The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.
Michael Goldfarb reports that the White House has threatened Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) with closure of Offutt Air Force Base (home to the United States Strategic Command, which handles all military things WMD, space, and command-and-control related) if he didn’t jump on board.
Mary Katharine Ham broke out some classic movie cliff scenes in response to a quote from President Obama saying that the ‘Rats were on the precipice of an “achievement”. I’m partial to the use of the “Themla and Louise” one, as it was entirely self-inflicted just like PlaceboCare.
The Senate Doctors, Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) and John Barrasso, M.D. (R-WY) hammered home the pratfalls of going to that precipice, especially going there alone…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfr1SLC2sUM[/youtube]
Comments Off on PlaceboCare mini update – 12/15/2009
I’ve recorded for you the, at best, hypocrisy or, at worst, out right lying of Christan Romer.
Ms. Romer has been an economist for a number of years. Ms. Romer was selected by President Obama to be chair of the Economic Council of Advisers. In this later capacity, Ms. Romer was one of the co authors of that fondly remembered document that promised that if we spent a bunch of money on a stimulus package, the unemployment rate would not move above 8%. If you need a reminder, re look at this document.
Ms. Romer is also the person who as I pointed out here, argued on behalf of the administration, that stimulus spending would have a greater effect on the economy than tax cuts. Of course, as I pointed out in the same post, Ms. Romer’s own published research showed just the opposite was the truth!
Yesterday, Ms. Romer pontificated on the cost saving efficacy of Placebocare. As reported at Politico.com, Ms. Romer held a conference call that claimed:
health insurance reform legislation will lower health care spending in both the public and private sectors, reduce premiums, increase wages and provide substantial benefits to the economy. From a CEA report out today: “Reform will slow the growth rate of public sector health care spending and reduce the federal budget deficit over the long run: CEA estimates that by 2019, total Federal spending on the Medicare and Medicaid programs will be lower than it would have been absent reform. … CEA estimates that reform is also likely to reduce private-sector health care cost growth by approximately 1 percentage point per year.” (CEA = Council of Economic Advisers)
So, we have Ms. Romer and the Council of Economic Advisers, who were wrong about unemployment and wrong about the effectiveness of the stimulus, now telling us that they have the benefits of Placebocare all figured out. Not only that but they tell us not to believe the CBO. They tell us that not only will Placebocare reduce the deficit but it will actually substantially bend the curve on health care cost increases!
What? You’re having trouble believing that? Just trust them, they’re economists!
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!
To win over liberals disappointed at losing the public option, Democrats would allow older Americans starting at age 55 to buy into Medicare, the popular program for the aged. The Medicare expansion would be a significant victory for Democrats, who spent years pushing for it. The proposal would in effect create a public health insurance option for older Americans, since Medicare is government-funded and government-run.
Expanding this system to persons 55 to 64 years old would ultimately hurt patients by accelerating the financial ruin of hospitals and doctors across the country. A majority of Medicare providers currently suffer great financial loss under the program. Mayo Clinic alone lost $840 million last year under Medicare. As a result of these types of losses, a growing number of providers have begun to limit the number of Medicare patients in their practices.
Did you get that? Did you pick up what what Mayo said? Let’s pull out the key piece:
As a result of these types of losses, a growing number of providers have begun to limit the number of Medicare patients in their practices.
Time and again, the Democrats, including President Obama, have assured us that the implementation of Placebocare would not cause any form of rationing. In fact they argue that more people will have access to health care with Placebocare than today. How can you significantly increase participation in a bankrupt program and not get rationing? You can’t!
Within the past month SK&A, a national health care information solution company released a study that looked a physician acceptance rates of Medicare and Medicaid. The study found that less than 83% of all physicians still accept Medicare or Medicare patients. Also found in the study is that large, hospital settings are more likely to accept Medicare than small group clinics, the North region of the US was most likely to have physicians that accepted Medicare (87%) while the West was the least likely (78%). Finally, the study found that high volume physicians (those who saw 31 or more patients per day), were more likely to accept medicare than those who saw 20 or fewer patients per day.
As recently as 2002, a study by the Medicare Advisory Council found that 90% of physicians accepted Medicare. In less than 7 years 7% of physicians have exited the Medicare program. I don’t know how the Democrats define rationing but I’d say that a shrinking supply of physicians or being limited to less than 15 minutes per visit because the economics dictate it, is a pretty good example of rationing.
Comments Off on The Fallacy Of The Latest Non Public, Public Option
Yesterday, as White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was questioned about polls showing President Obama continuing to drop in popularity, Gibbs responded:
I’m sure a 6-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that. I don’t put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is the daily Gallup trend.
In his response and follow up comments, Gibbs seems to suggest not only that a six year old is unable to control their crayons but also that anyone who puts any stock in polls is deemed to have the mental ability of a six year old.
