America’s health care system is not broken as President Obama stated during Wednesday’s press conference. Yes, our current health care system definitely needs some reform, which I mentioned in my previous blog.
Change the laws to allow small businesses to pool their resources to purchase affordable health insurance for their employees, tort reform, fix under-funding issues of current entitlement programs, secure our borders, and tax breaks for tax-payers who pay for their own health insurance equal to 100% of the cost they pay.
But it is far from being broken.
Opponents of the government’s health care reform bill are accused of lying…of not caring about the poor and uninsured…of trying to undermine the President. That is hardly the case.
We are participating in the Democratic process and exercising our Constitutional right to freedom of speech. We are trying to protect this country from what we consider an insidious takeover of our health care system and an eventual one-size fits all, single payer universal health care system.
We believe that the proponents of the reform bill are not being entirely truthful and a bit disingenuous.
Here are just a few statements in question:
Proponent Statement # 1: “Small businesses are being beaten out of existence due to the cost of insurance for their employees.”
Small businesses are being beaten out of existence due to higher payroll costs, rising taxes, high cost of business insurance and increased regulations.
In several states the minimum wage increases each year based on the rate of inflation, Oregon being one of them. In Oregon the increase has averaged 3%. In 2009 it increased by almost 6% (from $7.95 to $8.40). Oregon’s state minimum wage is the second highest in the country; just behind our Northern neighbor Washington at $8.55. Small businesses can not keep absorbing these increases in payroll for much longer.
As for the rising cost of health insurance, small businesses (unless their employees are unionized) currently have the option of not providing insurance if they can not afford it, passing more of the rising cost onto their employees or of dropping it altogether if it becomes too costly.
If the reform bill passes all employers with at least $250,000 in payroll will be required to provide health insurance for their employees. It will not be optional and, if any employers refuse to comply, they will face penalties of up to 8% of their payroll for every year they refuse.
This will be yet another added business expense that many small business owners will not be able to afford or avoid.
Proponent Statement # 2: “If you like your health plan, you can keep it, the only thing that will change is that you’ll pay less.”
While you WILL get to keep your private health insurance coverage if you like it…for the time being…don’t try to make any changes to the plan and, if you have an employer provided health insurance plan, pray you don’t lose it due to loss of employment.
On page 16 of the House’s plan, under the heading "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage" the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill states: “Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of the year the legislation becomes law.”
In other words, if the House’s health care reform bill is passed:
- Those individuals who currently have their own private health insurance coverage will not be able to make any changes to their insurance plans or purchase a different private plan. They will have to enroll in the public option.
- Individuals who have an employer provided health insurance plan and lose that plan due to loss of employment will not be able to purchase their own private insurance plan. If they don’t find employment with another employer who provides health insurance, they will have to enroll in the public option.
The Heritage Foundation commissioned the Lewin Group, a highly respected health care policy and management consulting firm, to examine the impact the House’s health care reform bill would have on private insurance when a government-run health plan is introduced in the marketplace. The study found that:
- 88.1 million Americans could be transitioned out of their current plan as employers opt out of continuing their existing coverage. These Americans would lose the employer coverage they now have. The study also found that nationwide 103.9 million Americans would end up on the new government-run public plan.
- Yearly premiums for Americans with private coverage could jump as much as $460 per person as a result of more cost-shifting, which would stem from the public plan.
And let’s not overlook our seniors who may be facing proposed cuts of $535 Billion in Medicare? $170 Billion of these cuts are proposed for the Medicare Advantage program with $158 Billion of those cuts being in the fee for services program which low-income and minority senior citizens rely on.
The rest of the cuts will be for nursing homes, therapy, and hospital care. The average senior citizen can expect to have their health care costs increase by about $250.00 per month.
So you could lose your coverage, whether you like or not, if your employer can cut costs by putting you on the public option. If you want to keep your own private insurance you will pay more not less and senior citizens, the group who can least afford to pay more, will pay more.
Proponent Statement # 3: “This is not a trick. This is not single-payer. That's not what anyone is talking about.”
A single payer universal health care system is exactly what the ultimate result of this health care reform bill will be…not immediately, but within a few years. Those in favor of a single payer universal health care system are not stupid. They know exactly what they need to do to accomplish their goal.
On June 30, 2003, then Illinois State Senator Barrack Obama stated at an AFL-CIO Conference, “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody.
