How great was Obamacare?

The U.S. had 5 federal/state health insurance plans when Obama was elected; they weren't perfect, but better than what they were being sold--Medicaid, Indian, VA, Federal employees, and S-CHIP. Surely, a brilliant mind like Obama's and his advisors could have come up with something to insure those who didn't fit or didn't want those programs. But no. They wanted POWER. And how better to get it than through fear. 

Did you know millions who didn't have health insurance in 2008 didn't want it? They were very wealthy--could self insure, or were willing to gamble or negotiate with hospitals to lower the outrageous costs. Millions more were young and thought they were invincible and wouldn't pay the co-pay for employer's insurance. Others were eligible for Medicaid, but too proud to apply. So by disrupting the entire country's health insurance and making it all more expensive, the great-O manages to insure people who were already eligible under an existing plan. Big whoop!

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/01/14/how-obamacare-made-things-worse-for-patients-with-preexisting-conditions

Your healthcare will be more expensive and less efficient, if our other 4 are any indication

Before Obamacare, (PPACA) we had four major government health systems, all with significant problems. Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP are riddled with fraud and waste, and the recommendations put in place by the GAO have not been implemented by the Obama Administration. So Obama burdens us with another plan, this one with 14,000 regulations, thousands of new government employees and whole new bureaucracies.

The Veterans Affairs is the 4th, and although a fantastic organization, its claims are 255 days behind on the average, and 426 days behind in California. Do you suppose this might have made a difference for the veteran who just killed two other veterans and made threats against his family? How could anyone have gotten help for him with kind of wait? But guns, not health care for veterans, will be blamed.

Both items in JAMA, Jan. 9, 2013.

Hope and Change in Health Care

• Within three weeks of his inauguration, President Obama has succeeded in a dramatic government take-over of Americans’ health care, although he is unable to nominate a tolerable candidate for Secretary of Health and Human Services. [He tried to sneak in another tax cheat like Geithner.]

• More than half of kids roped into Mr. Obama’s kids’ health program will drop their families’ health coverage, and the SCHIP explosion has an unhealthy addiction to tobacco funding. [Remember, the President himself is a smoker, but the low-income are more likely to smoke, so the new tax increase hits them hardest. So many people have stopped smoking, that they may soon need to recruit them in order to pay for SCHIP!]

• By bailing out state Medicaid programs that have spent beyond our means, Mr. Obama punishes fiscally responsible states, and Medicaid’s failure to pay its bills will result in a “cost-shift” causing private premiums to rise by about $18 billion.

• Subsidies to COBRA, the already flawed program that allows departed workers to continue coverage with their previous employer, dramatically favor unemployment or part-time work, instead of full-time work with benefits

For the details, see "Obama’s Unhealthy Start: SCHIP Explosion, Medicaid Bailout, COBRA’s Bite" By Adam Frey, Public Policy Fellow, and John R. Graham, Director, Health Care Studies, at Health Policy Prescriptions, Feb. 2009.

"President Obama plans to build on the way
he mobilized millions of volunteers and small
donors in his successful election campaign,
and his administration will use similar
strategies to sell its health care proposal. A
patchwork of progressive organizations is
poised to unleash its activists to rally grassroots
support for any health care legislation.
And, perhaps most importantly, business
groups will be much less hostile – if not
openly supportive – of the effort to radically
transform health care."

". . . One such group that hopes to play a key role
in the effort is Health Care for America Now
(HCAN), a coalition formed last July with
the stated intention of spending $40 million
on grassroots organizing and multi-media
campaigns. The founding steering committee
for the organization is comprised
of 13 groups: Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN),
the American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees (AFSCME),
Americans United for Change, Campaign
for America’s Future, Center for American
Progress Action Fund, Center for Community
Change, MoveOn.org, National Education
Association, National Women’s Law Center,
Planned Parenthood Federation of America,
Service Employees International Union,
United Food and Commercial Workers, and
USAction. Later additions include the Children’s
Defense Fund, Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights, and the National Council
of La Raza. Remember these names: All
are likely to be in the vanguard mobilizing
support for left-wing activism during the
next four years." CRC Trends, March 2009

Massachusetts Health Care--coming soon to your state?
"In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls. As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time." WSJ story, March 27 here.

What if Obama stops smoking?