First, having lived through the stages of dexterity improvement as it relates to color crayon control, I can attest that many six year olds are extremely capable of “staying within the lines” and even coloring a reasonably straight line, when asked.
Second, while I would agree with Mr. Gibbs that any one poll may not accurately reflect the mood of the polled, multiple polls will certainly show a direction and a significance of the concern level. Let’s look at an example.
Support for Placebocare is claimed by Mr. Gibbs, to have public support. To be sure, there was a time when the public did support Placebocare. However, as time has gone on, and the public finds out how damaging Placebocare will be to the economy, the quality of health care and their pocketbooks, public support has dropped to levels that should require a mercy killing.
QUINNIPIAC: “Voters Disapprove 52 – 38 Percent Of The Health Care Reform Proposal Under Consideration In Congress, And They Disapprove 56 – 38 Percent Of President Obama’s Handling Of Health Care, down from 53 – 41 percent in a November 19 survey by the independent Quinnipiac University.” (“Obama Approval Falls To New Low, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds,” Quinnipiac University, 12/9/09)
BLOOMBERG: “The poll finds significant opposition to using Medicarefor savings; 78 percent say they would oppose any cuts to the program.” (“Obama’s War Plan Gains Amid Doubts On Domestic Policy,” Bloomberg, 12/9/09)
PUBLIC POLICY POLLING: “Support For Obama On Health Care Has Hit Another New Low With Just 39% Of Voters Now Expressing Approval Of His Health Care Plans And 52% Opposed.” (“Obama’s December Standing,” Public Policy Polling, 12/9/09)
It is clear that there is no majority or even plurality of support for Placebocare. In fact, when you start asking people about specific provisions as Bloomberg did, support becomes almost nearly non existent.
If believing that Placebocare does not have the American public’s support makes me a six year old, what does that make someone who believes it does have support, like Mr. Gibbs?
Yes, I know, it’s a pretty trite title. That said, many of you would probably reply with “yes, but it fits most of your writing!” OK, now that you’ve had your moment of sarcasm, can we get down to business?
The Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell put out a press release denigrating the Democrat’s efforts to make a bad bill, worse. As part of his statement, McConnell accused the Democrats of both a lack of principle and laziness by saying:
‘So what’s becoming abundantly clear is that the Majority will make any deal, agree to any terms, sign any dotted line that brings them closer to final passage of this terrible bill. They are, for lack of a better term, winging it on one of the most consequential pieces of domestic legislation in memory’
“Winging it” are they? I don’t think so! Whether it is Reid or someone else, the Democrats seem to know exactly what they are doing.
The Senate started with a plan that was sure to split the Democrat caucus. As Steve has on his poll, there were at least 3 issues capable of ensuring that Placebocare didn’t exit the Senate; abortion funding, public option and the cost. We’ve already seen in the House version how the Democrats will “eliminate” abortion funding from the bill while retaining it via some smoke and mirrors. We also know that for all the discussion of concern over cost, there is no Democrat that will stand in the way of a “historic” legislation due to a measly few trillion dollars. That leaves the public option as the real divider.
Last night and this morning, we are hearing that the Democrats are finding a solution to the public option dilemma. Articles like this one at Politico.com, are suggesting that a public option that is run privately but at the government’s direction, may be the solution that lets the Democrat spectrum be equally offended but provides a solution that is equally accepted.
I won’t go into the weak mindedness of this non public, public option other than to say; “Isn’t this just more of the same?” Aren’t all plans today basically privately implemented but publicly mandated?
What I will say about the non public, public option is that not only might this get the Democrats to solidify, there are also signs that this kind of a solution may get the one Republican vote they need to close debate and move to a final vote. In fact, the non public, public option is the brain child of Senator Olympia Snowe. Yes, that’s right, the same Olympia Snowe who has a problem with a public option but has no problem with funding abortion services. See how this is coming together?
It’s becoming clearer to me that rather than “winging it,” that while the outcome may be imperfect from their viewpoint, Democrats are close to finding a path that will allow them to attain their goal, control of the health care industry. On the other hand, Mitch McConnell has yet to offer anything other than verbal tripe in the way of opposition. Not once has McConnell demanded a unanimous consent on any amendment, nor has he required the reading of the bill. Neither of these efforts would ultimately cause the bill’s failure if the Democrats are committed to unity for passage. However, either or both of these efforts would delay the passage of any bill. If there’s one hope for killing this bill it is kept in forcing the Democrat Senators to face their constituents another time before the vote. If the polls are correct, a number of them will hear clearly, that they had better not vote for Placebocare, at least if they value their cushy jobs.
So, while Mitch McConnell accuses the Democrats of ethical flexiblity and “winging it” it would seem that at this point, he is the one operating without a plan and in fact, “winging it!” Pot meet kettle!
