Sunday, May 09, 2010

What Government Regulated Health Care Will Really Cost Americans!!!

Amended May 11 and 24, 2010 - (See below)


In their 1993 article, “The Medicare Monster, A Cautionary Tale,” Reason Magazine contributing editors Steven Hayward and Erik Peterson wrote:

“The two primary lessons of Medicare are the chronic problem of woefully underestimating program costs and the impossibility of genuine cost control… At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was supposedly a 'conservative' estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.”


In recent years, workers’ compensation and Medicare have taken up a greater proportion of employers’ legally-required compensation costs, while the share for unemployment insurance has declined. Unemployment insurance accounted for 21.6 percent of legally-required compensation in 1966, but only 7.9 percent in 1998. In contrast, the portion of legally-required benefits that pays for workers’ compensation rose from 17.6 percent in 1966 to 21.5 percent in 1998, and that for Medicare rose from 5.9 percent to 14.1 percent over the same period.


First, since 1960, health care costs have grown 2.7 percentage points faster per year than the economy as a whole. This growth in overall health care costs is particularly problematic for the Federal Government because it is the Nation’s largest purchaser of health care, accounting for approximately one-third of all health care spending in the country.

The Government provides health care to seniors and low-income individuals through its two largest health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, and to veterans, active duty military, and civilian personnel through a number of other programs.

In 1966, Medicare and Medicaid accounted for only 1 percent of all Government expenditures, but now they account for 20 percent.


Medicare's Operational History and Impact on Health Care
Kulesher, Robert R. PhD

Medicare was originally designed in the 1960s to fit into the existing health care delivery system. However, the program's early years showed an inflationary impact on health care costs. Medicare was the second largest federal domestic program and the fastest growing one, making it a target for those concerned about the size of government in general. By 1980, Medicare constituted 15% of the nation's expenditures for personal health care; and Medicare's administrators recommended substantive changes in provider payments through the introduction of the prospective payment system. Prospective payment system legislation impacted hospitals initially and later skilled nursing facilities and home health agencies. As policymakers made changes in Medicare payments to providers, providers made changes in the way services were delivered. What eventually evolved, in an insidious manner, was implicit management of the nation's health care delivery system by the Medicare program.


Wait times
Health Canada, a federal department, publishes a series of surveys of the health care system in Canada based on Canadians first hand experience of the health care system.[41]

Although life threatening cases are dealt with immediately, some services needed are non urgent and patients are seen at the next available appointment in their local chosen facility.

The median wait time in Canada to see a special physician is a little over four weeks with 89.5% waiting less than 3 months.[41]

The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans [42] is two weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 3 months.[41]

The median wait time for surgery is four weeks with 82.2% waiting less than 3 months.[41]

Another study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, broadly in line with the current official statistics; 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.[43][44]

Dr. Brian Day was once quoted as saying "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."[45] Day gave no source for his two to three years claim. The Canadian Health Coalition has responded succinctly to Day's claims, pointing out that "access to veterinary care for animals is based on ability to pay. Dogs are put down if their owners can’t pay. Access to care should not be based on ability to pay." [46] Regional administrations of Medicare across Canada publish their own wait time data on the internet. For instance in British Columbia the wait time for a hip replacement is currently a little under ten weeks.[47] The CHC is one of many groups across Canada calling for increased provincial and federal funding for medicare and an end to provincial funding cuts as solutions to unacceptable wait times [48]. In a 2007 episode of ABC News's 20/20 titled "Sick in America," host John Stossel cited numerous examples of Canadians who did not get the health care that they needed.[49] The Fraser Institute, a conservative think tank, claims to do its own research and found that treatment time from initial referral by a GP through consultation with a specialist to final treatment, across all specialties and all procedures (emergency, non-urgent, and elective), averaged 17.7 weeks in 2005.[50][51] However, the report of the Fraser Institute, an organization advocating a "prosperous world"[52] is greatly at odds with the Canadian government's own 2007 report.[53] Canadian pysychiatrist Dr David Gratzer, who is also employed by the libertarian Cato Institute, was once asked by U.S. congressman Dennis Kucinich if he knew what the wait time for diagnostic imaging procedures such as CT scans and MRIs was across Canada. Gratzer began his reply "I can tell you what the Ontario government said it was for cancer and..." when Kucinich cut him short and gave him the true figure of 3 weeks, just as Gratzer was uttering the answer of "six months" to his preferred question.[54]


I could compile and publish so much more but if you do not open your mind to the above facts, then all the facts in the world will not help you.

