No Runny Eggs

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.

Remember:  Stay on target, stay on target!

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.”