The Senate held a rare Sunday session, ostensibly to work on PlaceboCare. However, Politico has the scoop on what really went on behind closed doors – the Dems were jonesing on Chinese food while watching football. What, Mr. Days is too public for them?
Seriously, the main focus of that story was on the declining support for a “pure” public option, with a public-private “compromise” beginning to emerge. Guess it’s as good a time as any to put up a poll suggested by Shoebox…
What will be the final issue to split the Dems' support for PlaceboCare?
Up to 1 answer(s) was/were allowed
Nothing - Harry will hold them together (47%, 15 Vote(s))
I pointed out to you here that while the advertised cost of the first ten years of the House Placebocare bill was $829, the real cost, if fully implemented, was over $1.3 Trillion, 57% more than claimed. The reason for this dramatic difference is that while the House plan has taxes and other revenue sources beginning almost immediately, the expenses, or implementation of the benefits, did start for nearly 4 years.
The Senate bill is no better than the House. It too begins to generate revenue long before it hits the full stride of expenses. As a result, the Senate bill claims it will cost around $1 Trillion. We all know that this number is false. What we don’t know is how big the real number is. Well, it appears that the Democrats might.
In comments today, Democrat Senator Max Baucus from Montana said:
“Just for a second — health care reform, whether you use a ten-year number or when you start in 2010 or start in 2014, wherever you start at, so it is still either $1 trillion or it’s $2.5 Trillion, depending on where you start…”
What? “It’s either $1 Trillion or $2.5 Trillion, depending on where you start?”
Senator Baucus is willing to concede that the Senate version of Placebocare could have a swing in cost of $1.5 Trillion, 150% of the advertised price, “depending on where you start.” Baucus treats $1.5 Trillion dollars as if it’s some irrelevant amount. He treats it as I would treat a dime in my checkbook balancing; as a rounding error!
If Senator Baucus is right and “It’s either $1 Trillion or $2.5 Trillion, depending on where you start,” might I suggest that we start really, really early? I’d suggest we start where the price tag is still ZERO!
Poll after poll has shown that Placebocare is not supported by the majority of Americans. One segment that inexplicably hadn’t moved to the anti Placebocare side has been the youth. In fact, youth are one of the few segments that have consistently supported Placebocare. In a Rasmussen poll this week, while overall support for Placebocare had dropped to 38%, the poll found that a majority of those under 30 continued to support Placebocare.
As I said earlier, the support amongst those under 30 is inexplicable. Why? Because those under 30 are the group most likely to feel the impact of Placebocare.
The under 30 group is the most likely not to carry insurance. Under Placebocare, if you don’t have insurance you will be subject to fines, or in the House version, jail time. Also, several studies have shown that for those who do have insurance, those under 30 will likely see significant increases in the cost of their insurance. I referenced some of those studies here.
As long as Placebocare continues to have about a 40% support in the country, people like President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other tone deaf politicians, will maintain an effort to enact Placebocare under the guise of “demand.” With all other age groups decidedly against Placebocare, if the under 30 group breaks its support, overall support will drop below 30% and that would likely be a death blow for Placebocare.
That begs the question, “How to we move the folks under 30?” Dick Morris and the League of American Voters may have found the answer.
Morris and the League have developed a commercial specifically targeted at the youth. The commercial was played in the States of several key Democrat Senators just prior to the Senate vote of last weekend. The results? Prior to the commercial, the under 30 crowd in these states supported Placebocare 58% to 30% against. After the commercial ran, the same age groups in the same states shifted to a 25% and 65% against Placebocare.
Hokey smoke Rocky! That’s a HUGE change. A change like that nationally would stop Placebocare in its tracks. So, what was the silver bullet in the message that got this dramatic change? Watch:
Turns out that those under 30 don’t like being taxed or penalized anymore than those over 30. Is it possible that those under 30 are just as economically rational as other age groups once they have the truth about how Placebocare will impact them? YUP!
Now that the Senate bill will enter debate it will be harder and harder for the Democrats to hide behind the “that’s not in the bill” argument using the “it’s not written yet” guise. Both the House and Senate plans are in written form and both have horrendous implications for the young people of our country. The longer the debate goes on, the more time to make sure that people have the information about what really is in the bill. Time is not the Democrat’s best friend when it comes to Placebocare.
I’ve been out of steam for a while, but I think I have some now. Let’s see what I missed:
Tom “Milk Carton” Barrett decided to be the “savior” of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and announced that he would be the de facto nominee for governor on Sunday. The timing was not a mistake; ever since Jim “Craps” Doyle (WEAC/HoChunk-For Sale) figured out all the money from the tribes, the unions and the lawyers, as well as 100% control over the state-level electoral process, couldn’t save his hide, the Dems have been looking for a Missiah on the level of Barack Hussein Obama II.
