Posts Tagged ‘uninsured’

Hollywood Liberal, When It Comes To Health Care, Thy Name Is HYPOCRITE

May 27, 2014

Just by way of introducing this topic, it’s not like it ought to be any kind of a secret that being a “Hollywood liberal” is numerically equivalent with being a “total hypocrite.”  This kind of crap has been a documented FACT for years now when it comes to liberals demonizing everybody else for wanting to pay lower taxes even as they whine for the same tax breaks for themselves that they love to deny to everybody else.

But you need to realize that it turns out that the hypocrisy of Hollywood liberals is all-pervasive and all-encompassing.  Like the doctrine of human sin under Calvinist theology, hypocrisy extends into and corrupts every single aspect of the liberals’ being.

I published another example of the pure, unadulterated hypocrisy that is pathological in Hollywood liberals yesterday.  And while we’ve got a terrible drought on the leftist coast of God damn America, it is nevertheless raining hypocrites here.  In Hollywood, there are a tsunamis’ worth of them.

I came across this one-sided presentation of the wonders of ObamaCare in the Los Angeles Times and immediately saw that the “journalist” who “reported” on this story pathologically refused to consider the ramifications of what she was writing.

But consider: given that liberals LOVE to attack whole industries for not paying their workers enough, blah-blah-blah, look who ALSO hasn’t been paying their damn workers anywhere NEAR enough (before we deal with just what “big” beneficiaries of ObamaCare actually are getting).

We’re told in the article below:

More than most people, workers in the area’s vast entertainment industry are poised to benefit from the federal health law…

And do you know why that is?  Think of it from the perspective that the liberals love to demonize everybody else over.  Here, I’ll help:

“When people think Hollywood, they think George Clooney and Meryl Streep, but that’s not the average person in this town,” said Dan Kitowski, director of health services for the western region of the Actors Fund, a national nonprofit that does Affordable Care Act outreach.

Yeah, that’s right.  Liberals are always out there demonizing CEOs and saying conservatives are EVIL because they think the people at the top should make more money than the people on the bottom.  But that is only because, being liberals, these people are pure, rabid hypocrites who WILL NOT consider the log in their own facelift-surgery-widened eyes.

Liberal, thy name is hypocrite.

Actors, musicians are big beneficiaries of Obamacare
By Soumya Karlamangla
May 22, 2014, 4:28 PM

In 2011, actress Lynda Berg didn’t make enough money to qualify for health insurance through her union. And, on her own, she had trouble finding a plan she could afford because she’s a survivor of breast cancer, considered a preexisting condition..

The uncertainty of not having a health plan was stressful and at times expensive, she recalls. A few years ago she fell and broke her hand and elbow and ended up paying $4,000 for her medical care.

But all that has changed for Berg, 59. In March, she went online, signed up for a policy through Covered California, the state’s new health insurance marketplace set up under the Affordable Care Act, and now is getting medical care.

More than most people, workers in the area’s vast entertainment industry are poised to benefit from the federal health law. But as the new law takes hold, the massive overhaul has also stirred up considerable confusion and anxiety over how to navigate a host of new healthcare options.

For decades, artists have flocked to the state, and many have just scraped by while trying to get their big break. According to a study from the National Endowment for the Arts, California has the highest number of artists in the nation.

The same study found that more than 30% of artists are self-employed compared with 10% in the general population, and rates of uninsured are typically higher among the self-employed than others.

In the industry, actors and other movie workers typically get insurance through their unions. But many say they don’t get enough hours or steady work as actors to meet the income requirements to apply.

For instance, according to data from SAG-AFTRA, the country’s largest union for actors, broadcasters and recording artists, only about 15% of members qualify for health insurance through the union.

“When people think Hollywood, they think George Clooney and Meryl Streep, but that’s not the average person in this town,” said Dan Kitowski, director of health services for the western region of the Actors Fund, a national nonprofit that does Affordable Care Act outreach.

The federal law that went into full effect this year made it easier for people to buy health insurance on their own because coverage is guaranteed regardless of preexisting health conditions, and subsidies are available to make premiums more affordable.

That creates a new range of options for people who are self-employed or who may have held on to a job they didn’t like just for the benefits, said Laura Baker, a senior health and benefits consultant for consulting firm Mercer in Los Angeles. One Harvard study estimated that 11 million Americans were stuck in so-called “job lock” — not able to leave their jobs for fear of losing their health benefits.

“It’s certainly a whole new world for some,” Baker said.

Actress Berg, who lives in Beverlywood, now pays a premium of $145 a month for her Blue Shield of California plan. She’s using her coverage to get prescriptions for $5 a month that she was paying more than $100 to fill before. She plans to head to the doctor’s office soon for a checkup she’s been putting off.

“It’s a tremendous blessing to actors and anyone who doesn’t have insurance,” she said. “Even if you get a plan with a large deductible, at least you have that safety net … and you’re not in debt for the next seven years.”

At a recent workshop at the Actors Fund’s Los Angeles office, actors and artists tried to sort through their new choices.

In a room with a mural of the Hollywood sign on one wall, they asked questions specific to their unpredictable lifestyles: Can they find doctors when they’re on tour? Are specialists, such as throat doctors for singers, covered? Can they dip in and out of union health coverage, or change plans as their income shifts from job to job?

Jorge Bermudez, a percussionist who lives in Baldwin Park, asked what would happen if he couldn’t pay his premium one month. He jumps from gig to gig, and he’s afraid he’ll lose his coverage if he falls behind for a few weeks. He hasn’t had health insurance since he and his wife got divorced several years ago, and he hasn’t been able to get a much-needed hearing aid.

In the past, fluctuating incomes have meant that many artists such as Bermudez, not able to afford their own health plans, have simply gone without when their union insurance or other options lapsed. But now, many can afford individual plans, and are starting to put them to use.

Thousands of Angelenos like Berg signed up for a health plan during Obamacare open enrollment this year. Los Angeles County led the state in sign-ups, with more than 400,000 enrolling through the state exchange. The county made up almost 30% of the statewide total of 1.4 million.

Obamacare open enrollment ended in March, but people who lose their jobs — or get married, have a baby, move or have any other serious change of circumstance — can sign up for a plan year-round. Open enrollment begins again in November.