And millions of others? Health care costs will increase. Yes, smokers die younger and will not require all that expensive care in their old-old years. That sounds crass, but if you ever ran the numbers on all this "healthy" eating, exercise, and no-smoking stuff, you'd find wonderful reasons to be healthy, but saving the government money isn't one of them. But also, if they stop smoking, we'll have to find other ways to pay for all the SCHIP "children" (who are adults) who don't need government health care.

On Feb. 4, President Obama signed legislation that reauthorizes and expands the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Earlier in the day, the House — on a 290-135 vote — passed the Senate version of the SCHIP legislation that expands insurance to an additional 4 million children. The new law also gives SCHIP an additional $35 billion over the next five years. The extra $35 billion in costs would be funded by a 62-cent-per-pack increase in the federal tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products. The new law removes a restriction that prevented states from enrolling middle-class children without first proving that nearly all poor children had been enrolled. Some states found it difficult to meet that criterion. Former President Bush twice vetoed similar legislation. AIS Health

Since more low-income and poor people than rich people smoke, this is an additional tax on the poor. Raising the tax doesn't cause them to stop--it just takes their discretionary money from another pot--like groceries. Another example of taxing the poor to help the middle class.

"The release of a scant one-page summary for 21 years of care brought some criticism to the Obama campaign – especially when compared to the thousands of pages of medical records released by McCain. Obama promised reporters that if there are additional health-related questions, his campaign would make that information available. “In terms of additional records, if there are particular things that people have questions about, then we’d be happy to give that information,” he said." ABC News

A poem for today's dilemma

From a story I heard at the coffee shop today.

Health Insurance Woes

Look at me strut
and show off my stuff.
Can you see my thong?
It's not so tough.

I can barely move--
my jeans are so tight,
And guys look at me so,
now, that just ain't right!

At the top of my grade
and the job is secure,
three kids and a guy,
my home life is sure.

Except for my shape--
He wants implants for me!
Would S-CHIP cover it?
I think I'll go see.

Can you define a "living wage?"

Or, how about an "American working family?" These terms are pandering policy pablum. It's like trying to figure out the word, "uninsured." It's nailing Jello to the wall.

Let's begin with two classic cases--both single moms with 2 children. Melanie had a significant other she met in college, but they never married, and he's wandered off the reservation looking for more significance. Her first pregnancy stopped her education, and besides, she liked staying home with cute babies. She doesn't know where the SO is, so there's no child support. She's working at Wendy's for $7.00 an hour--$14,800/year. She's not unhappy; she likes the work--has flexible hours, regular customers she knows by face and order, and can walk to work, although she has a "beater" car. She's a whiz at e-Bay and picks up a little cash by hitting the garage sales on her day off. She's worked at a dry-cleaners but the fumes bothered her, and at Tim Horton's, but the scheduling didn't suit, and has waitressed at family restaurants like Applebee's and Bag of Nails earning more, but she likes the management here. She occasionally dates the men she meets on the other side of the counter.

Then there's Tanika. She's divorced and her husband has decided to find himself in the entertainment world, but borrows more money than he sends. He drinks or smokes what is left after he's paid under the table at various clubs when his group performs. Each time she talks to him, he's just about to land the big break. Tanika's no dummy. She's always been told that education is the key to a better life. With help from her parents and various scholarships, and some state aid, she has finally completed the Kent State program in Library Science. Although she's relieved to have landed a job in the public library of a nice suburb of Columbus for $16.40 an hour in a tight job market, she does have to work some evenings and occasional week-ends, and has no flexibility to trade hours. Also, she's got some whopping school debts to repay, and she's maxed out several credit cards. Her dad keeps her car repaired and running. Her mom invites her and the kids over for dinner often, and babysits when Tanika works evenings and week-ends. The library is so busy, she knows none of the people who pass through. Social life is zilch, nada, nyet and she's too pooped to even take the kids to the pool. Her day off is a school day, so she volunteers at the Lutheran Food Pantry.

As you might have surmised, Melanie is better off than Tanika, plus she could have the satisfaction of knowing she is keeping a small army of government workers busy!

She is eligible for a piece of the Earned Income Tax Credit ($40+ billion), which is a cash supplement to wages of the "working poor," and at her income that's an additional $4,536 a year.

At various times she has received help from Temporary Assistance to Needy Families because of the dead-beat dad thing until her eligibility ran out. Between jobs, she stayed on unemployment benefits as long as she could--one time almost 3 years. Although she much prefers working, she never felt a sitter did as good a job with the kids as she could do herself.