Related to that, the RPW and the Walker campaign immediately seized upon Barrett’s love of tax hikes (he voted for the then-largest state tax hike in history, the still-largest federal tax hike in history, and raised taxes, created and raised mandatory fees, and imposed a then-36% increase in the wheel tax that has proven so unpopular, Beloit dropped a lower version of it) and called him Tommy the Taxer. If there’s one thing outstate Wisconsinites hate more than Milwaukee-area conservatives, it is Milwaukee tax-hiking liberals.
Lou Dobbs got a $8 million parting gift from CNN as they strive to be “objective” be a clone of PMSDNC (H/T – Ace).
The Wall Street Journal editorial board has a two-fer on PlaceboCare today – they eviscerate the Baucus version of the Death Panel (hint; if you think the upfront cuts in Medicare Advantage are the only cuts that program will sustain, you’re sorely mistaken), and then they take on a proposed radical expansion of the Medicare tax into a “progressive” as well as a general income tax to replace the proposed tax on “lavish” health benefits.
A week after stinking up Raymond James Stadium to give the last winless team a win, the Packers crushed the Cowpokes. Which Packers team is the real one?
Speaking of Obama, he and Attorney General Eric Holder decided New York was the perfect place to drag KSM and buds for a civilian trial. What could possibly go wrong from a security standpoint (other than things that preclude the DC or Northern Virginia district court handle it, like truck bombs)?
Continuing the “what could possibly go wrong” theme, why not put them in the military commissions the Cole bombing group is going into? Last I checked, the Pentagon is a military installation. Could it be that they want KSM to walk on a technicality, or could it be that they want Al Qaeda to learn all of our methods of stuffing them the last 8 years?
Speaking of Club Gitmo, the latest place President Present wants to stick the detainees is in the state where he earned the nickname “Present”, specifically in a facility not exactly designed for this kind of work. Again, what could possibly go wrong with putting a bunch of Islamokazis in a generic maximum-security about 3 hours from Milwaukee and Chicago, and spitting distance from the Mississippi River and one of the lock-and-dam combos on same?
On Friday, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released an actuarial report that analyzed the recently passed House version of Placebocare. Chris Frates at Politico.Com reviewed the report and pulled out some very interesting insights and conclusions. You can read Frates’ full review here.
Of the many items that Frates pulled out of the report, a few require some additional comment.
Pg. 6 – A public plan would cost 4 percent more than private plans because its utilization rules would not be as strict as the private sector.
I thought the whole purpose of Placebocare was to reduce the costs of health care? I guess we could look at total costs but with more people coming into the health care system there is no way that is going to happen. That only leaves a reduction on a per person basis. This report says that not only with the public option not be cheaper than private plans, it will actually be 4 percent more expensive. If that is the case, wouldn’t the answer be to use the existing, cheaper, private insurance and provide tax subsidies for those that need assistance?
Pg. 7 – 18 million people will remain uninsured and choose to pay the fines for not carrying insurance rather than buy coverage.
I’ve lost track of how many “uninsured” we have. The original number of 47 million went down the tubes with the anger over insuring illegal aliens. Let’s use a number of 35 million to be generous. If 18 million chose to pay fines, that means only 17 million additional will be insured. While the final tab is yet to be determined, it’s pretty safe to say that if it was fully implemented on day one, Placebocare would cost at least $1.3 trillion for the first 9 years. Finish the math equation and that comes to nearly $8,500 per person for health insurance. Folks, that’s PER PERSON. A family of four would be over $30,000 PER YEAR!
My family buys its own health insurance. We have a few health issues so we actually pay the highest rated premium that can be charged. Even with those issues, I can tell you that we don’t pay anywhere near $30K/year for all of our insurance AND out of pocket costs for a year. No wonder costs are increasing!
Pg 16 – “The additional demand for health services could be difficult to meet initially with existing health provider resources and could lead to price increases, cost-shifting, changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage.” Translation: A crush of newly insured patients could be a shock to the system.
Well No shit! I’ve laid out numerous times how there is no way to change the number of insured nearly overnight, and not experience a shortage of medical personell. What the report doesn’t address is that this won’t be an “initial” shortage. As reimbursements are reduced, work environments pinched, some medical personell will “go Galt.” I suspect that what we experience short term will actually be our experience for an extended period of time; it could be our permanent go forward experience.
The more information that comes out, the more it’s obvious that the promises of Placebocare expire quicker than President Obama’s campaign promises. That is to say, they never really existed.
First, watch Nancy Pelosi give her rational for Placebocare:
Did you catch that explanation?
Well, the point is that we want to make sure that everyone has access to health care. For a long time now people who haven’t had health care or provided it had placed the burden on others. Everybody is paying the price for uncompensated care. I don’t need to tell you that in a hospital. This is to say we all need to do our part and that is the point of the bill.