Krista Madsen, senior vice president of MusiCares, the charitable arm of the Grammys that provides health services to musicians, said that historically, more than 75% of their clients report being uninsured. Not having health insurance has long been part of the life of an artist, even though health problems can have a particularly debilitating effect on artists’ careers.

“If you think about your body as your tool of trade,” Madsen said, “it’s a bigger deal if you have a problem with your vocal cords or with your hearing.”

First of all, the tone of the article is this: Obama destroyed YOUR health care so that Hollywood hypocrite liberals could have their health care.  Average Californians’ health insurance rates will DOUBLE so that Hollywood liberals can have their Obama plans.

Average households are getting utterly screwed so that these Hollywood liberal turds can finally have what their hypocrite and union elites have hypocritically refused to give their workers while they self-righteously demonized everybody else for not being quite as evil as THEY have been.  You see that in this article: actors and musicians are among the MOST LIKELY OF ALL WORKERS NOT TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE.  But hey, I’m a liberal, so let’s go over and scream at Wal-Mart for being better than WE are instead.

I read through this and did not see one single criticism of ObamaCare.  Even though there are ALL KINDS of criticism about this damn law even in uberleftist California.

It is a vastly different thing to have “health insurance” and to have “health care” when your “health insurance” is in such a limited network that you can’t see a doctor and you definitely can’t see a specialist.

Just the other day in the very same paper as this “news article” appeared praising ObamaCare for saving liberal actors and musicians, I saw this one about what you “win” when you “win” your ObamaCare:

Obamacare enrollees hit snags at doctor’s offices
Many consumers faced hurdles signing up for Covered California health plans. Now they’re having trouble finding in-network doctors
February 04, 2014|By Chad Terhune

After overcoming website glitches and long waits to get Obamacare, some patients are now running into frustrating new roadblocks at the doctor’s office.

A month into the most sweeping changes to healthcare in half a century, people are having trouble finding doctors at all, getting faulty information on which ones are covered and receiving little help from insurers swamped by new business.

Experts have warned for months that the logjam was inevitable. But the extent of the problems is taking by surprise many patients — and even doctors — as frustrations mount.

Aliso Viejo resident Danielle Nelson said Anthem Blue Cross promised half a dozen times that her oncologists would be covered under her new policy. She was diagnosed last year with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and discovered a suspicious lump near her jaw in early January.

But when she went to her oncologist’s office, she promptly encountered a bright orange sign saying that Covered California plans are not accepted.

“I’m a complete fan of the Affordable Care Act, but now I can’t sleep at night,” Nelson said. “I can’t imagine this is how President Obama wanted it to happen.”

To hold down premiums under the healthcare law, major insurers have sharply cut the number of doctors and hospitals available to patients in the state’s new health insurance market.

Now those limited options are becoming clearer, and California officials say they are receiving more consumer complaints about access to medical providers. State lawmakers are also moving swiftly to ease some of the problems that have arisen.

“It’s a little early for anyone to know how widespread and deep this problem is,” said California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones. “There are a lot of economic incentives for health insurers to narrow their networks, but if they go too far, people won’t have access to care. Network adequacy will be a big issue in 2014.”

The latest travails come at a crucial time during the rollout of Obama’s signature law. Government exchanges and other supporters of the healthcare law are trying to boost enrollment, particularly among young and healthy people, ahead of a March 31 deadline.

Of course, complaints about outdated provider lists and delays in getting a doctor’s appointment were common long before the healthcare law was enacted. But some experts worry the influx of newly insured patients and the cost-cutting strategies of health plans may further strain the system.

Maria Berumen, a tax preparer in Downey, was uninsured for years because of preexisting conditions. The 53-year-old was thrilled to find coverage for herself and her husband for $148 a month after qualifying for a big government subsidy.

She jumped at the chance in early January to visit a primary-care doctor for long-running numbness in her arm and shoulder as a result of bone spurs on her spine. The doctor referred her to a specialist, and problems ensued. At least four doctors wouldn’t accept her health plan — even though the state exchange website and her insurer, Health Net Inc., list them as part of her HMO network.

“It’s a phantom network,” Berumen said.

It was no surprise to her family doctor, Ragaa Iskarous. She has run into this problem repeatedly with other patients in the last month, the doctor said. “This is really driving us crazy.”

Berumen said she was seen by a neurosurgeon Thursday — after state regulators intervened on her behalf.

Insurers say they are working hard to resolve customers’ problems as they arise, and they continue to add physicians to augment certain geographic areas and medical specialties.

“Any huge implementation like this comes with a lot of moving parts,” said Health Net spokesman Brad Kieffer. “There is a learning curve for everyone, and we expect as time goes on these issues should dissipate.”

Looking to head off potential problems, government regulators and patient advocates are pushing for tougher rules to ensure health plans provide timely access to care.

Last week, the California Assembly approved legislation enabling people who lost coverage because of the overhaul to keep seeing their doctors if they’re pregnant or undergoing treatment for cancer or other conditions.

Nelson, the cancer patient in Orange County, and her family lost their previous coverage when Aetna stopped selling individual policies in the state last year. After numerous complaints to her new insurer, Anthem, and to public officials, the company said it would cover visits to her current oncologist through March 31.

Nelson said such a temporary extension doesn’t solve the problem, and as a result, she’s rushing to check out other policies for herself before open enrollment closes in March.

A spokesman for Anthem said the company “continually works to update its provider directories to ensure accuracy” and helps customers with these issues on a case-by-case basis.

You’ve got “insurance,” thanks to Obama.

What you DON’T have and now will NEVER have is “health care.”

Because even in a state like California that liberals are praising because everything there is working “better” than most of the other states that are a complete unmitigated disaster, the system is broken and will now necessarily fall completely apart.

And because liberals got what they wanted (genuine evil, as usual), you can count on the FACT that you are going to now have to pay more and more and more to get less and less and less:

O-Care premiums to skyrocket
By Elise Viebeck – 03/19/14 06:00 AM EDT

Health industry officials say ObamaCare-related premiums will double in some parts of the country, countering claims recently made by the administration.

The expected rate hikes will be announced in the coming months amid an intense election year, when control of the Senate is up for grabs. The sticker shock would likely bolster the GOP’s prospects in November and hamper ObamaCare insurance enrollment efforts in 2015.

