Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the company’s health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.
In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan “because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees.”
Caterpillar, the world’s largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said it’s particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines.
The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program.
“We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors,” said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. “We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we’ve raised throughout the year.”
A friend sent me an im with this news this morning and I thought he was making up the figure until I checked it myself.
Say it again with me: it’s about cost, coverage and culture. You need to deal with all three like the legs of a three legged stool. This bill is focused on the second, a worthy goal, but it misses badly on the other two and the means used to get to the one goal is also a path full of bad choices.
I simply do not believe it is a good bill.
I wish it were otherwise.
See http://article.nationalreview.com/428569/obamacares-imaginary-savings/the-editors?p=1 for an analysis of the CBO’s numbers. For one thing they were instructed to assume:
[blockquote]The Democrats’ plan assumes permanent, across-the-board cuts in Medicare hospital and nursing-home payments — cuts that that would go so deep that the chief actuary of the program expects that one in five facilities would have to stop taking Medicare patients to avoid insolvency. Which means those cuts probably aren’t going to happen. We have seen this before: Even as Democrats claim these new Medicare savings can be taken to the bank, they are working to undo a similarly clumsy and ill-advised cut in Medicare physicians’ fees — at a cost of $371 billion over ten years, another massive pile of money not accounted for in the Democrats’ “savings†projections.[/blockquote]
All Congresses to date have not been able to make real cuts in spending, what makes us thing that future Congresses will?
The Democrats better be right that deficits don’t matter because are going to dig ourselves in so deep we will never see the light of day.
Even Caterpillar ain’t seen a bulldozer like this before.
And this:
[blockquote] WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional budget scorekeepers say a Medicare fix that Democrats included in earlier versions of their health care bill would push it into the red.
The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red.
The so-called doc fix was part of the original House bill. Because of its high cost, Democrats decided to pursue it separately. Republicans say the cost should not be ignored. Congress has usually waived the cuts to doctors year by year.[/blockquote]
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Medicare-fix-would-push-apf-2700343586.html?x=0&.v=2
This reminds me of what we have just gone through in our state unemployment tax assessments for businesses. At the beginning of the year, we were informed that per employee assessments were going up approximately 1000%, from an average of $90 per employee last year to $1,070 per employee.
However, the legislature rescued us. Under a new law businesses will instead only pay an average of $630 per employee, a mere 600%+ increase.
Saved in the nick of time. Gosh, we are so grateful for the great things the government has done for us.
One big reason the Pres. and the Dem left don’t seem to care about any of this is they seem determined to destroy our free enterprise system. Then the government has to take over and rule everything and the Dem Party is the government party lusting for more power as parties of the radical left (which the Dems now seem to be) habitually do.
Is anyone truly interested in what the “Real Goal” for the Left is? It’s quite simple!
The goal is to cripple the domestic economy to such a degree that the nation can only be bailed out by totally gutting the Defense budget. What better goal is there, if you ultra-Left? “Code Pink” anyone? Oh, and remember, Nancy Pelosi just happens to represent none other than “San Francisco,” where they seem rather uninhibited in acting out their anti-war/anti-defense obsessions. Hmmmm!!!
I’m amazed that no one seems to have picked up on this yet.
and to bring this down to a micro level:
“Average premiums among all types of plans in 2016 would be about $5,800 for single policies and about $15,200 for family policies,†CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf wrote in a letter to Sen. Olympa Snowe (R-Maine).
http://townhall.com/blog/g/1b60d8c0-3618-4132-8e1d-b29fb5577f2d
[b]”We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors,”[/b]
Might this be because those competitors are in countries that already have national healthcare or something like it? — or, on the other hand, still have slave labor or its nearest kin?
Albiet:
The problem is that Defense spending is only a small fraction of the GNP. Gutting it would do nothing but make us vulnerable. Like at Pearl Harbor.
“Second time as farce”
Unfortunately, the company has to compete with countries with universal health care.
It’s not a perfect bill. But health care is going to go up for everyone in any case.
#7 – Haven’t they already gutted Social Security?
#8 – Hm – that’s all? My health insurance costs much more than that. Seems like a good deal.
Kendall, there are a few positive things about cost containment in the bill.
First, it will encourage competition. Many insurance companies are monopolies in their state.
It will reduce overpayments, saving $132 billion over ten years.
