Medical Malpractice

The healthcare debate is just winding up. Senator Dodd, a practicing socialist, blamed the rising costs in the medical industry on those nasty capitalists seeking profits. The local hospitals and family physicians are part of this evil cabal.

His solution was predictable. Dodd wants congress to create a national insurance agency to compete with the 350 private medical insurers. He insists that the introduction of this option will cause the private insurance companies to sharpen their pencils.

The illustrious Senator from Connecticut and Obama believe much of the cost of such a program will be recouped by eliminating the endemic corruption in Medicare and Medicaid.

Dodd estimates the costs of these medical entitlement programs could be reduced by 30% if the corruption and mismanagement of the system were eliminated. He’s probably right.

And you will love this. He claimed that costs could be dramatically reduced (maybe 20%) if doctors and hospitals stopped ordering unnecessary tests. These words from the same weasel that refuses to cap the outrageous settlements from lawsuits that force doctors and hospitals to practice defensive medicine.

Does anyone believe that a government insurance company, run by the same bureaucrats controlling Medicare and Medicaid, would be more cost-effective? Those with a cursory knowledge of government efficiency would be inclined to double over in laughter at the suggestion.

Dodd, who directly shared and profited from the shenanigans that toppled the housing industry, understands fraud. As a participant, he has first hand knowledge of insider corruption, which makes him an expert in the field. Thus, his words should not be ignored.

Of course, using the same criteria, it would be a waste of talent if Bernard Madoff isn’t offered the chairmanship of the SEC. Madoff was the master of ponzi schemes. The difference: Madoff confined his greed to mostly milking fat cats, whereas, Dodd has his sights set on duping every American into signing up for second class healthcare.

Dodd reluctantly admitted that about 20% of the cost of private healthcare premiums is used to subsidize the uninsured and the government underpayment of services. Federal bureaucrats in Medicare and Medicaid set the rates they will pay medical practitioners for services rendered.

Their tables of payments are based on the government’s “budget,” and its power to bludgeon the medical profession into submission, rather than the realistic cost of services. The rates paid by the privately insured keep the hospitals and emergency centers open. It’s a hidden tax.

Dodd’s scheme is fairly simple. The premiums set by Dodd’s government insurance company will be substantially lower than those offered by private insurers. Consumers and businesses will sign up for the government plan to save money.

This will drive the private insurers out of business, as they won’t be able to compete with the US Treasury. Within a few years the government will control healthcare. Without the inflated premiums of America’s productive workers and companies underwriting the actual costs for medical services, the government bureaucrats will ration healthcare.

It’s Dodd’s refrain to this Ponzi scheme that brings doublespeak to a new level of hypocrisy. He keeps reassuring Americans that they will continue to be able to select the doctor and hospital of their choice.

He neglects to mention that the quality of healthcare will rapidly decline, many hospitals will be forced to close and the incentive to be a doctor will be eliminated.

Here’s a healthcare solution! Try Senator Dodd for medical malpractice.

What Taxpayers Heard

To put the right word to it, the second presidential debate was, well, unrewarding. It was filled with boilerplate clichés in response to the dumb questions that were asked in the first debate.

What both candidates said could have been condensed in a message on the back of a postcard. On the bright side, all of us walked away knowing that class warfare is alive and well. It’s obvious that Senator Obama’s experience as a Community Organizer made him an expert in this field.

It was nice to learn that Senator Obama feels our pain. Of course, for those who pay taxes, his $860 billion pile of sympathy isn’t very appealing. And for the record, raising taxes on those who pay the taxes, in all honesty, shouldn’t be labeled as change.

This kind of thing has been around since President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced the Great Society $5 trillion ago. Higher taxes are higher taxes, and shouldn’t be confused with problem solving, fairness, vision or patriotism.

But the fifty percent of Americans, who don’t contribute any income taxes to the federal government, should be pleased to learn that they will receive a refund.

Senator Obama kind of skipped over how anyone who doesn’t pay taxes is entitled to a refund. It kind of sounds like income redistribution. Maybe he copied this idea from Massachusetts’ foremost socialist, Rep. Barney Frank.

But let’s stay positive. Maybe the welfare checks sent to these folks will bear the name of the individual or family who sacrificed to contribute the funds. Certainly the recipients will pen nice thank you notes to their benefactors. Ok! Ok! That’s assuming they can speak, read and write English, skills not required to cash a welfare check.

And it’s nice to know that Senator Obama wants all Americans to have access to the same quality healthcare that we provide illegal aliens and deadbeats. Those weren’t his words; but that was the heart of his message. All it will require is raising the taxes on the tax payers. You have to admit, that’s a pretty simple formula.

Maybe Obama didn’t get the memo. The hospitals and medical practitioners are inflating the costs of the insured patients to cover the cost of services for the uninsured. There is nothing like 15 million illegal aliens choking the emergency rooms to send medical insurance premiums skyrocketing.

That makes one think that somewhere in this healthcare mess there may be a better solution to reduce costs. And Obama’s remedy has a déjà vu smell about it. If history is any indicator, raising taxes $65 billion annually to subsidize healthcare will send its cost into the stratosphere.

For example, the Higher Education Act, 1965, unleashed a feeding frenzy in our universities. Tuition costs went ballistic immediately after $140 billion in Pell grants and government loans became available every year.

The cost of a college education has risen 30% faster than inflation since the government began subsidizing higher education. On Wall Street this behavior is called greed.

So giving the healthcare industry a pipeline to the US Treasury might not be such a good idea. Again, in fairness, it’s understandable why people who don’t work or pay taxes are enthusiastic about Senator Obama’s proposal.

