At least a dozen health and budget experts have filled the Web and the airwaves with warnings that the House bill simply postpones the cost controls needed to finance the vast expansion of insurance coverage and Medicaid benefits envisaged by its sponsors.
One of them speaks with special authority: David Walker, the former head of the Government Accountability Office ”” the auditing and investigative arm of Congress ”” told me in an interview on Wednesday that the lawmakers are “punting on the tough choices, rather than making sure they can deliver on the promises they’re making.”
In a speech delivered less than 48 hours after the House acted, Walker, now the president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, laid out the tests that buttress his conclusion.
Acknowledging that “clearly, we need radical reconstructive surgery to make our health care system effective, affordable and sustainable,” Walker cautioned that “what we should not do is merely tack new programs onto a system that is fundamentally flawed” ”” and rapidly drive the national budget into ruin.
[blockquote] He proposes a four-part test of fiscal responsibility for any health reform plan: “First, the reform should pay for itself over 10 years. Second, it should not add to deficits beyond 10 years. Third, it should significantly reduce the tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded health care promises that we already have. Fourth, it should bend down — not up — the total health care cost curve as a percentage of GDP” (the gross domestic product).[/blockquote]
Good points all, but note the 10 year delay. Presidents only serve for 8 years, senators for 6 and Representatives for 2 (I know htat they can be re-elected except for the President). 10 years in political time is an eternity. Your predecessor with get the credit or blame. For example the Bush tax cuts. They were temporary and expire after he leaves office. Obama has to deal with any fall out either good or ill.
All the pain (or benefits) in the current health plan is back loaded and the present Congress’ successor and the next President will have to deal with the fall out. Thus the incentive to delay hard decisions. And ALL political parties do this. It is a systemic failure that transcends party lines.
Is there a solution? I don’t think so, because it would require everyone to put aside their own immediate self interest, quit cooking the books and honestly look at and present the numbers. It would require politicians to do the right thing even if it cost them an election, it would require the voters to sacrifice for the sake of the longterm, and it would require everyone (which given human nature will not happen) to participate and we would need a way to identify and resolve honest disagreements (to include theories of government).
I am willing to try, but the current political posturing and scrambling for advantage leaves me with little hope.
There’s only one possible way this thing can be paid for — essentially all discretionary spending in the federal budget, with the exception of a severely restricted defence appropriation, must be eliminated. So-called “entitlement” programs will need to be cut by a third. Any illusion to the contrary is the pure posterior production of an intact male bovine.
The way to deal with problems in the American health insurance system is not a 1,990 page monstrosity largely dedicated to growing a unionised federal bureaucracy; promoting favoured political, social, and ethnic groups to positions of power; and putting in place a system that will allow future regulation of most private activities — “We’re paying for your health care, so you’ll do as [i]we[/i] say.”
Legislation allowing individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines, for example, would be about five pages. Amazingly, it’s not included in the Democrat bill. Frivolous med-mal suits, same thing. Then, you can wait a couple of years … for example 2013 when much of the Democrat bill is slated to take effect (conveniently [i]after[/i] the election) … to see how well it works.
And if you wish to demonstrate what a good job government can make of managing health care — fix Medicare first. Then the VA and the Indian Health Service.
HR 3962, however, is not about actually fixing anything. It’s about the continuing attempt to wrest real economic power from individuals and shift it to tens of thousands of unionised bureaucrats in Washington.
If you like dealing with the DMV, or TSA at airports you’ll just love a government HMO. And if you’re part of the 45% of our society actually productive enough to pay federal tax, you’ll no-doubt be willing to cough up twice as much in order that some affirmative-action dweeb — who doesn’t know the difference between a qual and a quant hCG test — can be pulling down a GS-12 salary.
The purpose of this bill has [i]nothing[/i] to do with improving health care in America, and like the General Motors takeover, everything with to do with assisting and increasing the political allies of the Democrat Party. The only bi-partisan agreement on 3962 was [i]against[/i].
This isn’t about Health Care. Its about buying votes. Simply put its class warfare. In my area I’m listening to an AFL-CIO commercial in support to the local Congressman who probably won’t be after next year.
If you want to read something really depressing:
[blockquote]Congress is using “every budget gimmick in the book” to conceal hundreds of billions in healthcare-reform costs that will lead to “massive tax increases” and higher insurance premiums, one of the country’s leading healthcare experts warns.
Dr. Robert E. Moffit, a senior official in the Department of Health and Human Services during the Reagan administration, who now directs the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Health Policy Studies, tells Newsmax that taxpayers are about to be blindsided by a spiraling healthcare expenses.
…….
Moffit says taxpayers’ first installment on healthcare’s hidden costs may come as early as next week, when the House is scheduled to take up the $210 billion “doctor’s fix” bill.
The “doctor’s fix,” Beltway insiders say, is a familiar congressional ruse. Members pass supposed Medicare “cuts” that make them appear fiscally prudent, but then later “fix” the funding to restore what was supposed to be trimmed. So the $210 billion payment enables Congress to avoid making good on an earlier pledge to trim the deficit by limiting Medicare reimbursements to doctors.
[/blockquote]
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/healthcare_reform_taxes/2009/11/13/285952.html
I have thought for some time that a reasonable health insurance plan would include these points: (1) health insurance provided by an employer counts as income – and is taxable. (2) Everyone pays up to 10% of previous year’s adjusted net income directly to medical providers. (3) All providers charge the same amount for the same service – no negotiated discounts. (4) Medical expenses over the 10% are paid by government drawing first on the additional taxes paid by (1) above. (5) Reduce government interference in medicine – reconsider Certificates of Need, etc.