Reducing the annual updates in Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, encouraging more productivity and improvements (the current incentive structure doesn’t encourage that. The legislation would save nearly $196 billion over ten years from such changes.
It would also reduce prescription drug costs.
#10 – We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined, I believe. One would hope that it would be enough to help us. Although we do end up selling our arms to other countries.
John,
If the Federal Government is so expert at reducing waste and fraud in health care spending then why are waste and fraud such a large part of the Medicare/Medicaid budgets?
Before we try to nationalize our health care providers, let’s fix medicare and medicaid and, then, use the fixed, working, programs as blueprints.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Medicare rolls are going to swell as my generation reaches 65, and this bill also puts 15 million more people into Medicaid. As Phil Snyder points out, these programs are already fraud-ridden and over budget. To the Federal spending must be added what the states will be required to fork out for more Medicaid. And as an extra bonus, the bill pretends it’s going to cut $500 billion from Medicare, just as the rolls are going to balloon, to pay for this new boondoggle. To think that this 110+ agency nationalization will reduce costs is to live in a dream world.
It’s always interesting to read the comments on the various religious blogs. Conservative religious blogs are usually informed by conservative political views. Liberal religious blogs are usually informed by liberal political views.
Taking healthcare reform as an example, most of the debate seems to be political, based on an economic viewpoint, rather than theological, based on an understanding of scripture.
How much of our theology is a product of our political point of view as opposed to our religious understanding?
Randy Hoover-Dempsey+
The major problem with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid healthcare intiative is that it is being offered for a vote as a ‘monolithic’ solution to a complex problem.
Systems analysts have long been aware of the dangers of massive monolithic solutons to complex problems. A major hazard encountered upon implementation of monolithic systems is the “law of unintended consequences.”
A second major hazard is the ‘infexibility of political ideologists’ supporting monolithic solutions. Today’s American political ideologists on the left side of the spectrum have shown an absolute unwillingness to compromise on their unproven and often rash political assumptions. They seem to prefer ‘political martyrdom’ rather than the collegiality of working together with those with whom they disagree. They seem to be willing to see our country ‘go down in economic flames’ rather than ‘yield an ideological inch.’
There is way too much “drang und sturm” in their political behavior. Its like watching Wagnerian opera.
Finally, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid team have yet to define with adequate specificity just who the 30,000,000 or so uninsured really are.
Competent military commanders would never undertake a planned military operation costing billions of dollars in resources and large-scale risk to life without first clearly defining the enemy force situation. But this Obama/Pelosi/Reid political team is willing to ‘roll the dice’ and risk great damage to our country without clearly defining the problem. All we get from them are melodramatic anecdotal scenarios related to healthcare that can’t be used quantiatively or analytically.
#15 – Excellent point, Randy.
I generally take Augustine’s view of the state. If we were better Christians, we wouldn’t need the government. Perhaps people would live a lot more frugally and give much more. People would willingly donate to insurance companies to cover the costs of poor people.
Alas, I don’t see Christian churches doing it. It’s true that conservatives do give more than liberals – but it’s not enough.
As Christians are sinners, the state has a role. Is it perfect? Nope. I gave up anarchy about 15 years ago. In fact, traditionally, the church has believed the state has a role in governing human affairs – and that ranges from More’s Utopia to Geneva. Libertarianism – and Objectivism have an unorthodox view of human agency.
Of course, I say this as someone who is instinctively pro-libertinism. I wouldn’t assume it was Christian, however.
But the bill hits home for me. First, I believe I could help my staff with more competition in the market, which the bill provides. It helps small businesses – and may even help churches in the long run. Second, there is a young woman in my congregation who had cancer: she cannot have an “internship” or a part time job – she needs insurance, and she can’t wait. This bill allows her to remain on her father’s insurance. Will it cost? It won’t cost most of us very much. It will cost her father an additional 1% in taxes. Do you think he’s going to complain about the government stealing his money?
“How much of our theology is a product of our political point of view as opposed to our religious understanding?”
My understanding is that monetarily/materially helping those in need is based upon my actions as an individual in making individual choices regarding individuals in need.
My understanding is that I can’t achieve that level/type of individual giving by means of a faithless/soul-less state-administered system of charity.
If the state is to be the source of charity, then I suppose that my answer to those seeking my financial assistance to a charitable religious ministry should be, “I paid my taxes, why ask me?”