The industry complaints come less than a week after Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to downplay concerns about rising premiums in the healthcare sector. She told lawmakers rates would increase in 2015 but grow more slowly than in the past.

“The increases are far less significant than what they were prior to the Affordable Care Act,” the secretary said in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee.

Her comment baffled insurance officials, who said it runs counter to the industry’s consensus about next year.

“It’s pretty shortsighted because I think everybody knows that the way the exchange has rolled out … is going to lead to higher costs,” said one senior insurance executive who requested anonymity.

The insurance official, who hails from a populous swing state, said his company expects to triple its rates next year on the ObamaCare exchange. {…}

You can find out more about the sky-high rate increases here.  I wouldn’t want to count on the Los Angeles Times.  To the extent they ever bother to actually report the truth at all, it is usually immediately swallowed up by a dozen propaganda articles that try to pump Kool Aid into your brain rather than facts.

Liberals are liars, pure and simple.  They are evil people with an evil and frankly demonic agenda.  That is what you get when you turn over “health care” to the demonic political party that has murdered more than fifty-five million innocent human beings since 1973 in their abortion mills before making the worship of homosexual sodomy mandatory.

But hey, the little people of Hollywood – you know, the tiny, little cockroaches of liberalism – have their “health insurance” now after having had it denied to them for decades by the same liberal progressive Hollywood tycoons who for years and years have arrogantly and self-righteously demonized the rest of us.  So praise false Messiah Obama for that, at least.

 

Advertisements

ObamaCare And Its Role In The Soon-Coming Mark Of The Beast

October 2, 2013

ObamaCare is simply godawful and frankly evil in numerous ways.  Obama is trying to deceive millions of people – most especially poor people and young people – to buy his demonic product under the promise of a low premium.  But if you actually look at the result of buying that low premium ObamaCare plan, you will see that you get something else: a stratospherically high deductible.

Think about that.  I bought a $328 Silver ObamaCare plan because Obama forced me to do so.  But I don’t actually get any HEALTH CARE when I buy that plan for that $328.  Nope, I have to pay all the bills until I get to the $2,500 deductible first.  Only THEN will the plan actually do a damn thing to cover me.

Remember Obama and the Democrats (which stands for “Demonic Bureaucrats,” btw) said over and over again that the reason we needed ObamaCare was because too many people were going to the emergency rooms to get health care and then of course not paying for that care, which overwhelmed the health care system.

How many poor people can afford those kinds of deductibles???

ObamaCare will do NOTHING to slow down the flood of people flocking to the emergency rooms for treatment.

Here’s another one for you: ObamaCare will also – in spite of Obama’s and Democrats’ lying promises to the contrary – do anything to reduce the number of “uninsured.”  According to the CBO, in ten years there will be some 33 MILLION uninsured Americans.  In fact, the number of “uninsured” NEVER falls below 30 million.

You were lied to.  Plain and simple.

Let’s also realize that the quality of health care that you get will be dramatically reduced in your new ObamaCare reality.  You will be dumped into networks with fewer and fewer doctors and fewer and fewer specialists.  Even the überliberal New York Times was forced to acknowledge that fact, as the Washington Free Beacon staff preserved for the record.

This was NEVER about health care.  It was NEVER about helping the poor.

What WAS it about?

Demonic Bureaucrat John Dingell said it brilliantly:

“The harsh  fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will  cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long  time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to  put the legislation together to control the people.”

“To control the people.”  Bingo.  THAT was the purpose of ObamaCare.

Just as it will be the essence of the upcoming mark of the beast:

And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six. —  Revelation 13:16-18

I suppose we can wonder whether the soon-coming Antichrist will grant as many waivers to his connected cronies and supporters with his mark of the beast as Obama has given to his demon-possessed health care takeover.

Let me get to the nitty-gritty here, ObamaCare will play a direct role in the mark of the beast.  Please allow me to explain how that will happen.

The first thing I need to do is explain what the mark of the beast is.  I actually did so in a previous article, so allow me to blockquote myself:

The first thing that must be understood is what this number “666″ stands for.  And the passage actually explains itself: “it is MAN’S number.”

God is associated with the number “7″ over and over and over again in the Bible.  Seven is the number of perfection, the number of completeness, in Scripture.  There is also simply no question that in the Book of Revelation itself, the number seven is connected to God or to God’s people or to God’s judgment.  The Triune Godhead would be represented by “777.”  But, where the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is represented by three sevens, the unholy trinity of Satan, the beast and the false prophet are represented by three sixes.  The devil and his coming Antichrist claim to be God, but they are liars who always fall short.

Hence the “number of a man” (see Revelation 13:18) – of man rising himself up in place of God and making his STATE God in the place of God as Antichrist will do – is represented by 666.

It is also vital to understand that the word “mark” in “mark of the beast” is the Greek word “charagma“.  We find that charagma:

was the technical term for the Roman imperial stamp that appeared on various documents. The charagma was a seal stamped with the name and date of the emperor and attached to commercial documents. Apparently, it also stood for the emperor’s head stamped on coins. Thus, the charagma represented the likeness or name of the emperor.

Represented the likeness or name of the emperor,” you know, as in “ObamaCare.”

There is a crystal clear connection to human government that rises up in place of God, which is the Marxist vision and which is EXACTLY how modern secular humanist governments (such as our United States of America) has done with “the State.”

We have marginalized, detached, disconnected and outright criminalized God in our atheistic interpretation of the myth that is “separation of church and state.”

We have replaced God and trust in God and contentment that comes from being rich in Christ even when one is poor in money with Government and trust in the welfare state and the bitterness that comes from the Marxist notion that we should put aside our “opiate” of Christianity and instead rise up in bitterness and anger and seize what we “the proletariat” want by force.

We know that the “mark” is placed on the forehead or the right hand of those who take it.  And we know that the forehead and the right hand are identified with ownership and oaths of allegiance.  Literally, in this case, it is the official acknowledgment of accepting and receiving the beast in place of Christ.  It is implemented by the second beast, the beast who comes out of the land – otherwise known as the false prophet.  The mark of the beast will be implemented by the final big government tyranny on earth as a religious act of obeisance.

