posted July 19, 2009 05:19 PM         

Health Reform: Many extravagant claims have been made on behalf of the various health care "reforms" now emerging from Congress and the White House. But on closer inspection, virtually all prove to be false.

IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure

Yet even as many Americans start to have second thoughts about our government's possible takeover of the health care system, Congress is rushing to make it happen.

On Friday, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bill that would radically change our current system and expand coverage for the uninsured. The action came a day after the head of the Congressional Budget Office said none of the plans under review would slow health care spending. None of them.

Still, lawmakers and the White House press on, relying on GOP weakness in the House and a new veto-proof majority in the Senate. They're also relying on a lack of awareness that claims made on behalf of national health care may be mostly false. Among them:

• America has a health care crisis.

No, we don't. Forty-seven million people lack insurance. Of the remaining 85% of the population, or 258 million people, polls show high satisfaction with the current coverage. Indeed, a 2006 poll by ABC News, the Kaiser Family Foundation and USA Today found 89% of Americans were happy with their own health care.

As for the estimated 47 million not covered by health insurance, 20 million can afford to buy it, according to a study by former CBO Director June O'Neill. Most of the other 27 million are single and under 35, with as many as a third illegal aliens.

When it's all whittled down, as few as 12 million are unable to buy insurance — less than 4% of a population of 305 million. For this we need to nationalize 17% of our nation's $14 trillion economy and change the current care that 89% like?

• Health care reform will save money.

Few of the plans now coming out of Congress will save anything, says the CBO's current chief, Douglas Elmendorf. In fact, he says, they'll lead to substantially higher costs in the future — costs that will be "unsustainable."

As it is, estimates for reforming health care range from $1 trillion to $3.6 trillion. Much will be spent on subsidies to make a so-called public option more attractive to consumers than private plans.

To pay for it, the president has suggested about $600 billion in new taxes, meaning that $500 billion to $2.1 trillion in new health care spending over the next decade will be unfunded. This could push up the nation's already soaring deficit, expected to reach $10 trillion through 2019 without health care reform. Massive new tax hikes will probably be needed to close the gap.

• Only the rich will pay for reform.

The 5.4% surtax on millionaires the president is pushing gets all the attention, but everyone down to $280,000 in income will pay more. Doesn't that still leave out the middle class and poor? Sorry. Workers who decline to take part will pay a tax of up to 2% of earnings. And small-businesses must pony up 8% of their payrolls.

The poor and middle class must pay in other ways, without knowing it. The biggest hit will be on small businesses, which, due to new payroll taxes, will be less likely to hire workers. Today's 9.5% jobless rate may become a permanent feature of our economy — just as it is in Europe, where nationalized health care is common.

• Government-run health care produces better results.

The biggest potential lie of all. America has the best health care in the world, and most Americans know it. Yet we hear that many "go without care" while in nationalized systems it is "guaranteed."

U.S. life expectancy in 2006 was 78.1 years, ranking behind 30 other countries. So if our health care is so good, why don't we live as long as everyone else?

Three reasons. One, our homicide rate is two to three times higher than other countries. Two, because we drive so much, we have a higher fatality rate on our roads — 14.24 fatalities per 100,000 people vs. 6.19 in Germany, 7.4 in France and 9.25 in Canada. Three, Americans eat far more than those in other nations, contributing to higher levels of heart disease, diabetes and some cancers.

These are diseases of wealth, not the fault of the health care system. A study by Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa found that if you subtract our higher death rates from accidents and homicide, Americans actually live longer than people in other countries.

In countries with nationalized care, medical outcomes are often catastrophically worse. Take breast cancer. According to the Heritage Foundation, breast cancer mortality in Germany is 52% higher than in the U.S.; the U.K.'s rate is 88% higher. For prostate cancer, mortality is 604% higher in the U.K. and 457% higher in Norway. Colorectal cancer? Forty percent higher in the U.K.

But what about the health care paradise to our north? Americans have almost uniformly better outcomes and lower mortality rates than Canada, where breast cancer mortality is 9% higher, prostate cancer 184% higher and colon cancer 10% higher.

Then there are the waiting lists. With a population just under that of California, 830,000 Canadians are waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment. In England, the list is 1.8 million deep.

Universal health care, wrote Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute in her excellent book, "Top Ten Myths Of American Health Care," will inevitably result in "higher taxes, forced premium payments, one-size-fits-all policies, long waiting lists, rationed care and limited access to cutting-edge medicine."