If we follow the logic of Ms. Pelosi’s statement, by implementing Placebocare, we should all see reductions in the cost of our insurance. After all, if we’re paying a “hidden tax” today for those who get “health care for free”, we should see a reduction if everyone starts paying “their fair share.”
Except we won’t!
Pelosi will point to the recent CBO analysis which claims that premiums will decrease slightly under the House plan. The problem with the analysis is that the CBO does not consider the cost transfer of over $1 trillion, in the form of taxes on “premium plans”, those who refuse to buy insurance, and others, as a part of the insurance cost. Let’s see, if we don’t have the program, we don’t have the taxes. It sure seems to me like they ought to be considered part of the costs of insurance.
As I pointed out here, studies are showing that rather than reducing the costs of health insurance, the implementation of Placebocare will actually increase the costs of health insurance. In fact, according to the studies by Wellpoint, insurance premiums could increase by nearly 2X for certain segments of the population.
Pelosi is attempting to claim that a transfer in payments based solely on the health care program is not really a cost to be considered when comparing the two programs. In fact, Pelosi’s argument is that if you are robbed at the point of a gun, rather than complain, you should thank the robber for making your wallet less cumbersome to carry.
Yes, Pelosi thinks we should all be happy to be victims. In fact, she believes so much that we should be victims that if someone has the common sense to avoid victimhood, that’s a big problem!
Should you choose to not buy insurance, the House bill provides for numerous penalties up to and including jail time. When asked whether she thought jail was fair for people who choose not to be victims, Pelosi replied:
the legislation is very fair in this respect.
Just remember, if you don’t succumb to victim hood, Nancy Pelosi believes you should go to jail. I wonder when she will expect those who survived the Fort Hood terrorism attack to begin serving their terms?
Comments Off on They’re Going to Need Bigger Prisons
I attended Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI, and my Congressman) townhall meeting at the Franklin Public Library, where he dropped off a copy of the 1,990-page present House version of PlaceboCare. If you have the 36 minutes to watch the entire townhall, the 4-part video is below (and yes, it is recommended). If you don’t read the Cliff’s Notes version while you watch the short version from Ryan’s office:
Ryan would have brought more copies, but with the bill being over a foot tall, he couldn’t carry more than one on the plane. Fortunately, he did put it up on his House website.
H.R. 3962 would represent the largest tax increase in the history of the country, with a surtax of 5.4% on those making over $500,000 per year ($1,000,000 for couples) hitting most small businesses as well, a 2.5% medical device tax, a new payroll tax and the removal of the tax-exempt status of Health Savings Accounts.
Abortions would be paid for under the public option, and the bill would also establish an accounting gimmick to justify subsidizing private plans that cover abortion.
In order to make it appear to be deficit-“neutral”, it removed a $245 billion provision that would reverse a planned reduction in Medicare reimbursement rates, with plans to pass that as a stand-alone bill (or more-likely, attached to something else).
The $170 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts will, according to Medicare’s actuaries, cause 64% of those on Medicare Advantage off that program and raise the rates paid by those remaining in it.
Speaking of rate increases, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Milwaukee estimates that the bill will increase the insurance rates of those in their twenties by 199% (that’s essentially tripling it), those in their 40s by 122%, and those in their 50s by double-digits.
Instead of attempting to fix the joint state-federal Medicaid, which is currently bankrupting a lot of states, it increases its size by 50%.
The malpractice tort “reform” will be limited to states that do not cap damages, thus making it anything but reform (Ryan called it a “fig leaf”).
While the House Republicans will be offering a “consolidated” substitute amendment next week, it is unknown whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as part of hers, President Barack Obama’s and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan to use one-party rule to ram this through, will even allow it to see the floor.
On the House side, the current plan is to get this to the floor on Thursday, with a vote on Saturday. On the Senate side, a cloture vote is expected sometime in the third week of November, but ultimately it won’t be necessary as the groundwork has been laid to pass this through “reconciliation”, which requires a simple majority instead of 60 votes to invoke cloture.
Even though the current tally of the correspondence at the Ryan office is 9-1 against, he urged people to once again call Senators Kohl and Feingold to keep the pressure up, especially because it is not inevitable.
He explained why this was his first opportunity to come back to the district after the August recess – Pelosi is trying to keep everybody in Washington so they don’t hear from their constituents.
Revisions/extensions (5:02 pm 10/30/2009) – Just received word that the new bill has a new bill number. It is now H.R. 3962.
R&E part 2 (5:28 pm 10/30/2009) –The preliminary CBO first-decade scoring is in. Between the “meeting” with Obama resulting in some “technical” changes, the removal of planned fixes to the reduction in Medicare reimbursements (removing $245 billion in costs), a further reduction in those reimbursement rates (which, along wth other cuts in Medicare amount to $426 billion), and taxes/fees/penalties equalling $739 billion, they were able to squeeze out a debt “reduction” of $104 billion out of a bill spending $1,055 billion (that would be $1.055 trillion for those who missed the comma) in new outlays.
