Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Congress / Woods Lamar Alexander: 'It's Not Time'
Posted by Jeff Woods on Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 1:38 PM
"This is the wrong first step on health care reform because it sets the stage for higher state taxes, more federal debt, government-run health care and Medicare cuts--and still leaves many Americans uninsured. Instead, we should have adopted the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett bill, which I cosponsored and which would give low-income Americans the opportunity to buy their own health care plans without creating a government program and without adding to the federal debt."The financing of all this has yet to be decided. The House is looking at taxing wealthy Americans, but the Senate is against that. Alexander says the legislation would saddle the states with tremendous new obligations with a massive expansion of Medicaid. Tennessee, the senator claims, would have to impose a 10 percent income tax to meet the extra costs. More from Alexander:
"There's an air of unreality here. The language is, 'we'll shift it back to the states' as if the states had the money or a printing press. But this isn't just a little increase. This is a bankrupting increase for most states. Any Senator that votes to expand Medicaid the way it is currently being proposed in Democratic bills ought to be sent home to serve as governor for eight years and try to manage the program."Update: Rep. Jim Cooper talks with Bob Schieffer about health-care reform. Cooper's against taxing the rich to pay for it: "Most people think it would never pass the Senate, so the House would be needlessly walking the plank on this." Update II: Senate Democrats call for health insurers to pay fees worth up to $100 billion over a decade to help pay for the overhaul of the health system.
Comments (14)
Showing 1-14 of 14
I would gladly pay 10% of my income to recieve health, as opposed to the 25% it would cost to get care through my wife's insurance, and I would gladly punch that motherfucker in the face if I hadn't thrown out my back.
The problem is most Senators, wealthy silver-spoon sucking shit heads that they are, can't see the trade-off or why normal Amercians might be down with kicking in a little up front so they don't have to live in fear of getting sick or hurt.
Fuck you, Lamar Alexander.
like
dislike
"Alexander issued this "the-sky-is-falling" statement:"
"Sky is falling statement" , eh?
Now that would perfectly characterize Obama's and the Democrat's rhetoric about how we have to do this now, doing nothing is not an option, it critical to fix the economy, etc. etc. etc., blah blah blah.
And of course all their hurry up and do something squealing is about nothing more than the Dems thinking this is their maximum window of political opportunity to jam through a major item that's been on their lefty wish list for decades.
Creating another massive entitlement program won't "fix" anything. The ones that exist now are abject failures and cost shifiting from Medicare and Medicaid is the primary reason that private healthcare costs are going up to begin with.
Gilbert,
This was never about 'fixing' health care. It is about removing more power from businesses and individuals and transferring it to the federal government. The whole idea of a 'Right' to health care is designed to remove economic incentives so that the government will make all the decisions about patient care, research, personnel and the related fields.
I look forward to the additional benefits of the 'Right' to housing so that the feds determine what should be built.
Then we can have the 'Right' to transportation. That way people cannot drive cars that hurt the environment and companies can only build approved cars. Mass transit is an egalitarian dream so look for investments in that whether you want them or not.
The 'Right' to cable tv and the internet cannot be far behind.
This is about buying votes pure and simple. It never has had anything to do with healthcare.
Mark:
Of course it's about expanding government power - and making as many people as possible as dependent on government as possible.
Trying to get as many people as they can on the government welfare plantation has been the Democrats' strategy ever since the so-called "New Deal"
The idea that the government can create a whole new entitlement where more people are given something that they aren't paying for themselves and somehow that's going to "save money" is absurd on it's face.
Remember the record of cost predictions on Medicare. When it started in the mid-sixties, they predicted the annual cost would be $12 billion in 1990. The actual annual cost in 1990 was $107 billion.
Ultimately a nation's economic prosperity is tied to increases in productivity. Government forcing ever larger number of those who are productive to subsidize those who aren't to greater and greater extents is highly detrimental to achieving that.
"This was never about 'fixing' health care. It is about removing more power from businesses and individuals and transferring it to the federal government."
You fail to mention that one of the biggest proponents of some kind of national health-care is big business (and small business actually as they won't have to worry about losing quality employees because of the benefits). You also fail to mention that both business and employees can opt out if they want.
You also fail to mention that most of our foreign competitors are based in countries that do make it a right to have health-care. The reason this matters is fairly obvious. If Toyota doesn't have to worry about health-care for the vast majority of it's employees, than they have a several thousand dollar advantage per car. Not chump change.