Before you sign up, you might want to check with people in countries that have the kind of system the White House and Congress have in mind. Recent polls show that more than 70% of Germans, Australians, Britons, Canadians and New Zealanders think their systems need "complete rebuilding" or "fundamental change."

• The poor lack care.

Many may lack insurance, but that doesn't mean they lack care. The law says anyone who walks into a hospital emergency room must be treated. America has 37 million people in poverty, but Medicaid covers 55 million — at a cost of $350 billion a year.

posted July 19, 2009 07:44 PM         

No katatonic. One would walk into the emergency ward with symptoms of "something". Tests would be run to determine what that "something" is and then one would be treated for "cancer".

Don't you know federal law requires treatment...with or without health insurance for disease or illness or injury?

What the hell planet are you living on?

On the other hand, you could be in Britain..and/or Canada and die from cancer before you were ever diagnosed. You could die of cancer before you ever got to see your "general practitioner" with their long waiting lists.

I'm going to put you in the column favoring Socialist Health Care...and Socialist everything else.

posted July 19, 2009 07:59 PM         

funny isn't it? you have insulted me in pretty much every way possible. but you take personal insult when i suggest some people don't like obama cause they're afraid the white man is losing his grip....

i would imagine you have a hard time having rational conversation with any number of people. that's what happens when you aren't rational. when you insult people for relating their personal experiences as evidence there MIGHT be another side to the story. when you think everyone exists in the same bubble you inhabit.

oh well them's the breaks. can't please everyone!

posted July 20, 2009 11:38 AM         

You have supported and defended every Socialist cause posted here...as well as defending Socialist nations.

You have defended and continue to defend the Marxist Socialist O'Bomber and his Loony Tunes policies which are sending the US down the tubes.

quote:

---

"its been a long, long, long time coming, but a change is gonna come"....the world is moving on, jwhop..katatonic

---

I agree in general with this katatonic. But the world is NOT MOVING ON in the direction of Socialism as you surmise. In Europe, Socialists have worn out their welcome by spending their nations into virtual bankruptcy and many have already been replaced in governments. In Britain, they can't wait to throw Brown and his Socialist morons out of office.

posted July 20, 2009 11:47 AM         

in case you haven't noticed in this country recently the tide went the other way. so at this point in time the two countries are on opposite sides of the same seesaw.

it's really not worth arguing about. swings and roundabouts, this party/ that party. wherever you look people are fed up with the status quo so they jump from the frying pan into the fire. is that a solution?

i am not defending anybody. they can do their own defending. i am just trying to point out to you that if you make up your mind not to change your mind no amount of facts will sink in.

as i mentioned, i speak from personal experience. the national health in england was working fine last i heard. as well as the system here. i have family over there and they have no problem getting in to see their doctors, or getting state of the art treatment. but you know better.

i know things are a mess over there right now. they are also a mess here. but it is not so much the system as the way it is being manipulated. when you have honest people in the power seats most systems work just fine. when you have greedy, power hungry twats in there, nothing works.

posted July 20, 2009 05:11 PM         

O'Bomber is running scared and so are his Marxist Socialist drones in Congress.

That's the reason the O'Bomber White House isn't going to release a report showing just how large a failure the "stimulus/porkulus bill really is...until after the vote on O'BomberCare. This is a July report O'Bomber has now pushed back to an August release date.

Wouldn't want the suckers to find out just how badly O'Bomber and his Marxist Socialist pals in Congress have screwed up the economy of the United States.

In the meantime, O'Biden is running around America shouting..."IT'S WORKING". It's only working if the intent was to destroy the economy.

On another front, a brain dead White House so called economic adviser..Larry Summers.. says the economy has turned around and consumer confidence is returning...based on a google search for "economic depression"; of which he says...the number of searches for "economic depression" are down over previous months.....so things must be better.

Now if google searches are economist tools, they must be known to only a select few who pass the search tool down to only A select few secret acolytes of economics.

posted July 20, 2009 06:53 PM         

It seems the Obama Administration is trying to hide the proverbial dead elephant in the middle of the room.

Traditionally the executive branch releases the annual midsummer budget update in mid-July. This update replaces data from budgets and forecasts with actual spending and revenue figures from the first half of the federal fiscal year which ended March 31, 2009. By using real data the Office of Management and Budget can provide a more accurate forecast of deficits or surpluses going forward.

The Obama Administration is breaking tradition by delaying the release of the information until mid-August - after Congress leaves for its summer recess. The Obama administration is also trying to push congress to pass health care reform bills before the recess.