We know that this mark is an identification with the devil and with his big government beast and the false prophet of antichrist religion rather than trust in Jesus Christ as Savior.  We know that it is the political and the economic result of demonic religious attitudes that are summed up by the government of the final human leader who will create a demonic government system in a vain attempt to fully replace God.  It is a religious act imposed by the State that has profound economic and political impact.

And what we ultimately learn is that “no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark.” 

Which up to this moment in history would have been impossible to implement.

As long as there is cash/coin currency, as long as the economy is private rather than publicly controlled by the state, as long as your finances are your own private business rather than something that can be monitored by the state, there was never any possibility of preventing every single human being on earth from being able to buy or sell.

Something monumentally different is about to take place that will change our currency and the government’s control over us as we use that currency.  And as a result of this “fundamental transformation” of our currency and the role of government that is coming, the State as the government of the beast will be able to hijack complete control over all economic activity on earth.

What is coming?  An economic system that enables the final human government – the ultimate big government Utopia that liberalism has dreamed of – to be able to monitor and control every single financial transaction on earth.  And be able to prevent anyone who does not have the mark of worship of the beast from participating in any way, shape or form in the economy.

That technology is already available today.  We could already transform our currency into digital and mark every single human being with a chip on their right hand or their forehead which would enable those who take the mark to access their money and the economy.  Which is one of the reasons I realize that the beast is at the door waiting to take over.

It is frankly amazing how much government could track our movements and even accurately predict our future behavior based on the patterns it is able to track.

Think of it: the time is coming, the Word of God assures us, that one day it will be impossible for the first time in all of human history to buy or sell ANYTHING without a mark that will signify an act of worship in a human government dictator.  And that day is almost upon us, with the technology to actualize this demonic system already in place and merely waiting to be implemented.

You won’t be able to buy food and then barter it to someone who has not taken the mark, because the government will be able to digitally track your food purchases and would be alerted that you were buying extra food.  Any bartering of all will become nearly impossible, again, for the first time in the history of the human race.  The ability to track your purchases and every single transaction you make will make barter impossible.

Everyone will be forced to take the mark of the beast, much the way that everyone is going to now be forced to take the mark of ObamaCare now.

There’s a direct mechanism that ties these two demonic programs together, and it is summed up in the word “security.”

Let’s say I get a credit card.  Let’s say somebody gets my credit card number and steals my identity and steals.  That can be tough, but there are ways to get passed that: I could cancel that credit card and get a new one, for instance.

Can I do that with my medical records???  Nope, I’m tied to them and they are tied to me.  They will ALWAYS be tied to me, no matter what.

Which means identity thieves will be able to steal my identity over and over and over again if they gain access to my medical records.  And there is no way I can “cancel them” and get a new one.

That is the door through which ObamaCare will enter the mark of the beast.  Because ObamaCare is forcing everyone who is connected with the health care system and his hijacking takeover of that system to digitize records.  You know, so any hacker can steal your incredibly sensitive information and screw you blind.  ObamaCare opened the door to MASSIVE identity theft.  And the ObamaCare Navigator manual has a clear pathway to stealing identities.  Which is even more frightening when you consider that many of these Navigators may be convicted criminals whom you wouldn’t let onto your porch, let alone into the intimate details of your life.

Once this system is in place, it will be impossible to undo.  Which is why Republicans are hurting their own political futures by working so fervently to stop ObamaCare before it’s too late – as even the left openly acknowledges in headlines such as “The GOP’s Kamikaze Mission To Stop ObamaCare.”  Once this thing is in place, it will be a cancer that can only be spread as it develops tentacles into EVERY PART of government and EVERY PART of our lives.

And so once it is in place, the rampant identity theft that will accompany ObamaCare won’t even slow the program down; it will merely lead to even MORE measures to take even MORE control.

Ultimately, because of ObamaCare, the ONLY way to protect your identity will be to require a mark, a chip, implanted on your person that is uniquely coded to you.

That will come – as again I have already documented.

The beast is coming.  And his mark is already being prepared for him.

Harvard Medical School Dean Flunks Democrat Health Bill

November 20, 2009

Newsflash: An ‘F’ is really, really bad.

But that’s exactly the grade that the dean of one of our nation’s premier medical schools just assigned to ObamaCare.

Dr. Flier points out that the 2,074 page bill isn’t just bad; it is fundamentally dishonest.

Only a true fool and ideologue would support the takeover of our life-and-death health care system and 1/6th of our economy through a bill that literally gets a failing grade.

NOVEMBER 17, 2009, 6:59 P.M. ET

Health ‘Reform’ Gets a Failing Grade
The changes proposed by Congress will require more draconian measures down the road. Just look at Massachusetts.

By JEFFREY S. FLIER

As the dean of Harvard Medical School I am frequently asked to comment on the health-reform debate. I’d give it a failing grade.

Instead of forthrightly dealing with the fundamental problems, discussion is dominated by rival factions struggling to enact or defeat President Barack Obama’s agenda. The rhetoric on both sides is exaggerated and often deceptive. Those of us for whom the central issue is health—not politics—have been left in the lurch. And as controversy heads toward a conclusion in Washington, it appears that the people who favor the legislation are engaged in collective denial.

Our health-care system suffers from problems of cost, access and quality, and needs major reform. Tax policy drives employment-based insurance; this begets overinsurance and drives costs upward while creating inequities for the unemployed and self-employed. A regulatory morass limits innovation. And deep flaws in Medicare and Medicaid drive spending without optimizing care.

Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that’s not true. The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost—and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.

In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care’s dysfunctional delivery system. The system we have now promotes fragmented care and makes it more difficult than it should be to assess outcomes and patient satisfaction. The true costs of health care are disguised, competition based on price and quality are almost impossible, and patients lose their ability to be the ultimate judges of value.

Worse, currently proposed federal legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care. It would do so by overregulating the health-care system in the service of special interests such as insurance companies, hospitals, professional organizations and pharmaceutical companies, rather than the patients who should be our primary concern.

In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.

There are important lessons to be learned from recent experience with reform in Massachusetts. Here, insurance mandates similar to those proposed in the federal legislation succeeded in expanding coverage but—despite initial predictions—increased total spending.

