Robert Samuelson – Blame It On The Seniors

This morning my son and I were discussing the prevalence of misleading economic data out there. Robert Samuelson is one of the few economists that I have respect for. Samuelson in his article, Health 'reform' that burdens our young presents yet another set of reasons why the Health Care Bill is bad legislation. He is correct, the lions’ share of Medicare is going to be sucked-up by the retiring hoards. But if you paid into the system for 40+ years wouldn’t you expect to get what you have paid for and have been promised?

He also has issue with the proposed rate structure that is part of the Health Bill for MANDATED coverage. Insurance pools work because they spread the costs of a few over a much larger group of people, most elderly are going to require more services but they have also been the ones that have paid into those pools for 30 years covering the higher rate of usage by their elders. If you accurately price coverage for each person’s age then people could never afford coverage and would end up either without coverage or on the government dole anyway. Having small risk pools that are tightly grouped by age only exacerbates the problem.

If the cost of health coverage increases as someone ages then employers would be much more reluctant to hire someone over forty strictly on the cost factor. One of the big problems with medical care is that those, even with good insurance, often find themselves with medical bills that exceed coverage and wipe out a lifetime of work and can be forced into bankruptcy after just a few months of illness.

His argument about AARP is good except that AARP by supporting the Health Care Bill is also supporting the $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. He criticizes their support for subsidizing premiums for the elderly but fails to recognize the fact that they have been paying that subsidy for most of their lives.

He also fails in his comparison of health insurance to auto insurance. Auto insurance is competitive, you can buy it from a local company or from a company in another state, you’re free to drop one coverage and pick up another. Auto insurance is not employment driven, when you change or lose your job you do not lose your auto insurance and if you have coverage for a health condition you may not be able to get covered for that condition ever again. Nor is auto insurance subsidized by the government, . A worker who pays into a health insurance pool making it possible for older workers to receive lower rates also expects a similar benefit when they reach their fifties.

The only solution to the health care problems plaguing the U.S. he presents is that seniors should pay premiums in accordance to their age. This is not an expectable solution and is much less than I expect from him.

Arlene Specter Does Not Want Your Health Care Comments

I tried to E-mail Senator Specter with my opinions on the health care debate and found out he does not want them. This seemed strange because he was out front with his Town Halls, but after viewing his website I have decided that the Town Halls were more of a politically inspired defensive move than an honest interest in what his constituents are thinking.

When you use the contact section of his website you’re asked to specify the subject that you are referring to. There are seventeen different categories and when you select Health you’re asked for a subcategory: Medicare, Medicaid, Abortion, Nutrition and so on. There are selections for just about everything like Gun Control, Card Check, Amtrak, FEMA, Food Safety, Climate Change, Endangered Species, Cemeteries, HIV, Asbestos, Hunger and even a category on The Sudan. But if you have a comment on the Health Care debate or on a new legislative initiative, he doesn’t seem to be interested.

I’ve only been in Pennsylvania for five years so I’m not sure what qualities Specter had to become the state’s longest serving Senator. From what I’ve seen, in these five years, whatever positive qualities that first endeared him to the voters in Pennsylvania, are now gone.

DIH – Democrats In Hiding, Why This Is Hurting Real Health Care Reform

THE PEOPLE DON’T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT AND ARE EVEN MORE SUSPICIOUS WHEN THEY ATTEMPT TO RAM THEIR PROGRAMS THROUGH WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

The dems’ claim that the resistance to Health Care Reform is being orchestrated by private interests and fringe groups is untrue. As someone who does not belong or support any group or party, I resent that our elected officials are erecting blinders to a majority of their constituents concerns. It doesn’t matter which side you’re on, both Democrats and Republicans have concerns with this Bill and their representatives stonewalling blocks both the reasonable and the unreasonable. This tactic just detracts from any real discussion of the issues in the Health Care Bill.

There have been numerous attempts to create a system for universal health care in the U.S. and all have failed because the overhaul was too large and unwieldy. People are willing to let the politicians play at politics but this Bill is too much of a change. All we’re getting is promises that it will be revenue neutral and our taxes won’t increase, that our level of care will not be managed by cost control committees and that over-all, life-is-good and things will not change. And you wonder why people aren’t falling in line behind the Bill?

This Bill creates preferential treatment to certain groups such as unions, mandates intrusion into families that use the system and penalizes those that don’t. There are a thousand pages of new bureaucracy’s, new rules and regulations that are open ended and tons of unintended consequences. Most of us agree that health care needs reforms but this is just too big and too expensive to pass with no real and open discussion.

I am against government run health care but favor serious and well thought out programs of reform, most of the average Joe’s and Jane’s out there would also support intelligent reform. Here are a few issues to start with.

· Tort Reform – Just look at John Edwards, the main beneficiaries of medical malpractice suits are the attorneys.
· State Regulation – Eliminate the system of state boundaries, they reduce competition and drive up costs.
· Insurance Mandates - All physicians should have to accept all legitimate forms of insurance eliminating insurance directed and managed medical care.
· Portability – COBRA is a joke, if someone loses their job they cannot afford $1,000 a month or more for health insurance.
· Pre-existing conditions – Too many people pay into a system for twenty/thirty years and if anything should happen to that job they can lose coverage for serious and expensive conditions.
· Generic Drugs and Drug Pools – Twenty years is too long of a window and drug pricing could be reduced if pooling were allowed.
· Medical Training – Offer serious subsidies for people to enter the medical field. Do not lower standards allowing less qualified people in, but make it possible for lower income people with sufficient aptitude to enter.

Any one of these would be a massive undertaking but trying to do them all and more is just too much.