As I type, the NYT Caucus Column is one of the few sources currently reporting on this wonky issue. This Google Search should show other reporting on the issue if it becomes available.

Although the Whitehouse is able to spike the deficit projections for the rest of FY 2009, the actual deficit numbers are available for the first three quarters of FY 2009 and they are not pretty. The June 2009 Monthly Treasury Statement reports:

YTD Deficit FY2008 - $US 454.8 billion

YTD Deficit FY2009 - $US 1086.3 billion
**umm, that's a TRILLION and change budget deficit.**

Although increased spending initiatives like the Stimulus Bill make headlines, the vast majority of the money in the Stimulus bill has not been spent. The biggest change to the federal financial picture is a $345.2 billion drop in YTD revenue between FY 2008 and FY2009. This represents a staggering %17.9 percent of revenue. This revenue drop far worse than most observers expected and has not made its way into many forecasts as of yet.

According to the Federal Reserve, unemployment is expected to remain at or above current levels into the end of 2010. Stimulus Bill spending is expected to start in earnest FY2010. If revenues continue to drop or stay at their current anemic levels, and spending begins to rise sharply, we might one day look back fondly at our current $US $1086.3 billion deficit.

posted July 21, 2009 08:54 AM         

A 22-year-old alcoholic has died after being refused a life-saving liver transplant because he was too ill to leave hospital and prove he could stay sober.

Gary with his mother just days before he died. Pic: The Sunday Times

Gary Reinbach, who died in hospital on Monday from a severe case of liver cirrhosis, did not qualify for a donor liver under strict NHS rules.

The alcoholic, from Dagenham, Essex, had admitted binge drinking since he was 13 but was only taken to hospital for the first time with liver problems 10 weeks ago.

He was never discharged.

His mother Madeline Hanshaw, 44, said: "These rules are really unfair."

She told the Evening Standard: "I'm not saying you should give a transplant to someone who is in and out of hospital all the time and keeps damaging themselves, but just for people like Gary, who made a mistake and never got a second chance."

She said he was "desperate to recover" but had deteriorated quickly.

There has not really been much research into younger people's drinking and the effects that is having on health in this country.

Campaign group Alcohol Concern

Mr Reinbach's family said he had started drinking aged 11 when his parents split up and drank heavily from the age of 13.

He had recently tried to give up and had signed up for support group Alcoholics Anonymous just weeks before he was taken into hospital, they said.

His brother Luke, 18, told the Evening Standard: "They never gave him the chance to show he could change."

Mr Reinbach died at University College Hospital, London.

A hospital spokeswoman said: "Our sympathies are with his family at this time."

Campaign group Alcohol Concern says it is worried a rise in teenage drinking will lead to more people suffering alcohol-related illnesses at younger ages.

"There has not really been much research into younger people's drinking and the effects that is having on health in this country," said a spokeswoman.

posted July 21, 2009 09:41 AM         

I also want a well qualified pilot in the cockpit when I fly commercial.

I do not want treatment from an affirmative action hiree or trainee who could not make it into medical school without a deck stacked in their favor.

No wonder O'Bomber wanted the racist, gender biased, bigot Sotomayor on the US Supreme Court. She's all for affirmative action, and racist quotas too even though it's proved to be an unconstitutional infringement on the 14th Amendment right to equal treatment under the laws.

I think I understand O'Bomber, Sotomayor and other racists. They think some should be "more equal" under the laws than others.

July 21, 2009
Racial Preferences in the Democrats' Health Care Bill
By Allan J. Favish

All 1,018 pages of the Democrats' health care bill can be inspected here. http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

The bill includes racial preferences. Under the Democrats' health care bill, if a medical school wants to increase its chances of receiving many different kinds of grants and contracts from the federal government, it should have a demonstrated record of training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups. This is because the Democrats' health care bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give preference to the entities that have demonstrated such a record in the awarding of these contracts to medical schools and other institutions.

The bill does not state what would qualify as a "demonstrated record", so we can expect medical schools and the other entities to do whatever they think they can get away with to train as many "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" as they think they might need to have a better "demonstrated record" in this regard then other entities competing for the grants and contracts. The Democrats' health care bill creates a very significant financial incentive for medical schools and other entities to lower admission standards for "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" if that is what it takes to have the winning "demonstrated record".

On page 879-880, the bill states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services

"shall make grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities . . . to operate a professional training program in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, or geriatrics, to provide financial assistance and traineeships and fellowships to those students, interns, residents or physicians who plan to work in or teach in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, or geriatrics."

On page 881-882 the bill states:

"In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."