A “Special Commission on the Health Care Payment System” recently declared that the Massachusetts health-care payment system must be changed over the next five years, most likely to one involving “capitated” payments instead of the traditional fee-for-service system. Capitation means that newly created organizations of physicians and other health-care providers will be given limited dollars per patient for all of their care, allowing for shared savings if spending is below the targets. Unfortunately, the details of this massive change—necessitated by skyrocketing costs and a desire to improve quality—are completely unspecified by the commission, although a new Massachusetts state bureaucracy clearly will be required.

Yet it’s entirely unclear how such unspecified changes would impact physician practices and compensation, hospital organizations and their capacity to invest, and the ability of patients to receive the kind and quality of care they desire. Similar challenges would eventually confront the entire country on a more explosive scale if the current legislation becomes law.

Selling an uncertain and potentially unwelcome outcome such as this to the public would be a challenging task. It is easier to assert, confidently but disingenuously, that decreased costs and enhanced quality would result from the current legislation.

So the majority of our representatives may congratulate themselves on reducing the number of uninsured, while quietly understanding this can only be the first step of a multiyear process to more drastically change the organization and funding of health care in America. I have met many people for whom this strategy is conscious and explicit.

We should not be making public policy in such a crucial area by keeping the electorate ignorant of the actual road ahead.

Dr. Flier is dean of the Harvard Medical School.

I’d like to thank Dr. Flier for his courageous stand.  You’ve GOTTA know that the man is taking a lot of heat for it by the hard-core Massachusetts and Harvard liberal ideologue establishment.  Dr. Flier clearly isn’t taking this position on the Democrats’ health agenda for his own health, as it were.

Capitation would merely be the most obvious way that the government would place doctors in a morally/ethically untenable position: they would literally be paid more to give their patients less treatment, and paid less to give their patients more treatment.

Another means of accomplishing the same result would be to have – oh, I don’t know, say 111 federal bureaucracies – which would force doctors to consider their regulations more than considering the needs of their patients.

It is evil.  And Democrats are evil for foisting this abomination upon us.

The Republican Health Care Plan, In A Nutshell

October 8, 2009

Radio talk host and author Mark Levin explained the Republican health care plan in a nutshell to a caller who demanded, “Where’s the Republican plan?”

In the course of two minutes, Levin proceeds to lay out the essence of the Republican health plan (which Democrats have deceitfully and maliciously claimed did not exist in all their ‘party of no’ rhetoric), and revealed the stupidity of the Glenn Beck “There’s no difference between the parties” foolishness:

Transcript:

Caller: I guess my question, sir, is where is the Republican plan?

Levin: Yes, there is a plan, sir, and it’s been repeated, and it’s been put out there, it’s on the internet.  They don’t control the media in this country.  They don’t get a fair break from the media in this country.  Which is why I explain the plan over and over again.  You ready?  You got a pencil?  Let’s write it down, shall we?

1) Tax credits so individuals can purchase their own health policies rather than paying that money to the federal government.

2) Expanding health savings accounts – like the 401Ks – so you can put more money aside, tax free, for catastrophes and other needs.

3) Right now you can’t purchase insurance across state borders because the various interest groups have larded up their laws so that if you purchase a policy in Ohio it doesn’t comply with a policy in Pennsylvania.  You can eliminate that.  And you should.

4) Tort reform.  Which will save a fortune.  You cap – talk about cap and trade – you cap awards to actual medical costs, and related expenses.  So it’s not ‘hitting the lottery’ each and every day.

And I can go on with three or four more points.  But these basic free market efforts – to unravel so much of what the government, and the regulatory bureaucracies have done – would open up the system.  We’re talking about 12 million people – 12 million Americans – who don’t have health insurance.

Caller: The point that I’m trying to make is that it’s not for you or the other folks that are on the radio…  You actually hear nothing from the Republicans…

Levin: Sir, this is a Republican proposal.  It’s a conservative proposal that the Republicans have embraced.  They have asked to meet with Obama to discuss it.

Look folks.  I know the Republicans have screwed up.  I know there are people out there saying the two parties are exactly the same.  They’re not exactly the same.  We’ve got a Marxist in the White House, a Marxist in the House, an idiot in the Senate.  Don’t tell me they’re exactly the same!  They can do better, but they’re not the same.

Now, these are truly great free market ideas that will provide lower-priced high quality health care AND preserve our liberties.  And the Democrat pseudo outrage that “Republicans weren’t offering an alternative” was just that.

I loved an ironic mock response to the basic Republican proposal:

It’s stupid. You’re a racist. You’re a homophobe. You’re a warmonger…  Make my car payment.  Feed me.  Change my diaper.

Nailed it.

A CNS article lays out the facts that never seem to get laid out in the dishonest mainstream media propaganda:

Republicans Have Offered Three Alternative Health Care Reform Bills
Monday, August 24, 2009
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress — while pushing their own health care overhauls — have criticized Republicans as offering only opposition and no ideas for reform, but the GOP, despite the lack of media attention, has introduced three health care bills.

The three Republican bills total almost 400 pages and have been on the table since May and June.

In May, Republicans in the House and the Senate formed a bicameral coalition to produce the130-page “Patients Choice Act of 2009.”

In June, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced the “Health Care Freedom Plan,” a 41-page proposal.

And in July, the Republican Study Committee, under the leadership of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), unveiled the “Empowering Patients First Act,” a 130-page plan.

Some of the provisions included in one or more of the bills include: investing in preventive medicine, an overhaul of Medicaid, reduction of abuse and fraud in the Medicare program, supplemental health insurance for low-income families, tax credits for health insurance, and a ban on federal funds being used for abortions.

However, supporters of the Democratic plans have accused Republicans of trying to derail attempts at reforming health care without having a plan of their own.

“There is no Republican health care plan out there,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told Talk Radio News Service on July 31 about what he called the Republican-backed “misinformation campaign” that is slowing health care reform.

He said Republicans are satisfied with the status quo and “don’t want to show the American people where they stand on these issues.”

At a White House briefing on Aug. 18, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs criticized Republicans for not wanting to make the health care system better.

“Only a handful seem interested in the type of comprehensive reform that so many people believe is necessary to ensure the principles and the goals that the president has laid out,” Gibbs said.