Taxpayers might be a bit leery of Obama’s proposals. But again, in fairness, class warfare will end within a few years after Senator Obama is elected President. It just isn’t an issue in Third World Countries.

By the way, Senator McCain only made one statement of significance. He won’t raise taxes on the tax payers. You know, that’s not a bad idea.

Every American Insured Health Act

The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is currently under review on Capitol Hill. This federal entitlement was initially intended to protect the children of families whose incomes were less than $40,000. Through loopholes, the states have exploited the program to include families with incomes as high as $82,000. Plus, they have creatively managed to enroll childless parents.

The Democrats are now demanding the entitlement parameters of SCHIP be expanded to include all the children of families whose incomes are up to 400% above the poverty line, which is about $80,000 a year. If passed, savvy parents with family health coverage, would immediately remove their children from their private medical insurance policies and let the government pickup the cost.

Of course, this is the Democrats’ goal—expand national healthcare, and marginalize the private healthcare insurance industry. The liberals have included eligibility for illegal aliens in this proposed legislation and raised the age of entitled children to 24. Their bill would also grant illegal aliens unrestricted access to Medicare.

The Democrats have brilliantly camouflaged the march toward national healthcare by centering the proposed legislation on children’s health. The Republicans find themselves in a political quandary. They don’t want to vote against helping children, and like most Americans, they realize that government controlled healthcare is a prescription for second-rate medicine.

Removing some of the more erroneous aspects of the bill, such as lowering family income eligibility or the age of eligible children, doesn’t stop the march of socialized healthcare.

Simultaneously, the Democrats are blocking the Republican, revenue-neutral efforts to reform healthcare with refundable tax credits and “vouchers” for the poor. Richard Burr (R-NC) and four other Republican representatives wrote and proposed the Every American Insured Health Act (S. 1886). It should be noted that President Bush, Senator John Kerry (D-MA), Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) support refundable, medical tax credits.

This legislative proposal would reduce the number of uninsured by about 24 million people. In effect, every American would receive a tax credit (money) to purchase medical insurance. Individuals would receive about $2200 and families about $5400. They would be free to select any private, medical insurance provider they wanted, tailored to their needs.

How is this revenue neutral? By changing the tax code! Rather than allowing deductions for private medical insurance and expenses (which reduces government revenues), the Burr bill simply contributes funds for the individual’s or family’s medical insurance. Of course, businesses providing healthcare benefits to employees could continue to deduct the expense.

The states are heavily burdened by the cost of medical treatment for the poor. Under the Burr bill, the federal government would reimburse the states for provisioning the poor with medical insurance. The reimbursement would require states to open their borders to all American insurance providers, eliminating the current gaggle of anti-competitive, inter-state regulations.

Additionally, small businesses could join buying pools, giving them the advantage of volume discounts. Depending on the source, these two measures will reduce the cost of medical coverage in the US by 20% to 30%.

The poor would not be eligible for coverage if they were enrolled in Medicare, the Federal Employees Benefits program, the military healthcare system or an employer sponsored health plan. However, nothing would prohibit those enrolled in these programs from changing to government reimbursed private medical insurance programs.

That’s why the Democrats despise the Burr bill. Within ten to twenty years, all government medical entitlements could easily disappear.

The Reality of Shared Responsibility

Most Americans hope, maybe pray, that Battle Front Iraq slides into the United States’ win column months before the 2008 presidential election. There are obvious exceptions. All the Democratic presidential contenders have staked their election success on the ability of Iran, Syria and their al Quada proxies to keep the bloodshed flowing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If Iraq remains an unquestionable quagmire, every political barometer points to a Democratic victory in 2008. Their majorities in both chambers of Congress will be strengthened. Setting aside the aftermath of a US retreat from Iraq and the implications of a major win for the Islamic terrorists, this is a watershed election.

Of greater import than Iraq, is the domestic agenda of the Democrats. The leading candidates have clearly outlined and share, with minor nuisances, a similar platform. They all want nationalized healthcare, government paid college education for all Americans and increased funding for all existing entitlements.

The Democrats’ definition of the American Dream is being at the front of the line for a new government handout. Let’s examine the economic impact of their definition.

Including the current costs of Medicaid and Medicare ($713 billion annually), if the government nationalizes all healthcare services, currently estimated at $1.5 trillion, the additional taxes required will be $787 billion annually.

In the last Decennial Census, 2000, the US Census Bureau states that 14.4 million Americans were enrolled in four year college programs. The average cost of private and public university education is $22,000/year.

In the last five years the cost of a college education rose 35%. Conservatively estimate that a government paid college program would increase enrollment to 20 million students and that college costs inflate another 35% over the next five years. The annual cost to the taxpayers in 2012 will be $677.6 billion.

Social Security is a looming disaster. Depending on the data source, it is estimated that an additional $280 billion to $400 billion will soon be required to stabilize it. Again, this is an annual cost.

In 2006 the United States Federal Government collected $2.4 trillion in tax revenues. The current deficit from government over-spending eats $400 billion/annually in interest payments. A balanced budget does not eliminate this debt. It merely pays the interest. Remember that it is an uncontested fact that the average middle class family currently spends 35% of its income on taxation.

Now add $1.75 trillion in new entitlements to the government budget, keeping in mind that the increased funding the Democrats demand for other entitlements is not included in this number.

If elected, the Democrats have promised amnesty to an estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. The Democrats and Republicans agree that each illegal costs the US taxpayers $19,000 each. Twelve million illegal aliens granted amnesty will cost the taxpayers $2.3 trillion.

The Democrats’ definition of the American Dream will literally bankrupt the nation. Corporations will flee the US borders, interest rates and inflation will sky rocket and jobs will evaporate. This is what Democrats call Shared Responsibility.