On page 883 the bill states:

"The Secretary shall make grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities . . . to operate or participate in an established primary care residency training program, which may include-(A) planning and developing curricula; (B) recruitment and training of residents; and (C) retention of faculty."

On page 884-885 the bill states:

"In awarding grants and contracts . . . the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of training . . . individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds . . . ."

On page 887-889 the bill states that the

"Secretary shall make grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities . . . to operate a professional training program for oral health professionals, to provide financial assistance and traineeships and fellowships to those professionals who plan to work in or teach general, pediatric, or public health dentistry, or dental hygiene, to establish, maintain, or improve academic administrative units (including departments, divisions, or other appropriate units) in the specialties of general, pediatric, or public health dentistry, to operate a loan repayment program for full-time faculty in a program of general, pediatric, or public health dentistry."

On page 889-890 the bill states:

"In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."

On page 908-909 the bill states: "The Secretary shall award grants and contracts to eligible entities" to do the same things for the field of public health as the Secretary can do for dentistry.

On page 909 the bill states:

"In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups", the Democrats' policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual's physical appearance or surname is no less a "badge of inferiority" than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats' racial preference program, all of the "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

posted July 22, 2009 09:26 AM         

I wonder if THE MESSIAH is familiar with the section which mandates "End of Life" counseling? That's mandated whether you're ill or not but are of a certain age. It seems some dope is going to sit Americans down and attempt to convince them to accept euthanasia...you know, to throw in the towel to prevent themselves from becoming a burden on society or to their families.

I also wonder if somewhere in this loony-tunes legislation there's a section for O'BomberCare euthanasia.

THE ONE, THE MESSIAH is running around America making promises to Americans he knows are outright lies.

He's telling America O'BomberCare will not raise health care costs...that's a flat out lie.

He's telling America they will be able to keep their own doctors...that's a flat out lie.

He's telling America O'BomberCare will not increase the annual deficits...that's a flat out lie.

He's telling America O'BomberCare will improve the health care patients receive from their physicians and hospitals....that's a flat out lie.

He's telling America O'BomberCare will not lead to health care rationing...that's a flat out lie because the entire thrust of this loony-tunes health care scheme IS TO LIMIT..RATION HEALTH CARE SERVICES AND NOT TREAT THOSE WHOM O'BOMBER AND HIS MARXIST BUDS IN CONGRESS CONSIDER TO NOT BE COST EFFECTIVE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE INTENT OF THIS LEGISLATION IS TO KILL CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BY REFUSING TO TREAT THEM FOR INJURIES, ILLNESSES AND DISEASES.

Further, it's not doctors who will make those decisions. It's nameless, faceless, unelected petty bureaucrats with no medical training whatsoever.

This is the glorious new future of Marxist Socialist health care O'Bomber is attempting to force on Americans.

It's time for Americans to get out their files and pitchforks and start sharpening the tines.

O'Bomber Admits "He's Not Familiar" With House Bill
July 21, 2009
Heritage Foundation

With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)

This is a truly disturbing admission by the President, especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter.

We are familiar with the passage IBD sites, and as we wrote last week, the House bill does not outright outlaw private individual health insurance, but it does effectively regulate it out of existence. The House bill does allow private insurance to be sold, but only “Exchange-participating health benefits plans.” In order to qualify as an ?Exchange-participating health benefits plan,? all health insurance plans must conform to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue. These will all send the cost of private individual health insurance skyrocketing. Furthermore, all these new regulations would not apply just to individual insurance plans, but to all insurance plans. So the House bill will also drive up the cost of your existing employer coverage as well. Until, of course, it becomes so expensive that your company makes the perfectly economical decision to dump you into the government plan.

President Obama may not care to study how many people will lose their current health insurance if his plan becomes law, but like most Americans, we do. That is why we partnered with the Lewin Group to study how many Americans would be forced into the government “option” under the House health plan. Here is what we found:

Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and, as a consequence, about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.

Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately-insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.

It is truly frightening that the President of the United States is pressuring Congress in an all-out media blitz to pass legislation that he flatly admits he has not read and is not familiar with. President Obama owes it to the American people to stop making promises about what his health plan will or will not do until he has read it, and can properly defend it in public, to his own supporters.

Quick Hits:

posted July 22, 2009 11:59 AM         

How about that? And there are other members of Congress who would have to be refused any treatment under O'BomberCare. One would be the only KKK member in the US Congress, Robert KKK Byrd.

They would already be dead under O'BomberCare

We should insist that whatever they prescribe for the rest of America applies to them as well...including O'Bomber himself.