In May, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said his bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and Reps. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), puts a priority on patients and their ability to oversee their own health care choices.

“As a practicing physician, I have seen first-hand how giving government more control over health care has failed to make health care more affordable or accessible,” Coburn said. The ‘Patients Choice Act’ will provide every American with access to affordable health care without a tax increase, more debt or waiting lines.”

“The American health care system needs a complete transformation,” Burr said. “The ‘Patients’ Choice Act’ will finally enable Americans to own their health care instead of being trapped in the current system, which leaves people either uninsured, dependent on their employer, or forced into a government program.”

The “Patients Choice Act” has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, which is set to release a Democratic-crafted bill from that committee when Congress returns after Labor Day.

In June, DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, introduced the “Health Care Freedom Plan,” which was analyzed by the Heritage Foundation. The conservative policy think tank said DeMint’s bill could reduce the number of uninsured by 22.4 million people in five years.

It also provides grants to help people with pre-existing conditions gain access to affordable insurance, and allows Americans to purchase health savings accounts to pay for insurance.

“The time has come for Americans to regain control of their health care choices, and the ‘Health Care Freedom Act’ empowers every American with the freedom to choose and own a plan that is best for them,” DeMint said.

DeMint’s bill also has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.

In July, Price, who is also a practicing physician, introduced the “Empowering Patients First Act.”

Today, we present a solution for health care reform that offers more patient-centered choices and care of the highest quality,” Price said. “The ‘Empowering Patients First Act’ is a budget neutral proposal based on the fundamental principle that personal medical decisions should be made by patients in consultation with the doctors rather than unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington.”

Price’s bill also emphasizes preventive health care, tax credits, reduction of fraud and abuse in existing federal health care programs, and health care programs tailored to meet the needs of Native Americans and U.S. military veterans.

The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, as well as to the committees on Ways and Means, Education and Labor, Oversight and Government Reform, and the Judiciary, Rules, Budget, and Appropriations committees.

There are differences between the legislation offered so far by Republicans. The “Empowering Patients First Act,” for example, is the only one of the three proposed bills that specifically prohibits federal funds being used for abortion.

The fate of the Republican proposals is also uncertain, with the Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress and Obama in charge of signing whatever final health care reform legislation lands on his desk.

If the Democrats are so patently dishonest that they are deceitfully working to prevent the American people from knowing that these bills even exist, then what else are they lying about?  If you start examining their rhetoric and their proposals, you’ll find plenty of lies.

In any event, since the mainstream media is as dishonest as the Democrats whose agenda they propagandize, please tell your neighbors, friends, and co-workers that- contrary to the liberal lie – the Republicans really DO have a viable health care plan.

Health Care Debate: Why Won’t Ignorant Conservatives Realize They Need Their Government Savior?

September 2, 2009

The Los Angeles Times can’t understand why conservatives refuse to embrace “one nation under Government.”  After all, James Oliphant points out in his article, conservatives would stand to benefit by bending the knee to their big government masters and embracing the socialist system.

Have you ever tried to help a wild animal that simply couldn’t understand you would only seek to free it or help it?  That’s the elitist and patronizing tone Oliphant takes in his article.

States most likely to win under healthcare overhaul are home to its biggest foes
Rural states have more uninsured and lower-income people who stand to benefit from legislation, but it’s there where the effort faces the most vocal resistance. It’s a factor that stymies legislators.

By James Oliphant
September 2, 2009

Reporting from Washington – Wyoming, with an economy marked by farming, ranching and small businesses, has a disproportionate number of people without medical insurance. And by that measure and others, its people are among the likely winners if Congress approves a healthcare overhaul.

But if Republican Sen. Michael B. Enzi was expecting a pat on the back from his constituents for working with some of his fellow senators to seek bipartisan agreement on the issue, he was disappointed.

Last week, Enzi held a town hall meeting in his hometown of Gillette. And when he told the 500 people in the audience that he believed both sides could eventually strike a deal, it turned out that wasn’t a popular thing to say.

A state legislator even stood up and demanded that Enzi pull out of the congressional talks altogether, and was widely applauded by the audience.

The scene in Gillette was replicated in towns across the U.S. last month, as screaming taxpayers filled TV screens with criticism of healthcare proposals. The clashes dramatized a conundrum faced by lawmakers such as Enzi who are seeking compromises.

As you can see, Oliphant begins his article by presenting a narrative of a Republican politician who wants to seek bipartisan agreement on health care.  What he doesn’t bother to do is explain how one seeks bipartisanship when none of the Republican ideas have even been considered.  He certainly doesn’t bother to tell you that Republicans have been shut out of the “bipartisan” process nearly completely.  Rep. Tom Price – who happens to be a medical doctor – writes to Barack Obama and points out that:

several Members of Congress from your party have publicly admitted that Republicans have been shut out of House negotiations on health care reform.

H.R. 3200 is 1017 pages long.  How many of those pages have been written by Republicans?  What Republican representatives have contributed?  What’s that, Mr. Oliphant, you don’t give a damn if Republicans haven’t been allowed to contribute?  You don’t want to believe that big, bad Republican Tom Price, who is probably one of the doctors ripping out kids’ tonsils and sawing off diabetics’ feet that Obama warned us about?  How about paying attention to the centrist Blue Dog Democrats, who claim that they, too, have been shut out?

Let me point out to you that those hicks and hayseeds in Wyoming understand something that you clearly don’t: WHAT BIPARTISANSHIP?

“Compromise” is not bowing the knee to the liberal agenda.  When Republicans are treated as equal partners, then we can talk about bipartisanship and compromise.  Until then, such claims as writers like Oliphant are making are simply factually untrue.

Oliphant drones on – er, I mean, continues:

Some of the most vociferous opposition to the proposals before the House and Senate comes from residents of rural states that could benefit most if the present system is revamped.

“The states that tend to be more conservative have a higher rate of people who are uninsured,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of FamiliesUSA, which backs a healthcare overhaul. “As a result, healthcare reform is going to provide a disproportionate amount of resources to those states.”

In Wyoming, for example, nearly 1 in 3 people younger than 65 went without health insurance at some point during the last two years, according to Pollack’s group. A huge majority of the uninsured have jobs, but work for employers who don’t provide coverage.