Chris,
Those big businesses favor national health care because the costs will be borne by individuals. The 'public' option will be covered by higher taxes on businesses and individuals. Businesses will shift the costs to consumers.
Just like TennCare businesses will drop health care coverage and send their workers to the public option. That will put more private insurance providers out of business and increase government dominance of health care.
The losers will be consumers who will pay higher taxes for an increasingly strained and stagnant national health care.
As for Toyota, where do you think the money that funds their national health program comes from? Higher taxes across the board and trade barriers that allow them to build up a huge trade surplus.
We, as real Christian Americans, should be proud to be the only industrialized nation only the planet to not have universal health care coverage. We can maintain this by:
1. Paying significantly more for health care than any country on the planet
2. For this huge expense, enjoy health results / statistics comparable to a 3rd world country.
3. Letting 50 million Americans go without health care coverage. They can get health care if they pay 3 times more than the insurance companies for the same service. Hey, aren't we real Christians after all?
4. Most importantly, we support a bureaucratic medical-industrial complex that sucks the life out of the country. Is it any wonder industries are relocating to Canada? But hey, life's good for those on the inside of this Congressionally supported corporate welfare.
Appreciating your generosity -
Harry & Louise
Mark, I understand that. I was only pointing out that you make it seem like the government is wanting to forcibly take away a power of business, when business seems all too happy to get out of the health-care business. And yes, Japan and Europe pay higher taxes than we do. That is indisputable. But in the process that gives many of their companies competitive advantages over us. And all the hand-wringing about "nationalized" health-care still hasn't convinced me that it's worse than the HMO/PPO system that we have now. I know many doctor's absolutely detest the system in place now. And the first point of Harry & Louise is dead on. The U.S. does pay significantly more than any other western country for health-care without tangible health benefits comparatively.
H&L,
Did you see me arguing for preserving the status quo? No. We need to reform health care, to be sure.
My contention is that the current proposed method for reform is less about creating a more cost-effective system that covers more people while improving services and more about ensuring that government controls health care.
By framing the issue in terms of a 'Right' to health care, the advocates for the President's approach are saying that cost is not an issue. Think not? Ask Senator Kennedy if he believes that you can put a price on a Right. Of course not. The Left will never accept that cost is the justification for abridging a Right they like.
One result will be organ transplants on demand (despite age or health). Another will be lines and long waiting periods for many proceedures. We will see reductions in new technologies, especially those that reduce the need for staff since such efficiencies will now result in lost government jobs and government hates to cut employees. And there will be higher taxes to pay for these benefits.
I also note that one reasons Canadians like their system is that they have American health care as a backup. When we are as overcrowded as they are, the Canadians will hate their system too.
So let us reason together on how to reduce costs and expand coverage but keep in mind that government does a poor job of innovation and is less inclined to self-reform that almost any corporation.
Chris,
I am all for reforming health insurance and for making health benefits taxable. I would be interested in ideas on how to reward employer health plans and insurers for measurable improvements in wellness.
Those changes will redress the differences in national expenditure.
On the other hand, do you really think that once profit ceases to be a driving force in health care that we will see the sort of improvements that have come from America's system?
"Is it any wonder industries are relocating to Canada?"
Really.
And what industries exactly would that be?
The primary driver of Canada's economy is exports of natural resources like oil, natural gas and timber.
Their socialized medicine system doesn't have anything to do with it.
The claim that the absence of a socialized medicine system in this country puts American companies at a "competitive disatvantage" is a fallacy.
The jobs that are being exported from this country aren't going to countries that have socialized medicine like France, Germany or England. They are going to countries that don't like China and India.
Funding for those national health systems doesn't fall from the sky. It is being paid for by higher taxation on all the people and businesses in those countries.
As for the auto industry, the comparative disatavantage of the unionized domestic producers was created by their own actions. The companies managements and the UAW foolishly thought that they could forever maintain the political, artificial protectionist bubble against competition that created a virtually oligopoly in the industry.
Once that bubble popped the absurdly rich and unsustainable compensation and benefits that the UAW and company managements had colluded to foist the cost of onto the car buying public became the anchor around their neck when they had to compete with cars produced in non-union American plants by Toyota, Nissan and Honda.