"And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out…a single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we’ve got to take back the White House and we’ve got to take back the Senate and we’ve got to take back the House.” (NOTE: Obama now says he is not for a single payer universal health care system.)
On July 21, 2008, Jacob Hacker; a Political Science Professor and the architect of the system in which private and public insurance options would compete, was commenting on his vision.
He said, “Someone once said to me that this is a Trojan Horse for a single payer. And I said, well it’s not a Trojan Horse, right? It's just right there. I’m telling you! We’re going to get there…over time…slowly. We’ll move away from reliance on employer-based health insurance as we should.
"But we’ll do it in a way that we’re not going to frighten people into thinking their going to lose their private insurance. Where you give them a choice of public and private insurance when their in the pool and we’re going to let them keep their private employment-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it.”
On April 18, 2009, Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) revealed the true goal of the public health care option. She said, “And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option saying, ‘It wouldn’t let private insurance compete. That a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single payer.’
"My single payer friends, he was right! The man was right!…This is not a principled fight. This is a fight about strategy for getting there and I believe we will!”
Does anyone doubt what is really going on here? I don’t.
Proponent Statement # 4: “You will not be denied care if you have a pre-existing condition.”
Oh, really? Well, how about the elderly who are going to see cuts in Medicare? Are they going to get the care they want or need? Let’s ask President Obama.
On June 24, 2009, during the President’s ABC Infomercial for health care reform, a woman named Jane Sturm told the story of her 105 year old mother who, at age 100 received a pacemaker.
She explained, “Her doctor said, ‘I can’t do anything more, unless you have a pacemaker.’ I said, ‘Go for it!’ She said, ‘Go for it!’ But the arrhythmia specialist said, ‘No, she was too old.’ Her doctor said, ‘I’m going to make an appointment because a picture is worth a thousand words.’
"And when the other arrhythmia specialist saw her…saw her joy of life and so on…he said, ‘I’m going for it.’ That was over five years ago.
"My question to you is, outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any special consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, a quality of life, or is it a medical cut-off at a certain age?”
The President’s reply, in my opinion, was chilling. He said, “We’re not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end of life care. A lot of that is going to have to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves.
"But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that is not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not going to necessarily improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”
Say what? We’re sorry…just take a painkiller?
My mother is almost seventy. She recently had a heart attack and required three stents to be inserted into her two arteries. If she had had this attack after the health care reform bill was passed would she be told, “We’re really sorry Marlene, but you have exceeded your usefulness to society. We’ll just give you pain killers?”
At what age are we going to be told that we’re too old to receive the health care we need and should start receiving end of life care…that we should just take painkillers and die peacefully like an animal being put to sleep? Seventy? Seventy-Five? Eighty? How old? And who will decide…some government bureaucrat who knows nothing about us? Take a pill…how absurd!!!
Finally, Proponent Statement # 5: “The government will not get between you and your doctor.”
Earlier this month, Energy and Commerce Committee member, U.S. Representative Phil Gingrey (R-GA), proposed an amendment to the health care reform bill which would ban government employees from overruling doctors on matters of direct patient treatment.
The amendment read, “In section 931 of the Public Health Service Act, as added by section 2401, add at the end the following new subsection: Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow any federal employee or political appointee to dictate how a medical provider practices medicine.”
“This is about the practice of medicine,” said U.S. Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), of the amendment. “If I asked for a show of hands about how many people think people in Washington should tell your doctor how to practice medicine on you, I don’t think there’d be anybody who would raise a hand. I wouldn’t raise my hand. I don’t want my doctor to be told how to practice medicine on me or my family.”
“My guess is most Americans would not like a detached bureaucrat who’d had a bad day to make that decision,” added U.S. Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO). “That’s what this amendment is all about…This is a debate about whether a federal bureaucrat can dictate to a medical provider…I would hope that this committee would decide that the doctor-patient relationship is more important than the bureaucrat-patient relationship.”
The amendment was rejected. 23 Republicans and one Democrat voted in favor of the amendment while 33 Democrats voted against it.
When Obama says, “This is not about me”, he’s right…it’s not about him…although he really wants it to be. For those of us who are opposed to this massive new entitlement program, it’s not about defeating him or ruining his presidency.
It’s about our right to privacy and keeping the government out of our medical records. It’s about our right to decide for ourselves, in consultation with our doctors, what health care we receive and when. It’s about keeping government bureaucrats out of our medical decisions.