Fewer options

The problem pervades other rural states as well, where a high percentage of employers are small businesses. Although there is a consensus in Congress for keeping the current employer-based system of medical insurance, that system is riddled with holes in coverage that disproportionately affect rural states.

Well, again, those hicks and hayseeds in Wyoming seem to know something that James Oliphant – for all of his liberal elitist arrogance – doesn’t seem to know.  They know that ObamaCare would be a disaster for the small businesses that they depend on for their jobs and their livelihoods.  They understand that many businesses that DO provide health care for their employees would be discouraged or even forced to stop doing so under the Democrat plan, with the result being shoving people into the “public option” or the “co-op” (or whatever the hell they’re going to call their government option).  And they know that,  Democrat protestations and hand waving dismissals aside, that ObamaCare is ALL about rationing.

Next Oliphant points out what will happen if “bipartisan” Republicans don’t properly “compromise”:

Given that reality, it may not be surprising that senators from these states have been the most active in the effort to salvage a bipartisan compromise on healthcare. Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who hold top posts on the Senate Finance Committee, are part of a group of senators still talking about a deal, along with Enzi, Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine).

If they fail, the Democratic leadership in the Senate has threatened to ram a bill through without GOP backers.

So now we get to the essence of the Democrat vision of “bipartisanship” and “compromise”: “Do it our way or else.” This amounts to a mobster coming into your store and threatening to break your knee caps if you don’t purchase his “protection.”

And in this case, the mobster is literally blaming the store owner for the broken knees.  After all, if the stupid store owner had just played ball, his knees would have been fine.

And what Oliphant doesn’t understand is that the Wyoming hicks and hayseeds hear these threats and just get all the more enraged and all the more distrustful – as they should.

What follows next is a section in which Oliphant fundamentally misrepresents the actual dynamic.  He presumes the pseudo-narrative that Republicans are blocking health care when in actual fact Republicans have virtually nothing whatsoever to do with it (having been shut out, and lacking the votes to impose anything on anybody).

Although Enzi has said that he wants to find common ground on healthcare, his public remarks have become more polarized during the congressional recess.

“The Democrats are trying to rush a bill through the process that will actually make our nation’s finances sicker without saving you money,” Enzi said in the GOP’s weekly radio address Saturday.

Eric Wedell, a Wyoming physician and governor of the state chapter of the American College of Physicians, applauded Enzi’s efforts to broker a compromise. Enzi “is continuing to work hard on healthcare reform because he knows we need it,” Wedell said.

But another Wyoming physician, Timothy Hallinan, disagreed, saying it would be better to have no bill than to have the kind Enzi is negotiating.

It was Hallinan, a state representative, who demanded at the meeting in Gillette that Enzi stop working with Democrats.

“Perhaps Sen. Enzi will get the most egregious — in his and my view — items dropped through compromise. Nonetheless, the compromised bill will be going in the wrong direction and must be seen as a down payment on where the current majority plans to go — a complete takeover of medical practice by the federal government,” Hallinan said.

“I would rather see no bill than that. I suspect that a large percentage of the American population agrees,” he added. “I know that a big majority here in my district agrees with me.”

You might as well blame the dinosaurs for causing global warming as blame the Republican Party over blocking health care.  Nancy Pelosi is running the House of Representatives with an bejeweled iron fist (made by Tiffany); and Harry Reid has a filibuster-proof majority.

The reason health care hasn’t passed is because the American people are overwhelmingly against it.  The reason health care hasn’t passed is because it is such a bad bill that even Democrats can’t support it.  The reason health care hasn’t passed is because a lot of Democrats know they will lose their seats if they vote for it.  Not because of Republicans.

Let me be clear: any scintilla of a hint that Republicans are “blocking health care reform” is a fraud.  All Democrats have to do if they want Republican support for reform is yank out the public option and replace it with tort reform.  But to blame Republicans for not supporting a philosophy and a system that they are diametrically opposed to is simply saying that we should be a fascist system where everyone does what Big Brother wants or else.

Oliphant continues:

Potential benefits

Although much attention has been focused on whether the ultimate legislation will provide for a government-run insurer or a series of private health cooperatives to help cover the uninsured, the bill is also expected to increase eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid, which could provide a lift to states like Wyoming.

“Things that are enormously important are getting less attention,” lamented Pollack of FamiliesUSA. Rural, conservative states, he said, “are going to get the influx of new federal dollars.”

But those opposed to the proposals, such as Hallinan, point to the cost. Even at current coverage levels, Medicare and Medicaid spending is expected to vastly increase the country’s debt.

Others are simply nervous about more government involvement in healthcare. Although centralized government can often deliver healthcare services more efficiently, “it runs counter to perhaps the rugged individualism on which America is built — where everything is available for everybody,” said Diane Rowland, executive vice president of the nonprofit Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Oliphant states as an assumed fact that “centralized government can often deliver healthcare services more efficiently.”  But based on what does he say that?  Does he not know that Medicare is about to go bankrupt?  Does he not know that the U.S. Post Office – which Obama used as a metaphor for his health care plan – is about to go bankrupt?  Does he not know that government is the home of the $435 hammer, the $640 toilet seat, and the $7,600 coffee maker?  Does he not know that the government only recently showed how inefficient it is by paying nearly twice as much for canned ham as they could have paid simply by going to a grocery store?

In theory, the government should be able to use its purchasing power to benefit from bulk discounts.  But in actual fact that never happens.  There are simply so many layers of bureaucracy and so few incentives for the government to save money (they’re not using their money, remember; they’re using yours) that waste and abuse is rampant.  Often the very system itself – exemplified by governmental budgeting systems which perversely encourage government employees to consume their entire budgets so they can get more money in the next budget cycle – actually make the very idea of savings counterproductive to their agenda.

The assumption that “the government can do it faster, cheaper, and better than the private sector” has kept complete fools in government for generations.

What follows is a summation of the overall tone of the article: conservative hicks and hayseeds are frankly just too stupid and ignorant to understand that they are acting counterproductively to their own obvious interests:

In Iowa, where almost 70% of those who are uninsured have jobs, Grassley has faced combative audiences in a series of town halls, to the extent that speculation has risen that he will pull out of negotiations.