Lenny Vasbinder


Amendment added May 11, 2010 -

To view this next email as a web page, go here.

Leonard -

How many times during the ObamaCare PR offensive did you hear the President say, "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it" or "our plan will bend the cost curve?"

And time after time, critics were accused of fear-mongering. These critics pointed out that under ObamaCare, healthcare costs would increase, not decrease. They also made the simple point that to remain competitive under ObamaCare, businesses were likely to drop their health coverage and pay a fine instead of paying the additional costs.

Well, the critics are now being proven right. When several companies reported that they would have to write down millions of dollars because of ObamaCare, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) demanded public hearings and that these companies turn over internal documents. His goal: to humiliate businesses and prove that that they were misrepresenting their healthcare costs.

But then a funny thing happened. Congressman Waxman abruptly canceled his show hearings.

And now we know why.

The news media has now uncovered that these companies are not only following the law on public disclosure in taking these write downs, but the documents originally requested by Rep. Waxman show that many large companies are indeed contemplating dropping their health coverage altogether because of ObamaCare.

When this was first uncovered, we were in Greenville, South Carolina for our Real Jobs Summit. Watch the video below as Speaker Gingrich challenges Rep. Henry Waxman to come clean:

Once you watch the video, please take a moment to call Rep. Waxman, and ask him to be honest with the American people, and hold his hearings. The public has a right to know the true cost of ObamaCare.

You can call him at (202) 225-3976.

Thank you. Together, we can continue to get the truth out, and repeal ObamaCare.


Vince Haley
Vice President for Policy
American Solutions

This email was sent by: American Solutions for Winning the Future
1425 K Street N.W., Washington, DC, 20005, USA


Amended May 24, 2010 -


Investor's Business Daily published an editorial reporting that there is no severability clause in the ObamaCare law so when part of it is declared unconstitutional, the entire bill should be found unconstitutional, throwing the whole thing out. Here is their editorial...

Read The Fine Print
Posted 05/18/2010 06:58 PM ET

Health Care Reform: One analyst says the Democrats were amateurish in writing their overhaul bill. This might be worth more than a snicker. It could mean the courts can strike down the entire law at once.

Various parts of the Democrats' health care reform law have been held up as pieces that might not stand up to a constitutional rigor.

The individual mandate that requires those who aren't previously covered by insurance to buy a plan is the most likely place for the legal objections to begin. Another provision that is being disputed at the constitutional level is the expansion of Medicaid that forces states to increase their spending on that program.

But those are only two pieces of a legislative leviathan. Even if one or both were stricken, the bulk of the law's burden would remain.

However, Greg Scandlen, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, says due to a little-known legal concept the entire law would unravel if a single part was found to be outside the Constitution.

"Apparently there was no 'severability' clause written into this law, which shows how amateurish the process was," he wrote. "Virtually every bill I've ever read includes a provision that if any part of the law is ruled unconstitutional the rest of the law will remain intact. Not this one. That will likely mean that the entire law will be thrown out if a part of it is found to violate the Constitution."

No argument from us. The bill writers and lawmakers who voted for it without reading it were unprofessional.

That was obvious in the haste in which the 2,400 pages of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act were passed and signed into law. The Democrats' rush to get the bill through was a clear act of desperation that looked like the work of novices — or despots.

As history will remember, it was hurried House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who said that "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Evidently it had to pass for her party to find out what wasn't in it, namely the shield of a severability clause.

Constitutional scholars aren't saying it's impossible, but many don't seem to have much confidence that the courts will overturn the law. Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University Law School professor, told the New York Times that if he had to make a bet, he'd put his money on the courts upholding the policy.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts with Thumbnails

World Flag Counter added 04/14/2010 and U.S. Flag added 04/26/2010, so the numbers are WAY low.

free counters Free counters!