Is this bill perfect? No, of course not. It does, however, attempt to reach out and help those who are unable to help themselves. This may not be an ideal solution, but it is a step, and even one step toward ensuring that everyone has access to medical treatment and through that, a chance to live a long and productive life, is a good thing. If we wait for a perfect solution, we will never act.
Of course liberals have no problem with telling others how to spend their own money or forcibly taking money from others. Or tell insurance company, about which they know nothing, how to price their products. I suppose if you don’t care about insurer solvency you could just give insurance away.
But the real problem is that the proponents of this legislation are deliberately understating the costs and deliberately overstating the revenues. By requiring the CBO to accept flawed assumptions (ie future Congresses will do what they have refused to do in the past) the CBO produces numbers that conceal the true cost of this debacle.
Randy – My political views flow from my theological views. We are, in our natural state, rebels against God and, generally speaking, the people who run for high political office are those who value power over sex or money – or as a means to sex and money. So, given their thirst for power, I am somewhat disinclined to grant that power to them.
There is a role for the Federal Government in reforming health care delivery and cost, but this plan will simply raise costs by requiring everyone to own the most inefficient of health insurance plans – the comprehensive plan that pays for everything after a deductible and/or co-pay (fixed amt pre visit) or co-insurance (percentage of the bill).
Also, given the history of how the federal government has “solved” problems such as education, health care for the poor, housing, and poverty – and given the federal governments inability to react to the inintended consequences of their actions (such as the destruction of the African American family through encouraging out of wedlock births), I find the federal government to be both inefficient and ineffective in running social programs.
So, I do not support this bill. I might be able to support some form of universal catastrophic coverage plan or even something designed to cover chronic illnesses such as diabetes, asthma, or psychiatric disorders where the cost of treating the disease is less than the eventual cost of not treating it. But even then, the devil is in the details.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
“Is this bill perfect? No, of course not.”
Is the current healthcare system perfect? No, of course not. But it does work for the majority of Americans and its processes were being refined to make it a better system.
Making it a better system can mean better design of its component parts and even major new components.
It doesn’t mean that the whole existing system should be thrown away and replaced with an unproven and complex law with 1000+ seemingly unreadable pages.
As for the scenarios of unfortunate individual situations being touted in Congress, to the public by the Obama/Pelosi/Reid team and by some individuals, there is no disagreement that they exist. But these situations will continue to exist under a massive and uncontrollable national monolithic system.
One example is rationing. It has already been proven in Canada and the United Kingdom that the public monies available for healthcare are finite and cannot not meet healthcare needs in national systems that are drastically inefficient. Systems which squander resources and limit competition.
For example replace the situation of the parishoner cited who cannot affford cancer treatment with the waits of up to a year and one-half for diagnostic MRIs for cancer patients being experienced in Canada. The first situation is something that can be addressed by making modifications to our current healthcare system, the Canadian situation is the result of an unwokable Canadian national healthcare system.
I am now standing by for countering scenarios that will try to tout how good the Canadian plan is. But, regardless of the testimonials, the facts ‘on the ground’ assert that the Canadian plan is a disaster.
My guess is that the leadership has the votes to pass the bill. Congressman Schuler from Western NC has announced against the bill. He has over 2 million in campaign funds and a weak Republican opponent, and 67% of his constituents are said to be opposed. The president is about to be immortalized as the cause of killing grandmother.
Kendall’s mantra of cost, coverage, and culture strikes me as spot on. However, failure to provide coverage goes to both culture and cost. Not an apologia for the current bill; but on the other hand, current practices are far from rational and do create huge competitive disadvantages for American business. Remember the saw of a few months ago: GM is a company whose primary mission is provide lifetime health insurance for its employees; it makes cars on the side.
An anecdote to illustrate my point. Echoing Luke 15, there is a family that has a small, cross-generational business — laying tile as it happens. Needless to say, the business has been badly hurt by the downturn. Health insurance for anybody is out of the question, so the family has no primary health care. Momma started having intestinal pains; as it happened always over the weekend. Three emergency room visits, approximately six nights in the hospital, and upper and lower GIs turned up a diagnosis of, . . . wait for it . . ., diverticulitis. No directly responsible party will ever pay for any of that. As Kendall often says, you couldn’t make this stuff up. The travesty goes to cost (the uninsured drive up costs for everybody), coverage, and culture. Regarding the last item, I wish I could say that the family saw that there was something wrong with all this. They didn’t.
