed aside cocaine as the major criminal enterprise in South Florida.

2012 is coming and everyone one of these hand wringing, overpaid, do nothing, politicians should be bounced out on the street, if they don’t want to step up and transform Washington in to an efficient and accountable government.

That’s my opinion, I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

I do not like to throw around a charge of mendacity without good reason particularly after listening to the mainstream media and liberal blogosphere accuse Bush of this all day long.  But the more I listen to what comes out of this administration and the actions they take it is getting harder to hold my fire.

Take for example the brouhaha over the immigration law that hasn’t even gone into effect yet in Arizona.  From the start the administration has falsely portrayed the law as racial profiling, but when asked if they had actually read the ten page law, both Attorney General Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano said they had not.  How do people in such senior positions in any administration make such a bold claim without reading what they are opposing?  It begs the question, do they know they are talking about?

The federal government has gone forward and is suing Arizona over the law claiming that it preempts federal law.  But here are some interesting questions:

• If the Arizona law preempts federal law and that is a bad thing, why does the federal government not sue San Francisco and other cities who have openly professed that they are Sanctuary Cities and immigration law will not be enforced therein?
• A recent news report is that there is a law on the books in Rhode Island that is virtually identical to the law in Arizona and it has withstood judicial challenge?  Why isn’t the federal government suing Rhode Island?
• The thrust of the federal government’s pique with the Arizona law is their claim that it is discriminatory.  But this same administration has just ordered that a case be dropped against a radical hate group, the Black Panthers, for putting armed thugs outside a polling place in Philadelphia on Election Day in 2008.  According to six career Civil Rights attorneys in the Justice Department, the case was a slam dunk and they had already gotten a default judgment from the court, but this administration chose to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  The Justice Department’s claim is that the facts did not fit the law.  Anyone who has seen the video of the incident knows that is a bald faced lie.  Is this administration for discrimination or against it?

The latest move by this administration against the rest of us is the recess appointment of Donald Berwick as the head of Medicare.  The lie in this case, is that the Republicans were stalling the appointment for “political purposes.”  Now other presidents have used recess appointments.  Both Clinton and Bush used them many times, however it was typically when they could not get the Senate to act on their nominee.  In this case, Max Baucus (D – MT), had not even scheduled hearings and eleven weeks after the nomination, the administration had not yet completed the nominating paperwork.  So was this action taken because of inaction on the part of the Senate or was the administration lying because they really didn’t want a public debate on Dr. Berwick?

Dr. Berwick has said he is, “Romantic about the National Health Service,” of Britain.  For all the false claims by the Obama Administration that if you are happy with your current health insurance you will be able to keep it, they stealthily appoint a socialized medicine disciple.  Dr. Berwick has also famously said:

 “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care – the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Let’s see, the Obama Administration appoints Dr. Berwick head of Medicare.  Medicare is the health care program for the elderly.  Dr. Berwick is plain about health care rationing and suggests the way to do it is with our eyes open.  While the term “death panel” may have been used by Sarah Palin partially for its shock value to drive home her point, changing the name to a “rationing” panel would make it different in what way?

Here is the key distinction.  In the hands of the individual and their family, they can decide what kind of care they want to provide their loved ones.  They can decide when enough is enough or whether to press on.  In a free market, insurance policies would be true insurance not medical payment plans.  But regardless you would have the liberty to decide.  In this administration’s world, some bureaucrat makes the decision and after they have driven all the alternatives out of business, other than those available to the wealthy, you will have no choice but to succumb to the will of Big Brother.

We are currently surrounded by news of massive government failures in regulation in the areas of finance and the oil industry and we are to believe that they will be superb in running one-sixth of the economy.  Do you believe the lies?

The other day we read reports of Democratic Senators scrambling to create an oversight panel to prevent health care providers from dramatically increasing premiums over the next four years because, shockingly, costs are supposed to go down not up.

Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services released a report analyzing the effects of ObamaCare:

The sobering assessment by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services concludes what Republicans had warned about during heated debate — that the double-counting of Medicare spending — as both savings and as a means to shore up the debt-ridden government fund for seniors’ health care — means the cost is unrealistic.

The analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years, or $311 billion, up from the $222 billion previous estimated.

Excuse me, captain, but was that an iceberg we just hit?  We all know the Titanic sank on her maiden voyage, and it looks like ObamaCare is taking on water only weeks after being launched.  As Congressman John Boehner said:

“According to his own administration’s analysis, the health care law the president signed one month ago today would violate his pledge to ‘bend the cost curve’ and force millions of seniors off their current Medicare coverage. This is in addition to what we already know about how this new law is squeezing employers with job-killing tax hikes and leaving middle-class families to brace for higher premiums,” he said. 

When talk turns to repealing this law is Obama still smugly saying, “Bring it on”?

This is from today’s New York Times:

“Fearing that health insurance premiums may shoot up in the next few years, Senate Democrats laid a foundation on Tuesday for federal regulation of rates, four weeks after President Obama signed a law intended to rein in soaring health costs.”

With the ink barely dry on ObamaCare, Democrats in Congress are scrambling to keep their masterpiece from unraveling.  As I have pointed out repeatedly, there is nothing in the ObamaCare plan that helps reduce the cost of delivering health care.  It is all about controlling what doctors, medical service providers, and insurance companies are paid.  All the underlying pressures on health costs (tort reform, 3rd party payer, etc.) are still in place.

“We Have to Pass the Bill to Know What’s In It”

Nancy Pelosi’s stunning but famous words are coming into play.  Let’s see what has the senators panicked.

• To hoodwink the American people that this abomination is cost effective, ObamaCare warms up by hitting us with four years of taxes before the expensive benefits come into play.
• Every American will be required to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.  That penalty will initially be $95 per adult in 2014, rising to $695 per adult in 2016 and $2,085 for a family.  This money will be collected by the IRS, not by insurance companies
• Americans cannot be denied coverage for an existing condition

So here’s the scenario.  If you compare the cost of the penalty of $2,085 for a family vs. the cost of insurance for a family of $10,000, coupled with the inability of insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, healthy people will start dropping insurance coverage left and right.  Why not?  On the way to the hospital, you can call an insurance company and say you want to be covered for the pains in your chest and you cannot be denied.  So insurance companies will only have sick people as clients.  With only sick people that they constantly have to pay claims on, their only course of action if they want to stay in business is to raise premiums on all those sick people.  If they start doing it now, they may be able to raise them less than if they wait until 2016.

So the insurance companies are acting rationally to this mess the Democrats dragged across the finish line and now they are shocked, SHOCKED, that they should do this. 

Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a research center that advocates free-market health policies, said the Democrats’ proposal was unlikely to succeed in lowering insurance costs.

“Capping premiums without recognizing the forces that are driving up costs would be like tightening the lid on a pressure cooker while the heat is being turned up,” Mrs. Turner said.

The Democratic fix is to have a new bureaucracy that will provide a check on unjustified premiums.  I think you can look at this in one of two ways, both plausible.  The Democrats were stupid enough to believe, as they typically do, that Americans don’t act rationally to their government policies.  It’s also why they don’t understand that when they raise taxes they never collect as much money as they thought, and when taxes are cut they can’t believe how much money flows into the Treasury due to economic growth.  The second scenario is this new commission will cap premiums to the point of driving private insurance companies out of business and then the Democrats will say, “Geez, we didn’t want to do this, but I guess we have to put in place a public option that, by the way, will be the only option.”

Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, said: “Health insurance companies’ profits for one year equal about two days of health care spending in the United States. So even if we were to take away all the profits of the so-called greedy insurance companies, that would still leave 363 days a year when health care costs are expanding at a rate our country cannot afford.”

Now that I think about it, it is probably the second scenario that is more likely, that is, force the public option.  Your government is about to swallow up another big chunk of the economy if  we don’t turn them out in November.