We keep hearing about "fairness" so let's make sure the health care lottery O'Bomber is attempting to set up applies to everyone...equally.

July 22, 2009
Does Ted Kennedy deserve his extended cancer care?
By James Lewis

Senator Ted Kennedy, who is now 76 years old and was diagnosed with brain cancer in May of last year, is telling the world that nationalized medical care is "the cause of his life." He wants to see it pass as soon as possible, before he departs this vale of tears.

The prospect of Kennedy's passing is viewed by the liberal press with anticipatory tears and mourning. But they are not asking the proper question by their own lights: That question -- which will be asked for you and me when we reach his age and state in life --- is this:

Is Senator Kennedy's life valuable enough to dedicate millions of dollars to extending it another month, another day, another year?

Because Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy agree with each other that they of all people are entitled to make that decision. Your decision to live or die will now be in their hands.

Ted Kennedy is now 76. Average life expectancy in the United States is 78.06. For a man who has already reached 76, life expectancy is somewhat longer than average (since people who die younger lower the national average); for a wealthy white man it may be somewhat longer statistically; but for a man with diagnosed brain cancer it is correspondingly less. As far as the actuarial tables of the Nanny State are concerned, Kennedy is due to leave this life some time soon. The socialist State is not sentimental, at least when it comes to the lives of ordinary people like you and me.

The socialist question -- and yes, it is being asked very openly in socialist countries all around the world, like Britain and Sweden -- must be whether extending Senator Kennedy's life by another day, another month or year is socially valuable enough to pay for what is no doubt a gigantic and growing medical bill. Kennedy is a US Senator, and all that money has been coughed up without complaint by the US taxpayer. Kennedy is already entitled to Federal health care, and it is no doubt the best available to anyone in the world.

Before he dies, Senator Kennedy wants to feel sure that you and I and our loved ones can put that personal decision about life or death safely in the hands of a Federal bureaucrat. It is "the cause of his life," we are told.

Now there are many people in this country who believe that Ted Kennedy has not spent his life very constructively. Mary Jo Kopechne's family might still want to trade his life for hers, if she could be brought back. Senator Kennedy has exercised more power over our immigration chaos than any other person in the last half century. 9/11 was committed by illegal entrants who slipped through our deliberately full-of-holes borders, using all manner of Kennedy-authored loopholes and enforcement gaps.

Others might point to the socialist habit of importing vast numbers of voters from Pakistan and Somalia into Western Europe, to make for cheap socialist votes in order to defeat and scapegoat native Europeans. Socialism by immigrant vote buying is happening in every single socialist country in Europe. It is what keeps socialist parties there in power. Kennedy has opened our borders for precisely that kind of takeover by masses of illegal immigrants.

So there might be a rational debate over the social utility of Senator Kennedy's life. We could all have a great national debate about it. Maybe we should do exactly that, to face the consequences of what the Left sees as so humane, so obviously benevolent, and so enlightened.

Consider what happens in the Netherlands to elderly people. The Netherlands legalized "assisted suicide" in 2002, no doubt in part for compassionate reasons. But also to save money. There is only one money kitty for medical care in the socialist Netherlands. When you get old, the question is asked, either explicitly or by implication:

Do you deserve to live another year compared to young refugees from Somalia, who can use the same euros to have many years of life?

There's only so much money available. The Netherlands radio service had a quiz show at one time, designed to "raise public awareness" about precisely that question. Who deserves to live, and who to die?

But nobody debates any more about who has the power to make that decision. In socialist Europe the State does. It's a done deal.

The Netherlands legally recognizes four categories of euthanasia. One of them is:

Passive euthanasia: A physician may choose not to treat an recurrent disease or event in a patient with a terminal progressive disease.

I don't know enough about Senator Kennedy's condition, but I would suppose that he has "a recurrent disease or ... a terminal progressive disease." That would be the case if his brain cancer is not curable. In the socialist Netherlands Kennedy would be a perfect candidate for passive euthanasia.

posted July 22, 2009 08:00 PM         

TAKE TWO ASPIRIN AND CALL ME WHEN YOUR CANCER IS STAGE 4
July 22, 2009

Ann Coulter

All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink.

The reason seeing a doctor is already more like going to the DMV, and less like going to the Apple "Genius Bar," is that the government decided health care was too important to be left to the free market. Yes -- the same free market that has produced such a cornucopia of inexpensive goods and services that, today, even poor people have cell phones and flat-screen TVs.

As a result, it's easier to get your computer fixed than your health. Thanks, government!

