Senate Democrats Unveil Public Health Insurance Legislation

The dawn of government-run healthcare is upon us. Today Senate Democrats revealed their plans to create the "public option" for health care, one which they say will extend coverage to 97% of all Americans.

"According to Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, their legislation would extend health insurance coverage to 21 million uninsured people over 10 years at a net cost of $611.4 billion. Combined with separate legislation being developed by the Senate Finance Committee, senators said their healthcare reform plan would bring the total number of newly insured people to 41 million by 2019, or 97 percent of the projected U.S. population, excluding illegal immigrants."

I'm not a mathematician, but spending *at least* $611 billion to insure an additional 21 million people seems like quite a lot of money per person.

20 million more people would be covered through an expansion of the Medicaid program. Also, "under the new provisions, employers with more than 25 workers would be required to either provide "affordable" coverage or pay the government an annual fee of $750 for each full-time employee and $375 for part-timers." Again, the "or else" language from the government rears its ugly head.

"President Obama praised the HELP Committee bill in a statement. 'Today the Senate HELP Committee has produced legislation that lowers costs, protects choice of doctors and plans and assures quality and affordable health care for Americans,' Obama said. 'The HELP Committee legislation reflects many of the principles I’ve laid out,' he said, such as the creation of a health insurance 'exchange' through which people can shop for insurance, a ban on insurance companies excluding people with pre-existing conditions, and the public option."

I can't even begin to describe how bad these ideas are. First, you can ALREADY shop and compare insurance options, we don't need a government organization for that (though I presume he means an "exchange" for government-run health care). Second, banning insurance companies from excluding people with pre-existing conditions will tank their business (not to mention it's a major intrusion into free market principles), resulting in higher costs for the few remaining people that decide to stick with them. Pre-existing conditions generally mean higher medical costs for that person, which means the insurer must pay out more money. More money out per person = higher costs for all subscribers to reimburse the company's expenses and to keep it afloat. That, however, is exactly how the Democrats and Mr. Obama want it. They want the private insurance companies to have to pay out more, raise prices, and ultimately lose customers, because that will drive people to the "public option," thus giving the government more control over what you can and can't do.

The government has (or rather, should have) a limited supply of money. With gobs of people presumably signing on to the public option, how much money will be available for each person's care? What if you need a costly operation, who decides whether you need it, you and your doctor, or the government? For the answer, look at any country that currently uses a socialized medical system, i.e. Canada or England. Read over this short article by John Stossel, or the offical site for England's National Health Service.

One thing I find striking is how much is spent trying to regulate what people can or cannot do in regards to their health, and how that affects the overall "health" of the system. Apparently people exercising their right to be overweight, smoke, or drink, costs the system money. Let's look at England's plan for tackling the growing obesity problem.

"Obesity is one of the biggest health challenges we face. The Government is committed to taking action to reverse the rising tide of obesity. Almost 1 in 4 adults in England are currently obese, and if we carry on as we are by 2050, 9 in 10 adults will be overweight or obese. The cost of overweight and obese individuals to the NHS is estimated to be £4.2 billion and is forecasted to more than double by 2050. The cost to the wider economy is £16 billion, and this is predicted to rise to £50 billion per year by 2050 if left unchecked.

In January 2008 the Government published “Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives: A Cross-Government Strategy for England”. £372 million has been made available to implement the strategy, which sets out how the Government will enable everyone in society to maintain a healthy weight."

Part of the attack plan involves the proper labelling, marketing, and consumption of foods. The government will decide what is good for you, and will direct the media and companies to market those products to consumers, as well as direct the consumers themselves on how much to eat. From the report at the bottom of the page linked above:

"Early identification of at-risk families

Throughout the CHPP, a series of health reviews provide an opportunity for health professionals to identify families that are most at risk from child weight issues and least able to tackle them.

In particular, the assessment by the 12th week of pregnancy allows health professionals to identify mothers who are already obese or overweight, and to give them advice on healthy weight gain in pregnancy. This is crucial for their baby’s development, safety and also to ease delivery.

The forthcoming update of National Service Framework (NSF) Standard One (CHPP) will prioritise the promotion of healthy weight in early life, and specify the monitoring and interventions that are to be offered to all children and families."

If that doesn't scare you at least a little bit, it should. And it's coming home. This legislation isn't about health care, it's about control, and how the government can wrest more from you.

Proposed Bill Will Fine The Happily Uninsured

A bill introduced by Senate Democrats today would tag Americans who can afford health care, but choose not to get it, with fines in excess of one thousand dollars.

"The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage. Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals.

In a revamped health care system envisioned by lawmakers, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face penalties.

Called 'shared responsibility payments,' the fines would be set at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation."

The above excerpt, to me, means that the government is saying, "We're going to get your money whether you buy into our program or not. If you do, you're handing over your money; if you don't, we'll make you wish you had." It almost sounds like a mob minion making you an offer for "protection" you can't refuse. Extortion, in other words.

What happened to freedom of choice? Can't we decide for ourselves if we want to spend money on health insurance? What's with the government making our decisions for us?

Explain To Me How This Is Legal

A new Massachusetts law that took effect recently has many motorists angry, and rightly so. "Armed with the knowledge that more than 250,000 tickets for civil motor vehicle infractions were challenged in the state last fiscal year, legislators have voted to charge drivers $25 for such hearings." In other words, if you get a speeding ticket or moving violation, and plead not guilty, you will automatically be charged $25.

"State Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, was a member of the conference committee that discussed attaching a cost to clerk hearings. Legislators estimate the change will yield $5 million this fiscal year in revenue, all of which will be returned to the court system's budget.

By law, drivers who receive tickets for civil motor vehicle infractions are entitled to a hearing with a clerk magistrate. Until this fiscal year, which started Wednesday, there has been no cost to drivers who want to plead their case in front of a clerk, though it does cost $20 for drivers who lose the clerk hearing and want a second appeal with a judge.

With trial courts collectively taking an $18 million hit this year, Mr. Brewer said, 'This provides a measure of restoration.'”

Basically, the powers that be in Massachusetts have decided that your right to plead not guilty before a court clerk is worth $25 to them, money they apparently need to reimburse the courts for all the times they have to hear whiny motorists contest their tickets. It amounts to a personal taxation for exercising your rights. Last time I checked, such freedoms were not taxable. However, with the state budget deficit approaching a billion dollars, it appears as though nothing is beyond taxation.