Enemies of our enemies or something...

Obama’s left flank is in full rebellion over the healthcare bill as they have just recently figured out that all the compromises have made the legislation a “sell-out”. And to be specific, what they are having the most heartburn over is the fact that they will be forced to purchase a service from a private entity – individual mandates – a feature of Obamacare that we have been all over from the get-go.

Hey, lefties…we’ve saved a seat for you all down here at the bar. Grab a beer with us when you get done venting.

Markos Moulitsas, he of the liberal Daily Kos on individual mandates:

“My take is that it’s unconscionable to force people to buy a product from a private insurer that enjoys sanctioned monopoly status,” says Moulitsas. “It’d be like forcing everyone to attend baseball games, but instead of watching the Yankees, they were forced to watch the Kansas City Royals. Or Washington Nationals. It would effectively be a tax — and a huge one — paid directly to a private industry.”

The Royals? The Nationals? Now, that would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Alas, ‘Kos as representative of the rest of his crowd, comes to the right conclusion for the wrong reason (to use his example, even if the Yankees are your favorite team, why should you be forced to watch them). He isn’t against individual mandates, per se, or as a matter of principal, he’s against individual mandates that are decoupled from the public option. In ‘Kos World, individual mandates are fine as long as the government option is in play and where an individual isn’t forced to sign up with an evil private insurer, only.

Of course, this reasoning is totally lacking in principle as the individual mandate, public option or not, is the antithesis of freedom of choice (something we are told is cherished by this country’s liberal-Left) and most likely unconstitutional.

Think about it: the federal government is forcing you to purchase a product produced by a private, for-profit entity. No amount of alliteration can free one from the wrongness of that scenario.

Be that as it may, we welcome a temporary partnership with our statist friends of whom do not find the satisfactory amount of statism in Obamacare.

Confounding compromises

Harry Reid has apparently put together a compromise between 10 Democrat Senators (5 libs and 5 moderates) that will a) offer private insurance plans under the auspices of the federal employee health program and b) will enable middle-aged Americans to buy into Medicare. Of course, Harry isn’t letting on in any of the details… any of the details that will effect every man, woman and child’s healthcare. But never mind all that transparency, what of these compromises?

Ostensibly, this private insurance plan “option” is for those who are not currently covered for a variety of different reasons, the cost of health insurance being chief among them. But think about this for a moment: if the private insurance option is held to the same standards of coverage as the federal employee health program, how is that going to be affordable? On its surface, this private option solves nothing and in fact, makes it worse as it will, in most cases, be more expensive than most other coverage plans out there in the market.

The very people that are currently opting out of health insurance coverage will be forced to purchase something that is more expensive than their current options. Then what? Are you going to throw these people in jail because of the no-win situation created by the private option?

One would think liberals would be outraged by this plan to subject the un-insured to the evil and greedy health insurance companies and their costly plans.


And what of expanding coverage for Medicare? Wasn’t Obamacare going to pay for itself, in part, by making upwards of $500 billion in cuts to Medicare? How is that going to work? How in the hell do you expand coverage while simultaneously cutting funding? Well, it works if services and treatments are rationed but we’ve all been assured that won’t happen.


Again, we go back to the basics when arguing with Obamacare proponents on the merits of Obamacare. Precisely, what are its merits? What is in this damn bill that should get anyone to support it? The “merits” of this bill appear, disappear and then re-appear on a weekly, even daily basis. Outside of a blind acceptance of the benevolence of our elected leaders which is tantamount to being teabagged by Obamacare, there is no logical reason to support this bill.

Seeing is believing?

So, the public option is dead or so we are told. With the amount of zig-zagging and back-tracking on campaign promises we’ve seen already from this administration, we’re in the trial balloon camp.

At any rate, this pits the administration against its liberal base and raises the specter of a watered-down bill (sans public option) getting passed that will please nobody (hello, 2010).

B-Daddy has some thoughts on the matter, here.

The Friday Evening Dump

(one in a weekly series intended to shine some light on unsavory news being jettisoned from the White House and Capitol Hill right before the weekend)

Hey, do you remember when they told us that if we voted for McCain, it would mean that our health care benefits would be taxed? Well, it looks like they may be right.

The campaign ad was ominous: "John McCain would make you pay income tax on your health insurance benefits. Taxing health benefits for the first time ever."

So warned candidate Barack Obama less than a year ago. In ads and speeches, Obama went on to predict the horrific fallout of McCain's proposal: financial hardship and millions dumped from employer-provided health plans.

Today(ed.: Friday, June 10), spokesmen for President Obama are saying a tax on employer-provided health benefits wouldn't be such a bad thing after all.

Roughly 163 million Americans receive health insurance through their employer. While actually a form of compensation, the value of the employer's contribution to that insurance is not taxed under the federal income or payroll taxes.

So, in addition to being a hypocrite, Obama is only being as nefarious as McCain in implementing this effective tax hike, which if executed on a wholesale basis would result in a tax increase of $2.3 trillion over 10 years for all Americans who receive employer-based health care, right?

Uhhh… not quite. The McCain taxing of health care benefits was to shift the overall health care obligation from the employers to more of a free-market approach whereby individuals and families would be given vouchers funded by the tax to shop around for health care.

The Congressional plan that is doing the heavy lifting for the President is in a mad scramble to raise the $1 to $2 trillion of jack that will be needed to fund his “public option”. Just a little different, wouldn’t you say?