We already have near-universal health coverage in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' hospitals, emergency rooms and tax-deductible employer-provided health care -- all government creations.

So now, everyone expects doctors to be free. People who pay $200 for a haircut are indignant if it costs more than a $20 co-pay to see a doctor.

The government also "helped" us by mandating that insurance companies cover all sorts of medical services, both ordinary -- which you ought to pay for yourself -- and exotic, such as shrinks, in vitro fertilization and child-development assessments -- which no normal person would voluntarily pay to insure against.

This would be like requiring all car insurance to cover the cost of gasoline, oil and tire changes -- as well as professional car detailing, iPod docks, leather seats and those neon chaser lights I have all along the underbody of my chopped, lowrider '57 Chevy.

But politicians are more interested in pleasing lobbyists for acupuncturists, midwives and marriage counselors than they are in pleasing recent college graduates who only want to insure against the possibility that they'll be hit by a truck. So politicians at both the state and federal level keep passing boatloads of insurance mandates requiring that all insurance plans cover a raft of non-emergency conditions that are expensive to treat -- but whose practitioners have high-priced lobbyists.

As a result, a young, healthy person has a choice of buying artificially expensive health insurance that, by law, covers a smorgasbord of medical services of no interest to him ... or going uninsured. People who aren't planning on giving birth to a slew of children with restless leg syndrome in the near future forgo insurance -- and then politicians tell us we have a national emergency because some people don't have health insurance.

The whole idea of insurance is to insure against catastrophes: You buy insurance in case your house burns down -- not so you can force other people in your plan to pay for your maid. You buy car insurance in case you're in a major accident, not so everyone in the plan shares the cost of gas.

Just as people use vastly different amounts of gasoline, they also use vastly different amounts of medical care -- especially when an appointment with a highly trained physician costs less than a manicure.

Insurance plans that force everyone in the plan to pay for everyone else's Viagra and anti-anxiety pills are already completely unfair to people who rarely go to the doctor. It's like being forced to share gas bills with a long-haul trucker or a restaurant bill with Michael Moore. On the other hand, it's a great deal for any lonely hypochondriacs in the plan.

Now the Democrats want to force us all into one gigantic national health insurance plan that will cover every real and mythical ailment that has a powerful lobby. But if you have a rare medical condition without a lobbying arm, you'll be out of luck.

Even two decades after the collapse of liberals' beloved Soviet Union, they can't grasp that it's easier and cheaper to obtain any service provided by capitalism than any service provided under socialism.

You don't have to conjure up fantastic visions of how health care would be delivered in this country if we bought it ourselves. Just go to a grocery store or get a manicure. Or think back to when you bought your last muffler, personal trainer, computer and every other product and service available in inexpensive abundance in this capitalist paradise.

Third-party payer schemes are always a disaster -- less service for twice the price! If you want good service at a good price, be sure to be the one holding the credit card. Under "universal health care," no one but government bureaucrats will be allowed to hold the credit card.

Isn't food important? Why not "universal food coverage"? If politicians and employers had guaranteed us "free" food 50 years ago, today Democrats would be wailing about the "food crisis" in America, and you'd be on the phone with your food care provider arguing about whether or not a Reuben sandwich with fries was covered under your plan.

posted July 22, 2009 10:17 PM         

and i think ann coulter should find a new hairdresser! if she pays $200 for that carpet, she's being robbed. but i guess she can afford it, since she gets paid to foam at the mouth, and that apparently comes quite naturally to her!

posted July 22, 2009 11:28 PM         

Who says Coulter pays $200 to have her hair done? Are you engaging in hyperbole?

I know what your problem is with Coulter. She's got leftists numbers and skewers them in their own rhetorical style, which is inflammatory. Leftists just can't take the heat.

Thinkers have no access to Ted Kennedy or any other leftist dimwit to ask them much of anything at all. They know they're hypocrites and don't expose themselves to those who would ask embarrassing questions.