Given the odds stacked against us, we’re not going to get reform right the first time. But the bill does address massive (and expensive) irrationalities in coverage. And it’s not all or nothing; we can go back. In the meantime, how about a responsible opposition party — right now, the Republicans, perhaps the Dems in 2011? Or, all of us repenting for our part for destructive and ideologically driven polarization, to the point that we are willing to resort to flat out dishonesty as a political tactic (remember death panels last summer)? Or, some attention to basic institutions in our culture that promote responsibility? Marriage and family would both seem close to the heart of this blog. All of those go to culture, and they can all be addressed even if the current bill becomes law.
#24, you make some good points, and I only come at them obliquely: I would argue that for the most part, over the long haul, in the grand scheme of things, markets are usually exactly “rational.”
The System isn’t really a system at all, but an ecology made up of different people with multiple interests which sometimes align and sometimes compete. There people generally make “rational” decisions in their own best interests.
The issue is why there is so much waste, fraud, and inefficiency in this system, errr, ecology? Why are people being encouraged to make rational choices that when looked at from afar seem to be irrational?
If the bill doesn’t address those questions, and propose realistic solutions, then it is the bill itself that is irrational.
Speaking rationality, and just as one possible example: why in the world would my employer continue sinking capital into unproductive health coverage for me when the government will force me to buy my own coverage, and will subsidize it as well? And why would I sink my own personal capital into unproductive “insurance” when I can pay the much more efficient penalty of a few hundred dollars, then go to an emergency room when I need it, or decide that now that I’ve been diagnosed with diabetes, it might finally be time to sign up for that undeniable coverage? What would those two rational decisions mean for the sustainability of the central-planning legislative approach?
Things that I can’t recall any legislator answering clearly…
– what is the root cause of higher insurance premiums?
– why is there so little competition among insurance companies per geographic area?
– How much would the average family save per year if the insurance company CEO’s were paid exactly zero?
– What percent of healthcare expenditure can be traced to defensive medicie and/or malpractice insurance costs?
– Why do pharmaceuticals cost so much more in the US than in other countries, sometimes by multiples?
– What is the statistical correlation between healthcre consumption and consumer accountability? That is, if people are encouraged to treat health “insurance” as if it were their own money (and it is), do they tend to self-ration, or drive cost pressures on the providers?
– What percentage of healthcare expenditures can be attributed to variance of regulation across the 50 states? Would it be more efficient if insurers only needed to create one version of a plan for all states, with a consistent set of features?
These very practical issues have been utterly ignored in the national discourse, in favor of simply demonizing the insurers; who generally and consistently pay out about 85% in medical care, 5% in administratiom, 5% in taxes, and 5% in profit (very round numbers, of course.)
I recently calculated that if the CEO of my insurer did not get paid AT ALL last year, the $6M he made, divided by the 17M members covered, would come out to 35 cents per member in savings; or $1.75 for my family last year. Now I think that the $6M was fairly obscene, and should have been shared by the employees (who didn’t get any bonuses due to the economy and compnay performance); but I’m not buying the rhetoric that this is the root cause of our problems.
RE: ” It helps small businesses . . . ”
No.
It does not help small business. It causes their health care costs to soar. Small businesses will now have to raise prices radically in order to survive — which will mean that the large businesses which have economies of scale will be even more behemoth-like competitors.
Really. One finds the level of profound ignorance about businesses and how they work to be breathtaking — so much so that it all merges with the appearance of malice and envy and willful lying too.
Hard for me to choose which it is. Is it malice, envy and willful lying? Or is it profound ignorance of such depth and breadth and density that it only mimes the malice, envy, and dishonesty.
#10 Creedal Episcopalian:
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the total outlay for “Defense” including all Defense Department expenditures and other costs associated with National Defense for 2010 is estimated to fall between $883 billion and $1.4 Trillion. Still think “that Defense spending is only a small fraction of the GNP?” Not exactly.
Regardless, now is not the time to gut Defense, just to appease a naive bunch of people who advocate that “if only we could just all get along in the world, we wouldn’t need to rely on a military.” Right!
As I read through the comments here, something important is missing from them all.
Health Insurance is INSURANCE – which, by definition, is coverage purchased to protect the buyer from sudden catastrophic loss due to an emergency/unusual situation.