She receives a housing voucher ($16 billion), which is much more pleasant than having to live in "the projects," and although there are others in her complex--actually many--no one seems to notice. In fact, she and Tanika's family don't live far from each other and the kids play together at the pool.

In addition to food stamps, which add about $100 a week to her grocery budget* ($35 billion through USDA), her children are eligible for the National Student Lunch Program, the Breakfast Program, the after school snack program, and the summer lunch program--plus she gets her own meals at Wendy's. In fact, they're all packing on a few extra pounds--no one is going hungry, that's for sure. The NSL and SBP (from the Ohio Department of Education via the USDA) also provide these services to runaways, homeless and migrant children, but Melanie is a pretty stable gal with good values, she's "always paid her own way," so there's not much danger of that. If she runs out towards the end of the month because the cable bill was due, she can get 3 days of food at the Lutheran Food Pantry.

Melanie would have to pay a pretty high co-pay for company health benefits, so she keeps passing on that during sign up periods, but she's eligible for SCHIP (as is Tanika who is making under $40,000 but has never applied**), and it provides some coverage like dental, prescription and special lab work she couldn't get through an employers' health program.

A few months ago Melanie's boyfriend got religion and called her, wanting to do right by her and the children and make it all legal--white dress, church, flowers, etc. But she turned him down. Even if he got a job at another Wendy's their combined income would throw off her eligibility, and financially, her kids would much much worse off. She's happy where she is--who needs to marry?

Melanie and Tanika are fictitious; the programs are not.

*In Ohio a family of three would be eligible for about $100 a week in food stamps, the gross eligibility being $21,600 of family income.

**An October 2007 study found that 68.7 percent of newly uninsured children were in families whose incomes were 200 percent of the federal poverty level or higher.

The Left never gets it right

but sometimes the Right doesn't either. The very first people I heard politicizing the California wildfires were the conservative talkers on radio. Now, maybe that's because I don't watch the MSM, but I think they jumped in first on Monday, without naming names, designating parties, or blaming anyone. They simply pointed out the difference between the Katrina rescue efforts (local Democrats) and the California rescue efforts (local Republicans). By the time I heard the lefties, they were off-topic and screaming global warming (Bush's fault) even though 1936 was a much hotter year with worse fires and environmental regulations have made the state a tinderbox, and not enough resources (War in Iraq, also Bush's fault) even though Schwarzenegger all but called Barbara Boxer and her bag ladies liars and alarmists.

Then Nancy Pelosi looked like she had a heart of ice and a freshly botoxed face in explaining why she just had to ram through another SCHIP bill while the California people had gone home to check out the situation. Bush actually took longer to go out to look than he did in Louisiana (remember, until the levees broke after the hurricane, people thought they had escaped the BIG one) and Blanco didn't call for help from the feds until it was way too late. (Must be a woman thing.) Two years and billions of dollars later, Katrina's devastation has shown the total incompetency of Nagin and Blanco, not George Bush or FEMA, with the only bright spot being Bobby Jindal's election.

Then today a letter writer to USAToday smugly says: "Did the residents of Southern California benefit from their economic status and race?" Actually, she's on to something, because the Democrats in New Orleans had so demoralized and weakened its poor black population with government handouts and a soaring crime rate over the years, they couldn't even help themselves. Middle-class, educated NOLAns, black and white, didn't have a problem getting out and fleeing to Texas, Ohio or Calfornia. People who are accustomed to looking after themselves and their neighbors know how to take action. When it's too smokey to breathe, or someone drives through the neighborhood telling them to leave, I'm sure a certain amount of learned self-interest goes a long way. It's a shame that buses were swamped in New Orleans that should have transported the poor, but that doesn't make people driving SUVs down a burning hillside more fortunate because of their income or color.

4237

The Democrats' Hissy Fit

Although I'd never thought about it, I didn't know southern girls had hissy fits, too. Kyle-Anne Shiver describes what she saw the Democrats doing about SCHIP in Congress on C-SPAN as a "Southern belle hissy fit," or taking the argument to a level of pure emotion:

deceitful
underhanded
below-the-belt
used when the opponent held a significant power advantage
perfectly acceptable because
it is used when you don't get your way with facts
or with reasoned argument,
totally unencumbered by rational thought
afflicted can accuse the opponent of being “vicious,” “mean,” “unreasonable,” “vile,” “cruel,” “a bully,”
and ride the emotional wave of perfected guile to victory

In other words, you get your own way in the matter.