Queen Nancy unveiled her new version of Placebocare today. Amongst the more than 1900 pages is a nice little gem:
Under Pelosi’s bill, anyone earning up to 150 percent of the poverty line will be eligible for Medicaid. This is an increase on previous iterations?and the Senate bill?which only covered people up to 133 percent of the poverty line.
I can’t tell you for sure, how many additional people this is going to put into the Medicaid ranks. I have read various reports suggesting that the total numbers will increase 20% to 30%.
Medicaid? We’re relying on an expansion of Medicaid to get more people health care? I seem to remember that there were concerns about Medicaid….what were they? Oh yeah, I remember!
According to Medicalnewstoday.com, in 1996-1997, 29% of solo practitioners did not accept Medicaid. In 2004-2005, that number had increased to 35%. The same analysis showed that group practitioners rejected Medicaid at the rate of 16% and 24% in the respective years. The total number of practitioners who rejected Medicaid was less than 13% in the first period and 14.5% in the second.
Healthcarefinancenews.com reports that in a recent survey, 35% of all medical offices now refuse medicaid while only 17% refuse Medicare.
Why is it that more physicians are refusing Medicaid? There’s a simple answer:
84% of physicians who did not accept new Medicaid patients in 2004-2005 said reimbursements were a factor; 70% of physicians said billing requirements and paperwork were a factor; and two-thirds said delayed payments were a factor (HSC release, 8/17).
Let’s see if I have this right. Nancy’s plan significantly increases the number of people on a program that has fewer care providers each year. For the rest of us, her plan lowers the reimbursements, increases the requirements and paperwork and will further delay or deny reimbursement payments.
If the definition of insanity is to repeat the same action over and over and expecting a different outcome, then Nancy Pelosi and anyone who supports her version of Placebocare certainly fit the definition of insane!
In May of 2009, President Barack Obama presented a commencement speech at Notre Dame. The belief that he is the most pro abortion President ever, caused a significant controversy both over his appearance at this Catholic University and even more so over the honorary degree he received that day.
Amongst some booing, catcalls and derogatory shouts, President Obama presented the graduates with a his view of how polarizing issues should be addressed in the United States. Here is a clip of President Obama as he applies his view to perhaps the single most polarizing issue in America, abortion:
In case you missed it, here is what President Obama said in this clip:
Now, understand — understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
Did you get that? According to President Obama, even when debating what is arguably the most polarizing issue in America, he believes the cases can be made with “passion and conviction” and without “caricatures!”
Surely if abortion, an issue where people are polarized on the very point of whether to do it at all, can be discussed in the fashion that President Obama outlines, the discussion on an issue like health care reform should look akin to a love in from the 1970s! After all, hardly anyone disagrees that something should be done with health care, the discussion is entirely over what specifically to do to improve health care and it’s costs.
It’s being reportedthat Nancy Pelosi will unveil her new and improved health care bill to the House on Thursday. Harry Reid is scrambling to find a way to 60 votes in the Senate so that he can bring his bill to the Senate floor.
Amazingly, well not really, while Pelosi and Reid are ready to debate their bills, not a single Republican has seen either bill. In fact, what we know about either bill is that we really don’t know what is in either bill other than what Reid or Pelosi have told us. It’s likely that neither bill will come close to satisfying President Obama’s pledge to not spend more than $900 billion and make it deficit neutral but we don’t know.
What we do know is that passage in either chamber is not even close to assured. Pelosi has 52 “Blue Dog” Democrats. Many of these Democrats come from districts that were previously Republican holdings. With elections for each House member coming less than a year after a final vote, many of these folks are going to be torn between the promises of Nancy Pelosi and the expectations of the constituents.
In the Senate, it’s hard to see a clear path to 60. With a public option in, it appears even the RINOs will hold with Republicans. Add to them Lieberman, Bayh, Lincoln, Nelson and it looks like you’ve got a number of ways to hold 40 votes even if Reid suddenly drops the public option. That said, I would never suggest Reid can’t get his 60. Who knows what promises have been made that could put the Democrats back in lock step and get Snowe to come along.
I suspect the debate in both Houses will be filled with “passion and conviction.” However, the “caricature” threshold was long ago bypassed.
The outcome of the debates and subsequent votes have the potential to dramatically change the United States as we know it. While I’m hopeful that the bills as they are rumored, won’t pass both chambers it’s clear that President Obama has invested a significant portion of his political capital in the effort. These bills aren’t going away in any natural fashion.
Stay vigilant, stay focused or the next caricature we’ll be talking about will be that of people who knew what it was like to live without an all controlling government.
