Posted by CrabbyCon on July 1, 2009 · Leave a Comment
Listening to CSPAN on my way into work this morning, I had to push my eyes back into place, because the lack of common sense from Americans who took this poll disturbed me.
The head of the polling institute at Quinnipiac was explaining the results this morning and taking questions at the National Press Club. He discussed that nearly 69% wanted a government health care system competing with private health care. However, 26% opposed a government-run program. Therefore, it seems to me that people don’t understand that the government, when it competes with anything, wins. My jaw dropped in that instant. How can you be skeptical of a government run (universal) program, but want the government to compete with private industry?
On top of the 26% who agreed with a universal program (no private industry) only 53% said they would want to use a government option should one exist. Many want to keep their own private insurance! Yet again, there is no logic in how people are answering this poll. I am utterly dumb-founded! 85% of those who responded and already had private insurance, said they were satisfied with what they already had…
There was also a lot of confusion regarding the responses to pay for health care. Many were willing to have the rich and corporations pay more for their health care and only 49% said they would be willing to pay more for insurance to cover costs for others. 72% of those who said they would pay a little more, would only pay up to $500 more. That’s about the cost of a slice of pizza/week – how will that pay for a program that will cost upwards of over $1 trillion? The answer: It Won’t!
The breakout of demographics who wanted government health care and who would pay more comes as no surprise. Democrats overwhelmingly would pay more, but as discussed above were only willing to pay out of their own pocket; up to $500 extra, but were more than willing to have others cover for them. Over 70% of blacks want a government-run health care program, approx. 53% of Hispanics want one and White voters were against the program. Young individuals, 18-34, were also more willing to pay higher taxes for a govt. run program… I know that most in this age bracket, especially until they begin having families, do not realize the true consequences of high taxes or government control.
This poll also looked at 3 classes of voters; Republicans, Independents, and Democrats. Republicans and Democrats left no surprises. Independents did show that depending on how health care goes, Obama could lose a lot of his independent support, which helped him over that 50% hurdle last election.
63% of Americans disagree with taxing health care benefits, which the White House is considering. Health care benefits do not get taxed currently.
I would have enjoyed seeing a little more information as to the respondents of this poll. I would especially like to see the tax brackets that each respondent falls into and the range of taxes they pay annually, for example. I find that these polls leave out important variables that could really put the entire sentiment of the country into a better perspective.
I’m still waiting to get polled… tick tock.
Share on Facebook
Filed under Congress, Constitution, Economy, Health care, Legislation, Michelle Obama, National Debt, Obama, Obama Administration, Politicians, Socialism · Tagged with Common Sense, Constitution, Economy, Entitlements, Government Control, Health care, Obama, obamacare, Polling Data, Socialism
Posted by CrabbyCon on June 25, 2009 · Leave a Comment
California just can’t seem to beat the habit of government spending. The latest proposal coming out of the state legislature originally had $11B in cuts to state services, but that proposal was shot down. So while California burns, literally and figuratively, the state legislature sits there battling back and forth on “to cut, or not to cut.” My advice to California: cut the fat and start doing what’s best for your constituents and your state not your lobbyists, special interests, and your own pockets. I know it’s difficult for politicians, since so many have forgotten who they really work for, but it’s about time to start voting all these people out of office and voicing our concerns. California will be bankrupt before the legislature comes to a decision on the $24B budget, how sad is that?
“All of the cuts that were rejected by the majority party that the governor proposed are things that unfortunately have to be done,” he said. “We can’t afford some of those things when we’re talking about revenues that are back to where we were in 1999 or 2000.
Moody’s Investors Service has warned that California could face a “multi-notch” downgrade in its credit rating, citing the state’s expected massive shortfall for fiscal 2010 of more than 20 percent of its general fund budget and limited options for plugging it.
Schwarzenegger and lawmakers face the task of closing a $24.3 billion budget deficit for the state’s fiscal year beginning on July 1.