But Jack Hatch, a Democratic state senator from Des Moines, said that much of the anger and uncertainty in Iowa was directed at Wall Street bailouts, the stimulus and other government spending.

“I’ve been to a half a dozen of these,” Hatch said. “There are maybe 15 to 20% of the people who are just angry with everything. They’re angry with their economic situation.

“They’re afraid of any kind of deficit spending,” said Hatch, part of a White House-led effort to enlist state lawmakers to promote the legislation. “When we shift to healthcare, there’s a lot less noise and a lot more questions.”

But he admitted that opponents of the plans had succeeded in making Iowans nervous — and that supporters would have to sharpen their message in states such as his.

“All we have to do is get the people to listen through the screams of this small minority,” he said. “We have to be more vocal and fight back.”

James Oliphant – like Democrat Iowa state senator Jack Hatch – either doesn’t bother to look at the polls (which show a people overwhelmingly opposed to the Democrat’s health care agenda), or simply assumes that most Americans (even the non-hicks and hayseeds) are stupid.  They simply aren’t capable of “listening through the screams of this small minority.”

The people who oppose the massive new Democrat takeover of health care will cost money that the country simply doesn’t have.  Obama’s deficits are simply shocking, out of control, and utterly unsustainable.

The people who oppose health care understand that there is always a trade off to a massive government program.  They understand that what the government giveth, the government can taketh away.  They understand that more government power means less individual liberty.  They understand that the Democrats plan to take away about half a trillion dollars from Medicare and redistribute that money to younger people and even illegal immigrants who don’t have health insurance.  They understand that horror stories abound in countries that have embraced government health care systems.

The people who are opposing ObamaCare are not only not stupid, they are actually a heck of a lot smarter than James Oliphant.

Obama Health Care Plan Would Send Costs Soaring, Cost Jobs

September 16, 2008

John McCain’s health insurance plan would probably not significantly lower the number of uninsured in the country, and it is possible under his plan that insurers could re-locate to states with less onerous health care mandates, say experts.

But the same experts claim that Barack Obama’s plan “would require new, large, and rapidly growing federal subsidies that are unlikely to be sustainable, fiscally or politically” and that “job losses or pay cuts would result” from his plan.

I don’t know about you.  But I like option A a lot better than option Barack.

But Barack Obama supporters will probably argue that this objective comparison of health care plans fails to consider the fairy dust that Obama would sprinkle over his plan that would make all its pitfalls magically go away.

Economists take critical view of health plans

By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 16, 12:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON – John McCain’s health plan won’t lower the ranks of the uninsured. Barack Obama’s fails to curb the soaring cost of health care, meaning initial gains in helping more people buy health insurance would eventually be undermined.

That’s the assessment of health care economists who critiqued the plans of the two presidential candidates.

The critiques, published in the journal Health Affairs on Tuesday, reflect fundamental disagreements over how to improve access to health coverage. They also sound warnings about what could go wrong with each candidate’s plan.

McCain would dramatically reshape the way millions of people get health insurance. The Republican would do away with income tax breaks for health insurance obtained through the work place, instead treating the payments as taxable wages.

In exchange, he would give people a $2,500 tax credit for individuals who buy health insurance and a $5,000 tax credit for families that do so.

The tax credit could help people buy insurance through their employer. Many would also use it buy coverage directly from insurers in the individual market. They could select from insurers licensed in any state. With more competition, costs would fall and quality would increase, McCain reasons.

Analysts writing in the journal warned against that approach.

They said employers would be less likely to offer coverage if they knew their workers could get it elsewhere. In all, the authors projected that 20 million people would lose their employer-sponsored insurance under McCain’s plan, while 21 million people would gain coverage through the individual market — little more than a wash.

And as monthly insurance premiums rise and the tax break stays the same, even that gain would erode.

Another concern is that insurers would gravitate to states with less onerous coverage requirements. For example, 29 states insist insurers in the individual and small group market cover cervical cancer screenings. They could locate in states without such requirements.

Obama wants the government to subsidize the cost of health coverage for millions who otherwise would have trouble affording it on their own.

The Democrat would set up a kind of government-run shopping mall that would negotiate prices and benefits with private insurers. One choice would be a government-run plan. No participating company could turn someone away because of pre-existing cancer, heart disease or diabetes. Nor would someone have to pay a higher monthly premium based on those conditions.

The government would subsidize the cost for many who buy coverage through this exchange. But analysts say using third parties to subsidize the cost of a product exacerbates health inflation. Consumers and providers act as if any service that might yield some value should be covered. After all, it’s largely somebody else who is picking up the tab.

“Any major expansion of coverage will be costly, and the Obama promise of affordability would require new, large, and rapidly growing federal subsidies that are unlikely to be sustainable, fiscally or politically,” said the authors.

Obama would also require all but small businesses to make a “meaningful” payment for health coverage of their workers or contribute a percentage of payroll toward the cost of the public plan offered through the exchange. The authors said that either way, job losses or pay cuts would result.

The journal subjected the plans to a sort of devil’s advocate analysis. Once the unsolicited review of McCain’s plan was reviewed and accepted, the journal sought out economists who would take a similarly tough look at the Obama plan. The reviewers of the Obama plan included Gail Wilensky, an unpaid adviser to the McCain campaign.

Personally, I would like to see a health care plan that provided businesses with tax incentives to provide coverage for employees and their families, and have health coverage that could not be cut off if a worker lost his job (provided he or she continued to pay the same premiums as the employer had paid).  In other words, just because you are no longer working for a particular employer does not mean you should lose your medical coverage.

In my view, the two biggest problems with health care are 1) soaring costs and 2) transferability.

Socialized medicine has failed everywhere it’s been tried, and the larger the population, the more horrendous the failure.  It invariably results in long waits and rationing of care.  But the privatized system we have now – which historically depends upon employers to pick up the tab – fails to provide suitable controls to limit the skyrocketing costs (i.e., since you are not paying for your own health care, there is no incentive to keep the costs of your health care down).

John McCain’s plan imperfectly tries to deal with these two fundamental problems with our current system by attempting to sever the unhealthy relationship between employees, employers, and health care.  But even though it is ultimately inadequate, it is a FAR cry better than the Obama plan which would send costs soaring and result in a loss of jobs as employers are forced to cut costs.