The only bad thing about PJTV is they don’t allow people to embed videos. Do not, however, let that discourage you from viewing today’s Trifecta with Bill Whittle, Stephen Green and Scott Ott skewering PlaceboCare. They take on the Soviet-style lines for a government-issued flu shot, government workers handling needles, probes and speculums, HarryCare (or is it hari-kiri?), chain-gang health care, and the rebranding of the publicconsumercompetitiveAmerica is AWESOME!!!1!1!!eleventy!!1! Government Takeover “option”.
Comments Off on Must-see PJTV – Trifecta takes on PlaceboCare
Sometimes it’s tough for Mrs. Shoe to watch movies or especially, TV shows with me. You see, I’m very much a believer in the formulaic approach to watching media. In my world, 95% of most TV and movies follow the same, generally predictable plot lines. In my world, all of the “whodunits” boil down to; someone dies, the investigator has some “ah ha” moment which results in someone being caught for the murder.
One big advantage to watching media believing they are formulaic is that it allows me to “experience” an hour of television while only actually watching 5 or 6 minutes of the show. In my world, I can’t always tell you who the killer will be but I can tell you that the show will end with a killer being caught.
The reason I tell you about my media watching experience is that it is much like my experience with government; government is very formulaic. First, government tells us that a program is good for us in some way. Then, government tells us that the program will cost only a minimal amount. The ending of every government program results in the program not accomplishing it’s goals and costing multiple times its anticipated costs along the way.
A new study is out on Amtrak. The study says that Amtrak’s required subsidy was $32 per passenger. While that doesn’t sound bad on the surface, Amtrak’s analyzed study was 4 timeswhat the pseudo government agency said that its subsidies were.
If you think that the discrepancy may be just two groups of bureaucrats fighting over arcane kinds of analysis, nope:
Subsidyscope says its review counted certain capital expenses that Amtrak doesn’t consider when calculating the financial performance of its routes, namely wear and tear on equipment, or depreciation.
Wow, what a concept! Taking depreciation into account with a capital intensive business like railroads! Not including depreciation in the costs of a railroad would be like looking at your household budget needs without considering what it costs you to live in your house!
The apologists for Amtrak were quick to justify Amtrak in light of the new study:
“Let’s not hold rail up and say it needs to make money when highways don’t make money, transit doesn’t make money and a lot of small airports don’t make money and they all get subsidies,” Van Beek said.
This is the same canard brought to you by folks who are into light rail and other forms of transit funding and it’s wrong. None of these areas need to “make money.” It’s usually coupled with “but my pet program doesn’t lose as much money as this other government program so my pet program deserves funding.” This is the same mentality that has bureaucrats screaming that their budgets are “being cut” when in fact, the “cut” is cutting back from an automatic increase in their budget, an increase that is rarely justified.
Admittedly, in the scheme of things, Amtrak’s annual subsidy of $2.6 billion is small. My point is that even with this relatively small subsidy the government can’t really figure out what the true costs are. This, with a service that has a long history to analyze and draw conclusions from.
Placebo care continues to wind through Congress. No one knows what it will eventually become but we all know it will be some freakish parody of what Nancy Pelosi claims it is. In fact, I think the new name for Placebo care should become Frankenstein care. Back to topic…Depending upon who’s telling you, Frankenstein Care will cost anywhere from $900 billion to $1.5 billion but remember our experience with Amtrak and the formulaic approach to government. The chances of Frankenstein Care’s actual cost coming in under $1.5 billion are equal to those of President Obama supporting a right to life amendment in the Constitution; neither will happen!
The folks pushing Placebocare are wanting us to believe that other than the $800 Billion or higher increase in the deficit, Placebocare won’t cost anyone another penny to provide all of its wonders. On it’s face, this doesn’t pass the smell test. How do you add tens of millions of additional users to a system without increasing costs? How to you accept all health conditions without increasing costs? How do you dramatically reduce the ability to rate differently for different health situations without increasing costs…at least on someone? How, how, how?
The Politico is reporting that another set of Placebocare studies have been done by WellPoint. While not received directly from WellPoint, Ben Smith has the studies posted on his blog. Want to see the potential impact of Placebocare on your health insurance premiums? From the studies posted on Smith’s site:
Note that these are projections of the increase in health insurance premiums. While they do assume that new taxes on things like hearing aids etc. are passed on via increased health care premiums, it does not include increases in your taxes that will be required to offset the significant increase in the deficit Placebocare will cause.
So, what do we see here? Well, we see some very basic economic principles being reflected.
In regular insurance analysis, the amount of risk assumed directly impacts the fees charged to assume that risk. This principle is why in today’s health insurance, we see young, healthy people being charged significantly less for insurance than older, less healthy people. Placebocare, like so many other government programs, does not treat people as groups of similarly situated individuals but rather, attempts to treat everyone the same. The result is clear in the information provided from these studies.