When you say you'd like to trade them all in for new models, does that include THE ONE, THE MESSIAH O'Bomber?

posted July 23, 2009 03:06 PM         

he who smelt it dealt it, grade school wisdom. i don't know anyone who can afford $200 for a haircut. but coulter apparently considers this a fairly middle-of-the-road price or she wouldn't use it. but since a haircut is a matter of vanity i would expect a doctor, who should be a matter of health, to be MORE affordable, wouldn't you?

anyone can write to ted kennedy. of course his secretary will get it. but enough people asking the same question would eventually get through.

let's stop pretending that there are not billions of us, the people, and we have the power to put "them" in their place. that is what the english peaceful revolution is all about. not about complaining about the monsters and "messiahs" on the other side, but about standing up for our rights as they exist right now with or without "their" permission.

once again you insist on deifying obama, who is after all just a man, and the man who was elected president. congress has made a hash of most of his ideas so far. i don't know whether he is up to the job or not, and i don't know for sure if he is a puppet or not either. but he is no messiah. that is YOUR CONSTRUCT.

posted July 23, 2009 03:58 PM         

There was a story about the Kommander of Korruption getting his $200 haircut on Air Force One while it was sitting at LAX...with the entire airport shut down to take-offs and landings while his locks were whacked.

Sure, write to Kennedy and tell him he should be dead by the terms of the O'BomberCare bill now before Congress.

You know what would happen? Nothing, nothing at all. Kennedy would never see the letter. His staff would dump it in the circular file.

Only way to confront Kennedy is to ambush him in the halls of Congress and even that's next to impossible.

posted July 24, 2009 02:34 PM         

Now, where did you read or hear that Ann Coulter pays $200 to have her hair cut or styled?

OK, so you say you want to cut the size, scope, power and cost of the federal government; but I doubt you really mean that.

For instance, this is what should happen.

Every federal agency and every federal program not specifically authorized by the US Constitution should be abolished immediately.

There goes the EPA.
There goes HHS
There goes NIH
There goes NEA
There goes the Dept of Education
There goes the vast federal bureaucracy
There goes ALL departments of government making transfer payments to individuals and/or groups. That means no grants to community organizers, no grants for advocacy groups of any nature whatsoever. That also means no bailouts of corporations, unincorporated businesses or state governments.

That's a good start but there's more.

Abolish the Federal Reserve by repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Repeal the 16th Amendment

Repeal the 17th Amendment authorizing the direct election of US Senators.

Repeal the World Trade Organization Treaty.

Repeal NAFTA

Repeal CAFTA

Repeal the UN Treaty.

No Kyoto Treaty

No Law of the Sea Treaty

When I finished with the Federal Government it would be a shadow of it's former self.

All federal agencies and programs not specifically authorized by the US Constitution would be cut/whacked and their functions turned over to the states...which is where they belong; closer to the people and more directly under the control of the people of the various states...which is what the US Constitution actually says about powers not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution. Those powers belong to the states...or to the people.

Read the Constitution in it's entirety then specifically read the 9th and 10th Amendments...and remember, the people of the various states refused to ratify the US Constitution until the limitations imposed against the federal government by the 1st 10 Amendments were inserted and made a part of the Constitution.

posted July 24, 2009 06:04 PM         

I would plan and implement the Constitutional Republic process which the Constitution demands; without which the feds are able to wing it, make it up as they go along and do as they wish...which is exactly what they have been doing.

Now, if THE PEOPLE want to change the US Constitution, there's a process for doing that.

On the other hand, why would the people care which government...state or federal...happened to be running the agencies? I'd rather see states running their own shows since they're closer to the people..and their problems and also easier to control. Not only that, but several layers of bureaucracy would be eliminated...and the tax load to support that vast bureaucracy.

posted July 24, 2009 08:24 PM         

you going to throw the frogs into an already boiling pot? or go gradually, the way it's been done in the other direction?

you talk about "the people" just like the bigwigs who manipulated us into this in the first place! i can just hear them in the backroom "why should the people care whether the government is socialist or facist as long as they get their meat and two veg every night? we'll just sell them some more tvs and they'll sleep right through it"

i think you could safely abolish the income tax as far as the public is concerned. but don't you think the big guys would have you shot in a minute if they saw you tampering with their carefully constructed house of cards? how would you go about it?

are you the sort of manager who comes into a new job and tries to change everything in the first month? or do you study your business, find out how it works, and implement changes gradually as needed?

problem is as i see it that even with an intellect and heart of pure gold, NO ONE gets in by themselves, and NO ONE escapes having to deal with the hornet's nests of special interests, big (international) money, the corporate behemoth; as i've said before, people who try to tame the beasts that get them elected end up like the kennedys...

posted July 27, 2009 11:15 AM         

All advocates of socialized medicine, including the President and his congressional accomplices, believe that government-imposed rationing is necessary to control health care costs. Having little faith in the judgment of individual patients and even less in the workings of the market, they are convinced that only the state is capable of efficiently allocating our medical resources. Very few of these people, however, have the courage of their convictions. With a few notable exceptions, they vehemently deny that they are for rationing. Indeed, as a matter of general strategy, they have done their best to exclude the "R" word from the reform debate. President Obama has gone so far as to explicitly to admonish his political allies "to avoid terms like 'rationing'" while promoting the Democrat health care agenda.