Besides the idiocy coming out of California, Massachusetts has also created a plan to house the homeless in motels. They aren’t housing them in motels because they are overwhelmed or out of room at shelters. No, they are paying for them to stay in motels due to complaints that the shelters didn’t have enough amenities to satisfy their needs, like kitchens, living rooms, etc. Are you kidding ME? These people are jobless, don’t pay taxes, and just become leeches on society. Not everyone, but the majority. What would be the incentive to me to make a better life and find a job if the government enabled me to live the way I have always lived and be lazy and complacent? This is the exact same problem with bailouts, welfare, unemployment benefits, and entitlements in general. This has become insane. This is not the innovative, hardworking American society that I studied and read about in school. This is not what my parents taught me or what those in our military have fought for. I’m appalled by the idiocracy that we are now calling our government and our country.
Housing Massachusetts’ homeless is costing tax payers around $2 million per month. It costs an average of $85 per night to have families, including nearly 1000 children, stay in motels.
The Interagency Council on Housing and Homelessness admits that the use of motels for the homeless is not ideal, but is the best that can be done at this time.
Homeless advocates are worried that families are not getting the support of shelters with living rooms, kitchens, and play areas.
Share on Facebook
Filed under Bailouts, Budget, Constitution, Economy, Politicians, State Issues · Tagged with Budget, California, Debt, Economy, Entitlements, Homeless, Massachusetts, Politicians, spending, State Issues
Posted by CrabbyCon on June 8, 2009 · 1 Comment
The latest health care bill backed by Kennedy and Dodd is another example of the loony left. I’m not sure whether I should laugh or cry over the acronym of the bill, which stands for Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP). There are 15 items in this bill that should set the alarms off for those who are keeping a watchful eye on Washington, D.C. these days:
- The Kennedy-Dodd bill would create an individual mandate requiring you to buy a “qualified” health insurance plan, as defined by the government. If you don’t have “qualified” health insurance for a given month, you will pay a new Federal tax. Incredibly, the amount and structure of this new tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), whose only guidance is “to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).” The new Medical Advisory Council (see #3D) could exempt classes of people from this new tax. To avoid this tax, you would have to report your health insurance information for each month of the prior year to the Secretary of HHS, along with “any such other information as the Secretary may prescribe.” [More taxes! and just what I want - the government having my health information... Is this Constitutional? Not like that seems to matter anymore]
- The bill would also create an employer mandate. Employers would have to offer insurance to their employees. Employers would have to pay at least a certain percentage (TBD) of the premium, and at least a certain dollar amount (TBD). Any employer that did not would pay a new tax. Again, the amount and structure of the tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and HHS. Small employers (TBD) would be exempt. [Many employers will opt out on purpose, too costly to do such a thing - forcing people to go into the government plan]
- In the Kennedy-Dodd bill, the government would define a qualified plan:
- All health insurance would be required to have guaranteed issue and renewal, modified community rating, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime or annual limits on benefits, and family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26. [Just what we need, the youth to be even lazier - keeping them living at home longer]
- A qualified plan would have to meet one of three levels of standardized cost-sharing defined by the government, “gold, silver, and bronze.” Details TBD.
- Plans would be required to cover a list of preventive services approved by the Federal government. [Yes, please let's trust the government to approve things]
- A qualified plan would have to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
- The MAC would also define what “affordable and available coverage” is for different income levels, affecting who has to pay the tax if they don’t buy health insurance. The MAC’s rules would go into effect unless Congress passed a joint resolution (under a fast-track process) to turn them off.
- Health insurance plans could not charge higher premiums for risky behaviors: “Such rate shall not vary by health status-related factors, … or any other factor not described in paragraph (1).” Smokers, drinkers, drug users, and those in terrible physical shape would all have their premiums subsidized by the healthy. [Oh Goody! More Moral Hazards!]
- Guaranteed issue and renewal combined with modified community rating would dramatically increase premiums for the overwhelming majority of those Americans who now have private health insurance. New Jersey is the best example of health insurance mandates gone wild. In the name of protecting their citizens, premiums are extremely high to cover the cross-subsidization of those who are uninsurable.
