Facts Are Stubborn Things, You Snitch: Update

I received the infamous unsolicited White House email from Senior White House Adviser David Axelrod.

You I did the patriotic thing: I reported it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Here is what I wrote:

Dear flag,

I wanted you to know that I have been receiving fishy emails from the the person below. I believe he may be illegally using email addresses gathered by the government to send spam filled with misinformation concerning health care reform. Thank you for you attention to this matter.

Regards,

I never thought I could have fun using White House's shenanigans.

Healthcare Reform: Tax Relief

A show of hands. How many people believe the 111th Congress would offer tax cuts as part of a health care reform plan?

Oops, I don't see any hands.

OK, that is because you are right. This congress would never conceive of giving taxpayers a break. It's just not in their genes.

But our government has been using tax law to influence the behavior of Americans as far back as 1862. For example, they give tax breaks for buying a home, having children, charitable giving (for now) and for medical expenses over 7.5% of your adjusted gross income (if you file the long form with Schedule A). It has been this way for many decades.

Why do they not allow you to deduct all of your medical expenses? They allow business to deduct all of the Benefits they offer, which include medical insurance expenses, and they do not even need to use a long form. (IRS Form 1120, line 24). I'm sure this situation has a lot to do with the amount of money lobbyists have to offer.

I believe they should continue using tax law to influence Americans (in the way I would, of course) and enact a dollar for dollar tax credit for medical expenses. That would be all medical expenses including doctor, hospital, laboratory fees, prescription drugs, insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays. This would influence more people to buy their own insurance, maybe start a health care savings account, and pay for their own health care. With a few other reforms, such as tort, Medicare, Medicaid reform and expanding competitive regions, the cost will be reduced, further encouraging personal ownership of health care insurance. Personal ownership would also make portability much easier to realize.

Ya know, I would like to have a tax deductible health care savings account, but government regulation won't allow it due to the health care insurance program I am in. It makes no sense.

Lowering income taxes: Good. Adding new taxes: Bad.

If they wanted to make health care more accessible and save you and I some of our earnings, our representatives could cut taxes on healthcare expenses. As it is, H.R. 3200, includes plans to make everyone, rich and poor, subject to an additional a new tax penalty (Title IV-- Amendments to Internal Revenue Code). It is in the form of a 2.5% fine on individuals without "acceptable" health care coverage. So, congress and the president want to mandate that you spend your money on their committee's version of "acceptable" health care insurance or you will see your taxes go up.

Giving a tax credit, as opposed to the current new tax penalty, would help many more Americans to purchase their own healthcare insurance and remove dependency on bloated government programs. When people pay for goods and services out their own earnings, they are careful to ensure they are getting the most cost effective

I believe government's meddling in the health care arena helps force, I mean "influence", people to move into government sponsored programs, such as Medicare. Medicare looks like a good deal because the true costs are hidden from consumers. Medicare Part B participants only pay about 25% of the actual cost. The other 75% is paid out of the general fund. If we were to ween people off of Medicare that would add 42 - 47 million paying into a private health care insurance plan. Gee another way to lower private sector insurance costs.

Adding people to the government rolls via the "public option", or government option, will only make matters worse.

Healthcare Reform: Competition

In his town hall meeting Tuesday in Portsmouth, NH, the president said,

"I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the post office that's always having problems."

How this remark helps his cause is unknown to me. If anything, he is acknowledging that a government run "business" in competition with private sector businesses, including the health care industry, will fail to be competitive.

'Nuf said.... almost.

Competition is the engine of self sufficiency and wealth in America. It is what created the most advanced living conditions in the history of man. Competition is responsible for the rapid advance of every aspect of American life. This includes the state of modern health care. Some Americans who do not believe that they are "competitive" will always end up in unions, on assembly lines or on welfare, and being dependent on those who are competitive enough to win them any income and benefits they may have. Competition lowers prices and costs as evidenced by the impetus to institute anti-monopoly laws in this country.

The same holds true for healthcare insurance. Competition, fair competition, will lower the cost of healthcare insurance and the cost of healthcare in general. There are some anti-competitive policies in place in this country right now that are causing the costs to skyrocket. Government healthcare programs and state restrictions on out of state insurers.