Looking at the result of the studies we see several things. First, the people or groups who are closest to the blended average of all have the least increase in their insurance costs. Second, those who typically pay the least amount for their insurance will see dramatic increases in their rates so as to bring them closer to the “norm”. Finally, we see that those who today, pay the higher premiums, will actually see some reduction in premiums. Of course in this last case, the reduction in premiums will also come with a reduction in the overall services they receive as this will be the group that feels the required effects of reducing the provision of health care in an attempt to keep Placebocare from completely bankrupting the nation.
Folks, none of this is suprising. There has never been a government run social program that hasn’t cost dramatically more than budgeted and resulted in increased deficits or costs over time. Does anyone really think Obama and his acolytes have found a way to break this trend? If they have, why don’t they focus that pixie dust on Social Security which is the number one problem for long term budget deficits. Better yet, why don’t they fix Medicare and Medicaid, places where they already have near complete control on benefits and reimbursements?
Through Divine insight or shear luck, the Founding Fathers did not allow for the government to be involved in social programs. If through insight, perhaps we can learn as every time the government wades into the social economic programs, they become a bigger mess than had it been left alone. When government gets involved with social economic programs it does not create a “Free Lunch” but it sure as heck will create less liberty and an increase in taxes!
As amusing as the answer might be, the correct answer is not, “With a REALLY large mattress!”
A couple of weeks back, the Senate Finance committee passed the Baucus bill version of Placebocare. Much heralded at the time, was the announcement that the Baucus bill had managed to meet President Obama’s promise that socialized health care would cost less than $1 Trillion for the first 10 years. In fact, the Baucus bill purported to leave lots of wiggle room for CBO fine tuning, with a price tag of merely $829 Billion dollars.
Philip Klein at the American Spectatortook a look at the Baucus costs and found something interesting; the 10 years of costs really only included 4 years of the Baucus program being full implemented. In the words of Desi Arnaz, “Oh Lucy, you forgot something!”
The graphical presentation from Klein clearly shows the problem in the cost analysis:
You can see that while there are some costs in the early years, the Baucus bill costs don’t hit their trend line until 2016. The graph shows clearly that 2010 through 2015 do not reflect the same program as that from 2016 on.
OK, we have a gap. The logical next question is, “If $829 billion isn’t the true 10 year cost, what is?”
I began with the information provided by Klein and look at the per person costs of the Baucus plan based on the projected estimation of the US population. This review shows that the Baucus bill assumes that after adjusting for population, they have baked in an average of a 7% inflation rate from 2016 on. I used this same 7% inflation rate and worked backwards from 2016 and further adjusted for the projected inflation. I then did a calculation of what the Baucus bill might cost, with these assumptions, if it was fully implemented from day 1 in 2010. The calculations are in the following spreadsheet:
Column “B” is in 1,000’s, “D” and “E” are $. The others are in billions.
Assuming a 7% inflation rate and increasing population growth, my calculation shows that if the Baucus bill were fully implemented on day 1 rather than 6 years later, the total cost for the 10 years would be well over President Obama’s commitment of $1 trillion dollars. In fact, the cost would likely be $475 billion, 57% more than what was trumpeted by the Finance committee. Rather than $829 billion dollars, the true 10 year cost would be over $1.3 trillion dollars!
Q: How do you hide $475 billion dollars?
A: Claim to pay for the program for only 40% of the time!
The latest Rasmussen poll is in and it’s not good for Placebocare. Only 42% now support “reform” that is anything but. 24% strongly support the legislation and 42% strongly oppose it.
While most of the numbers in the latest poll, other than support is back near its lowest level, haven’t changed, there is one statistic that I found very interesting. When asked what effect the proposed legislation would have on the cost of health care, 18% answered that the legislation would cause those costs to decrease! Who the heck are these people? I can only believe that they are the same folks who believe that the final plan will be a “bipartisan plan!”
While the tact the Democrats will take to attempt to pass this atrocity is not yet certain, one thing is certain. The last time the polling dipped towards the low 40’s% support, President Obama showed up in prime time to buoy it. With insurance companies, the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations now coming out against Placebocare, the public momentum is not on the side of the Democrat’s. If polling support drops below 40%, even the Democrats won’t be able to hold together to push this through. Expect to see another prime time address from President Obama. You can set your DVR by it!
In case you haven’t heard the (lack-of-)reasoning Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) gave for voting for the Baucus Vaporware version of PlaceboCare, she said, “When history calls, history calls.” I’ve got my fair share of Morons that supposedly read this place, so I know you can do better than the second half of that.
Have at it, and don’t worry about keeping it clean. I’ll even get you started off right…
“When history calls, I take a shit the size of Rhode Island.”
Loading ...