When you buy insurance for your home, it does not include coverage for replacing worn carpet, repainting, termite control, or mowing the lawn.
The automobile insurance you buy does not cover oil changes, gasoline, tires, worn seats, or transmission filters.
So – why is it that the onus of the “health insurance” bill, and all the attendant hoopla, is not limited to dealing with major illness, but instead covers every aspect of health care – from routine physicals to treatment for the flu?
I don’t expect my health insurance company to pay for my everyday, commonplace medical expenses. If I need to see my doctor for monitoring of blood pressure, and purchase medication for the same purpose, that’s a part of ordinary life, and I should expect to pay for it. I pay for my food, clothing, and shelter, which are all things necessary to survival, but are also “basics”.
Until and unless this erroneous assumption that ALL medical costs are to be considered a matter of public necessity is corrected, there will never be any *true* progress on health care. We need to address the basic issue head on; there is no *right* to have someone else foot the bill for the routine costs of our existence. (And before someone gets on their high horse and says “but what about the unemployed, or bankrupt, or …… remember that there are already programs in existence to deal with *those* problems. Adding universally comprehensive medical payments on top of that is double-dipping.)
If I have to pay (via taxes and increased premiums) for the Viagra prescription for the guy down the block, then I sure as heck expect that he’ll fork over the money *I* need for a pair of the latest Calvin Klein eyeglasses. Fair is fair, right???
#28 Albeit:
[url=http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php#outlays-graph] defense spending as a percentage of Discretionary Spending[/url]
Discretionary spending is under the jurisdiction of the two appropriations committees and constitutes about one-third of the unified federal budget (including off-budget items).
[url=http://www.usgovernmentspending.com]US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP/us_20th_century_chart.html[/url]
~1/3 of 40% == roughly 13%.
If obamacare passes, that number will get lower, as it is presented as adding 16% of the GNP to Mandatory spending.
“Defense spending is only a small fraction of the GNP?â€
You bet your bippy. And shrinking, too.
#30 Creedal: Your link provides information limited to “Military Spending,” and not “The Total Defense Budget.” Defense, as a category is much more than “Military Spending.” Nonetheless it ends in 2003, so it obviously doesn’t include much of the spending associated with the War on Terror, the 2nd Iraq War, war reconstruction, the Afghan War or Homeland Defense or any number of other items associated with “Defense.”
However, the GDP HAS NOTHING TO DO DIRECTLY WITH “THE FEDERAL BUDGET,” unless you’re inferring that the total economy of the United States constitutes the accessible income and liquid assets available to the Federal Government to spend. This is clearly a case of oranges and apples, so why are you citing “GDP?”
I’m telling you up straight that “Defense expenditures – of all categories” are ultimate the “Big Kahuna” target for many Progressives in their desire to radically reduce, if not dismantle it. Bankrupt the Domestic side of the Budget and the only thing left to adjust in Defense (in its broadest terms).
#30 Creedal: My apology, I forgot to include the link to what a Progressive groups is saying about all of this. Take a look at their information and charts and then come back and tell me I’m all wet.
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
#29 uh clint – you raise some excellent points.
The question is: is health like a house? Or like driving? The fact that the risk factors are different makes a big difference. Everyone generally gets sick; but we can’t predict when. You don’t know if you’ll break a leg playing basketball or – as a friend recently did – just walk in the wrong direction.
The problem is a bit deeper than most of us realize because it’s not about coordinating a series of preferences: it’s about life and death. Until we quantify the worth of a life, the market will be clumsy when coordinating health.
On the other hand, perhaps that is what we should begin doing.
#32 Albiet
Studies have shown since mid 20th century that no matter what the top marginal tax rate, federal revenues average about 19% of GNP. The Federal budget has intractably been a couple of hundred billion (until now!) over revenues.This is why Revenues go up when the tax rate goes down, as the economy improves. And why the GNP is the best reference for spending percentages.
As to military vs defense, some say tomato, some say tomato, the present value of our unfunded entitlements dwarf the defense budget. But none of those are in the budget. In fact the vaunted Gorean “lock box” is full of empty IOUs from congress; The trust fund has been spent, and now we need it, since for the first time SS outflow has exceeded income.
The original point that I tried to make was that the last time we gutted defense spending to fund public benefits, in the great depression, we were stunned at Pearl Harbor. I am starting to wonder if a repeat of that is the intention of our leadership.