- The bill would expand Medicaid to cover everyone up to 150% of poverty, with the Federal government paying all incremental costs (no State share). This means adding childless adults with income below 150% of the poverty line. [Expand a failing system? I am currently beating my head on the keyboard j;alajklsadflk; because this is insanity]
- People from 150% of poverty up to 500% (!!) would get their health insurance subsidized (on a sliding scale). If this were in effect in 2009, a family of four with income of $110,000 would get a small subsidy. The bill does not indicate the source of funds to finance these subsidies. [More entitlements, more complacency, more dependency upon the government]
- People in high cost areas (e.g., New York City, Boston, South Florida, Chicago, Los Angeles) would get much bigger subsidies than those in low cost areas (e.g., much of the rest of the country, especially in rural areas). The subsidies are calculated as a percentage of the “reference premium,” which is determined based on the cost of plans sold in that particular geographic area [regionalism! So other regions of America aren't equal and just as deserving?]
- There would be a “public plan option” of health insurance offered by the federal government. In this new government health plan, the federal government would pay health care providers Medicare rates + 10%. The +10% is clearly intended to attract short-term legislative support from medical providers. [ hope they are not so naive that they think that differential would last. ]
- Group health plans with 250 or fewer members would be prohibited from self-insuring. ERISA would only be for big businesses.
- States would have to set up “gateways” (health insurance exchanges) to market only qualified health insurance plans. If they don’t, the Feds will set up a gateway for them. [damned if you do, damned if you don't]
- Health insurance plans in existence before the law would not have to meet the new insurance standards. This creates a weird bifurcated system and means you would (probably) be subject to a different set of rules when you change jobs.
- The bill does not specify what spending will be cut or what taxes will be raised to pay for the increased spending. That is presumably for the Finance Committee to determine, since it’s their jurisdiction.
- The bill defines an “eligible individual” as “a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or an alien lawfully present in the United States.” [All aliens will be lawful if Obama gets his amnesty passed in the Fall]
- The bill would create a new pot of money for state gateways to pay “navigators” to educate people about the new bill, distribute information about health plans, and help people enroll. Navigators receiving federal funds “may include … unions, …”
This would have severe effects on the more than 100 million Americans who have private health insurance today:
- The government would mandate not only that you must buy health insurance, but what health insurance counts as “qualifying.”
- Health insurance premiums would rise as a result of the law, meaning lower wages.
- A government-appointed board would determine what items and services are “essential benefits” that your qualifying plan must cover.
- You would find a tremendous new disincentive to switch jobs, because your new health insurance may be subject to the new rules and would therefore be significantly more expensive.
- Those who keep themselves healthy would be subsidizing premiums for those with risky or unhealthy behaviors.
- Far more than half of all Americans would be eligible for subsidies, but we have not yet been told who would pay the bill.
- The Secretaries of Treasury and HHS would have unlimited discretion to impose new taxes on individuals and employers who do not comply with the new mandates.
- The Secretary of HHS could mandate that you provide him or her with “any such other information as [he/she] may prescribe.”
I wonder if Sarah Palin could also say “I Told Ya So” to the health care bill that may be passed in July (the month that they are aiming for). All of us who are employed and whose employer carries insurance will be affected by this. I like having a choice of which doctor I go to, as long as they are covered under my plan. I receive quality care and due to the fact that I have some medical issues of my own, I don’t want to chance handing my health and well-being over to the inefficient government, which has destroyed the nuclear family, the minority community, inner cities, immigration, the economy, and any companies they have tried to run. I have stood in line at the DMV and the ineffectiveness of that organization, the long lines, are what we will have to look forward to, given the government controlling people’s health care.
Let’s also not forget that government mandated health care, or health care run by the government, competing with the private sector, will always win. The government will find ways to pass legislation to put competitors out of business, as it has done in the past. Government run anything always costs money, it will require money from taxpayers to fund another entitlement to the American people. Big government really is plantation politics; creating serfdom for otherwise capable individuals.
Below is the corresponding PDF/Word documents for the HELP bill. As an FYI, if you read a bill and can’t make sense out of it – don’t vote for it! Legislation should contain common sense, not legalese that baffles everyone.
Here is the PDF version and here is the Word version
I wonder if Kennedy included health care for women who were driven off the road into a river by a drunken buffoon?
Share on Facebook
Filed under Congress, Constitution, Economy, Health care, Legislation, Politicians, Socialism · Tagged with Big Government, Congress, Consitution, Dodd, Entitlements, Health care, Kennedy, Legislation, Politicians, Socialism