But since a tax on everyone’s health insurance plan is most likely a political non-starter, Congress will probably focus their tax sights on just the most generous of benefit plans. We’re looking at you, middle class.

Unfortunately, this elimination of tax exemption for just the above-average value health plans won’t nearly raise the amount of money to fund the public option. Investor Business Daily surmises only $165 bil will be raised in this manner so Congress will be required to root around and about for additional, ahem, revenue streams. Anyone up for a payroll tax, a value-added tax… an income tax surcharge?

Such wonderful news in the midst of the worst economy since the Great Depression, we’re sure you would agree.

Oh, and dig this, courtesy Innocent Bystanders

The Friday Evening Dump

(one in a weekly series intended to shine some light on unsavory news being jettisoned from the White House and Capitol Hill right before the weekend)

Just remember: it’s not a tax.

WASHINGTON — Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled yesterday by leading Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

(italics, ours)

Further on in this article there is some juicy info that betrays the “public option” lie being touted by Obama-care proponents.

In 2008, employer-provided coverage averaged $12,680 a year for a family plan, and $4,704 for individual coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual survey. Senate aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly, said the cost of the federal plan would be lower but declined to provide specifics. The legislation would exempt certain hardship cases from fines. The fines would be collected through the income tax system.

Bounce that against this:

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions bill also calls for a government-run insurance option to compete with private plans as well as a $750-per-worker annual fee on larger companies that don't offer coverage to employees.

So, if you are one of these larger companies, what incentive do you have to provide health care for your workers? You don’t. If you are paying out an average of $4,700 per person and over 12 grand per family in medical coverage, you are going to drop that in a heartbeat to merely shell-out that $750 annual “fee” to the Feds.

The next time you here any non-sense regarding how Obama-care just wants to compete against private insurance and not displace it, remember the facts as laid-out above. With the government calling the shots of how this “public option” will be implemented, they can skew the playing field as they see fit, rendering the public option as anything but.

Promise-keepers

The quantity and degree of tall tales being told to push government-managed health care on a skeptical public is reaching some pretty epic levels. Recall the President’s campaign pitch that under his health-care proposal Americans would “be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves.”

Oh, really? Members of Congress are so excited regarding their prospects to participate in Obama-care they have exempted themselves (and the unions) from all the fun.

This legislation -- the Affordable Health Choices Act that's being drafted by Sen. Edward Kennedy's staff and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- will push Americans into stingy insurance plans with tight, HMO-style controls. It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).

The Kennedy bill also drives providers towards the HMO-style insurance of the 90s that was very unpopular. Through the use of “incentives”, the payment structure would be based upon how many times your doctor didn’t refer you to a specialist or order more testing for your ailment. That sounds like a fantastic way to reduce the cost of your health care, if you don’t mind your doctor balking on passing you along to a different doctor or ordering more testing if the situation may warrant it.... Honestly, if your GP finds "something" and he's not quite sure what it is then... hell, roll the bones, quit whining and live a little, chump - because you only go around once and taking one for team in order to better control health care costs are what it's all about.

Recall that the very people who support universal health care were basically promising less service. This is one of the mechanisms for how they will keep that promise.

Would members of Congress who are supporting Obama-care care to take the “public-option pledge” that the President himself turned down? We think you know the answer to that question.

Father of the Year

The First Family will be pleased to know that the head of the household loves them too much to entrust their health to the “public option”.

Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.

The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.

Your sadly obligatory Mark, er.... Health care update

Damn that Mark Sanford and his news cycle dominating ways. Anyway, here’s a breakdown (with pie charts!) of the Obama-care infomercial on ABC last night for those of you who may have had better things to do.

Dig this:

In addition to Obama’s longwinded responses, the ABC special left the most critical questions until the “Nightline” portion of the segment – after a 30-minute break for local news and likely fewer viewers.

… after a 30-minute break….?

good lord, how are we defining torture, again?

Something we haven’t heard discussed too much with respect to the public option, it’s competitiveness and the tilting of the playing field towards this alleged “option” is medical malpractice insurance which has been a thorn in the side of doctors for years.

Long story short: will doctors operating under the public option have to buy the same kind of med-mal insurance that private doctors do? The government buys insurance for nothing – everything they purchase and operate is self-insured with your tax dollars and the doctors practicing under the big tent of the public option will be no different.

From jump street and without even having to actively legislate for, the public option already has a huge competitive cost advantage on the private sector.

And speaking of competition, Robert Reich thinks the computer (or cell phone/PDA) upon which you are viewing this would be even better if the government made one as well. For reals. B-Daddy has more, here.

The half-back option, public option and other gimmicks

So, we are going to create more competition in the health care market place by implementing this so-called public option. The public option, of course, is government-managed health care.

If one is interested in real health care reform then one would think that, for starters, one would want to reform two entities of government-managed health care: Medicare and the VA.

B-Daddy has the low-down here on why this is so critical if the “public option” is to be a credible option in the health care market place.

P.S. In his presser yesterday, the President go a little testy with a question regarding the efficacy of the public option and any real competition it may create. The President responded (paraphrasing): “If, as you say, the government is so terrible at running things, then what is there to worry about?”

You start by telling us, sir.

Obama-care... as good as Amtrak

The more we continue to peel back the layers of the Obama-care onion, the more it becomes apparent that, despite the “public option” rhetoric, it’s handlers really have no intention of creating any sort of competitive market where there will be any real choice of health care providers. B-Daddy shows yet another mechanism for how this will be accomplished, here.