The female hissy fit--is definitely national, and obviously not limited to women.

Shiver concludes: "When the leaders of Congress wish to propose a socialist encroachment upon another segment of the private economy, it would serve them well to abandon the tactics of emotionalism and deceit. If they are the stalwart proponents of the free-will, free-thought democracy that they incessantly claim to be, then there should never be just cause for the kind of emotional trickery demonstrated by a parade of the victims* of American “injustice.” A straightforward argument based upon sound reason is what a free people should demand from her leaders. In every instance."

*I can't be sure, but this may be a reference to one Graeme Frost, the 12 year old boy the Democrats used to plead their case for expansion to the president. However, he was already on SCHIP, middle class and attending private school--which is the direction the Democrats are going with this. When bloggers and conservatives pointed this how, they were accused of cruelty, harassment, and God knows what else.

Tossing the chips

Those of you raised in rural areas who may have had the opportunity in your youth to walk barefoot through a cow pasture, know what a chip is--when thrown it can have the feel of a hockey puck. Keep that in mind has you listen to the howls that Bush hates children because of his veto of increases in the S-CHIP program. Here's a summary from Congressman Jeff Miller about the expansion of services (poor children are already covered--this moves up to the next quintile and above),

Under the SCHIP expansion, an estimated 1 million to 1.2 million children would gain SCHIP coverage, but between 467,000 and 611,000 children would lose private coverage.

The annual cost to taxpayers of covering an uninsured child under the Senate's expansion plan would increase from $1,418 to between $2,508 and $2,859. This is 1.8 to 2 times the cost of SCHIP coverage for a child in a family at this income level or almost 2.5 times the average cost of private insurance.

The bill increases the age of "children" eligible for benefits to 25 years and permits States to continue to enroll childless adults.

The expansion would be financed by increased tobacco taxes, including a 61-cent increase in the cigarette tax, to $1 per pack. The bill assumes that there will be 22 million new smokers a year to ensure budget neutrality.

Expanding SCHIP to cover children in higher income families is not an efficient or cost-effective way to reduce the ranks of uninsured children.

The proposal put forward by Democrats would render the current income eligibility requirement for SCHIP meaningless and create an open-ended government entitlement for families, many of whom already have private insurance coverage.

And let's not forget, that this isn't about insuring poor children (no one 25 is a child and people without children aren't parents), it's about universal health care. If you've been hearing the horror stories about boomers and medicare, imagine that for everyone, but with personal health insurance destroyed.

Copied from an op ed in NewsBlaze.

Health insurance for children

David Brooks on Sept. 28 had an Op Ed in the NYT about the phony pain Congress suffers when speaking of our debt. "The U.S. government has $43 trillion in unfunded liabilities, or $350,000 for every taxpayer," he writes. Congress has a Mardis Gras-tomorrow will never come mentality.

These habits infect everything they touch, even a straightforward and successful program like the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or S-chip. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the number of uninsured children has been declining steadily for years. It shouldn’t be that costly or hard to insure the ones that are left.

And yet because S-chip is a product of the current climate, the expansion plan in Congress has all sorts of corruptions and dishonesties built in. First, it perpetuates a smoke screen of obfuscation between who pays and who chooses. States have an incentive to ramp up benefits because they know that most of the cost will be borne by taxpayers somewhere else. Second, it entices children out of private and into public insurance, even though after 2012 it cannot cover the cost.

I have little sympathy for smokers, but I do admit, I don't know any college-educated, well-off smokers. They've sucked it in, endured the headaches and quit. The smokers I do know are blue collar folks--retail, hospitality, auto repair, clerical, factory, construction. So Brooks zeros in on the wealth transfer that will have to take place for this entitlement.

The S-chip bill takes money from these relatively poor, politically immobilized people and shifts it to those making up to $62,000 a year. Nobody is raising a tax on wine consumption or gasoline consumption to pay for this benefit. Instead, Congress is taxing the weakest possible group [lower income smokers] in order to shift benefits to others, some of whom are middle class.

Have you ever noticed that if a government program is successful and begins to eliminate the problem it was set out to solve, Congress will expand it out of fear of losing a piece of the action?