But, make no mistake about it, rationing will be an integral component of Obamacare. Last Sunday the President's budget chief admitted, "I'm not prepared to rule it out," when pressed for a straight answer on the issue. And another of Obama's advisors famously frets about the insistence of American physicians on doing "everything for the patient regardless of cost." Thus, stopping such costly interventions will be a primary mission of the "Federal Coordinating Council for Effectiveness Research," a new hive of health care apparatchiks created by the infamous "porkulus" bill.

This new bureaucracy is intended to operate like its European counterparts, meaning that it will assign a monetary value to your life and deny your care if you contract a malady whose cost-of-treatment exceeds that amount.

If you are under the impression that it is impossible to calculate the value of a human life, you are obviously not a progressive policy expert or health care bureaucrat. This calculation, so elusive for philosophers and sages throughout the millennia, is child's play for such people. They have, in fact, already devised a formula for pricing out your life. It is called the "quality-adjusted-life-year" (QALY), and it assigns a numerical value to a year of life. A year of perfect health, for example, is given a value of 1.0 while a year of sub-optimum health is rated between 0 and 1. If you are confined to a wheelchair, a year of your life might be valued at half that of your ambulatory neighbor. If you are blind or deaf, you also score low. All that remains is to assign a specific dollar value to the QALY and, voilà, your life has a price tag.

Imagine, for a moment, what the harvest would have been had this soulless valuation system been applied throughout the West for the past three or four centuries. QALY would have rated John Milton, blind at the time he wrote Paradise Lost, at considerably less than 1. And the hearing-impaired Beethoven would have been lucky to score 0.5 on the QALY scale. For a more modern example, think of Stephen Hawking. Hawking is arguably the most gifted scientist since Isaac Newton, but QALY would value his life at very nearly zero. There would, however, have been winners in the life-rating lottery. The life of Ted Bundy, a good-looking, articulate young man in perfect physical health, would have been valued at a perfect 1.

And, lest you imagine that QALY is mere academic concept unlikely to be applied in the real world, it is already being used in countries burdened with socialized medicine. In Great Britain, for example, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) uses "cost per QALY" to determine if patients should receive expensive treatment or drugs. It was with this formula that NICE calculated the precise amount six months of an average Brit's life is worth. As the Wall Street Journal reports, "NICE currently holds that, except in unusual cases, Britain cannot afford to spend more than about $22,000 to extend a life by six months." In other words, patients whose country has guaranteed them "free" health care are in some cases refused treatment because the incremental cost per additional QALY is too high.

Nonetheless, despite the obvious moral dubiousness of QALY, some progressive policy experts openly advocate its use in the United States. Princeton Bioethics Professor Peter Singer recommended this approach just last week in the New York Times Magazine: "If a reformed U.S. health care system explicitly accepted rationing, as I have argued it should, QALYs could play a similar role in the U.S." Singer is untroubled that some severely ill patients will go without treatment simply because it is expensive: "A QALY approach may then lead us to give priority to helping others who are not so badly off and whose conditions are less expensive to treat." That the "badly off" patient may have been taxed all his life to support "universal" health care evidently has no meaning for the Professor.

Dr. Robert Wachter, Associate Chairman of the Department of Medicine at UC San Francisco, is likewise unconcerned about such "badly off" patients. Wachter writes at his blog that Singer's position would amount to mere common sense "in a society of grown-ups." In an apparent attempt to personify every "arrogant doctor" cliché known to man, Wachter pompously lectures his readers to the effect that government-imposed rationing is inevitable while heaping scorn on the Great Unwashed for daring to entertain alternative viewpoints: "Will the society that brings you Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck (or, I'm beginning to think, some of our Democratic representatives) deal with it in an effective, mature way? I truly doubt it."

Wachter, like many progressives, has a gift for unintentional irony. The real obstacle to an "effective" public discourse about rationing has nothing to do with talk radio hosts, television personalities, Blue Dog Democrats, or the immaturity of American society in general. It is, rather, the moral cowardice of the President and his allies in Congress that prevents a serious debate about rationing. If Barack Obama, Max Baucus, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of their fellow travelers were honest, they would admit that they agree with Singer and Wachter. They would look us in the eye and tell us that the only way to control health care costs is for Washington to impose a Draconian rationing scheme that effectively puts a price on each of our heads.