I found it interesting that some push the "public option" for healthcare insurance, claiming it will be "competitive". If you believe private sector insurers can compete with the federal government, then, answer these questions...

Do private sector companies print their own money?
Do private sector companies use their power to forcibly extract money from others?
Do private sector companies make their own laws and regulations?

Of course not, which makes the argument for a public option irrational. Heck, the government doesn't even have to pay for advertising.

The question to ask is, "Do government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid cause healthcare costs to go up?"

The answer to that is a firm "yes".

There are at least two reasons for this.

- One is that when the government pays the medical bills, those millions are removed from the customer base of insurance companies. According to Health Harbor, "Medicare covers between 42 million and 45 million Americans, making it the largest single payer of healthcare in the nation." That is 42-45 million people who are not buying private sector healthcare coverage, which causes insurance providers to raise fees on others to stay in business.

We all know that the insurance company model is to "spread the wealth" (to steal a phrase), or risk, among their policy holders. More policy holders means the risk is spread thinner and the cost to each would be lower.

- Another is that people using Medicare and Medicaid cannot see how much it is costing everyone. Sure, they see their own charges. But to most, those figures are meaningless. Why? Because the payment isn't coming out of their checkbook. They have no need to be concerned and if they were concerned, they have no way to tell if Medicare or Medicaid are being over or under charged. There is nothing for them to compare it with.

Many believe that Medicare Part B is paid for with payroll taxes, monthly premiums, copays and deductibles.

Not true. In fact about 75% of the payouts to Part B claims comes from general revenue, with payroll taxes, etc., covering the remainder (2007 numbers).

- Medicare and Medicaid limit prices. Logic would say that limiting prices would limit costs and make it less expensive. But Doctors, hospitals and big pharma cannot put an equal limit on their costs. They must earn enough to allow them to pay their bills and stay operational. Remember, no matter who pays for for goods and services, someone must get paid to make that product or provide that service. The government price fixing forces them to look elsewhere to make up the difference between what they need to pay their staffs, office space, utilities, medical equipment, etc. They end up charging more to those patients who use private sector insurance and those who pay cash. For proof, just look at any bill that is paid by Medicare/Medicaid. It will show how much their fee is for the service and how much Medicare/Medicaid allowed.

The bottom line is there is no way possible that a government public option would be competitive with private sector insurance providers and that the federal government's meddling in what should be private sector businesses is what has caused healthcare and healthcare insurance to skyrocket for almost four decades since Medicare and Medicaid stated.

Real competition is the road to lower healthcare and healthcare insurance costs.

Healthcare Reform:: Preexisting Conditions.

Denial of preexisting conditions is one of the talking points the administration and congress are using to try and sell their "public option" insurance plan. The president is using it as I type in his town hall meeting today.

Insurance companies do not refuse the vast majority of applicants because of preexisting health conditions. They require a waiting period before coverage of the preexisting condition starts, usually 12-18 months, and charge more for coverage.

We know this because of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is "a federal law that:

* Limits the ability of a new employer plan to exclude coverage for preexisting conditions;
* Provides additional opportunities to enroll in a group health plan if you lose other coverage or experience certain life events;
* Prohibits discrimination against employees and their dependent family members based on any health factors they may have, including prior medical conditions, previous claims experience, and genetic information; and
* Guarantees that certain individuals will have access to, and can renew, individual health insurance policies."

What can ObamaCare, or DemoCare, do to fix this?

They could expand HIPAA to include individuals who want to purchase healthcare insurance but who were not a member of a group plan. Of course this change would run up the cost of the insurance, but congress doesn't mind. They won't be in that insurance system. And besides, running up costs may just be their plan.

While providing health care is the humanitarian way, providing health care and insurance is not a right, as in a constitutionally protected right, such as free political speech or lodging soldiers in your home. If it were, it would be guaranteed by the US Constitution and given to Americans "free". Of course it cannot be free as the health care providers need to earn a living just like you and I, so they must be paid.

HR 3200's preexisting condition clause ensures the cost of insurance will increase. Ultimately someone must pay for it.