But then there is that elastic “General Welfare Clause” that has been so misused by Congress and misinterpreted by a succession of Supreme Courts. Many feel that this clause covers Obama’s socialized healthcare policies.

Shyeah, well, many feel Elvis Presley faked his death and is still alive out there somewhere. In a more perfect world, both groups would be taken equally seriously.

This is a very dangerous period because Nationalization will still occur even without an overt government run insurance plan like this "public option" provision everyone keeps fixating on – everything else contained in the plan is just as dangerous and is not being discussed in any kind of a targeted manner.

Here are the core elements what will be contained in the “health care reform compromise” after the so-called “public option” is in all likelihood dropped; both the Bacus and Wyden-Bennett bill contian all of these items:

(a) Federal Regulation aka HEALTH CZAR/DEATH PANELS/RATIONING

(b) Employer/Individual Mandates aka NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

(c) Government Subsidies aka MIDDLE CLASS MEDICAL WELFARE

With the Federal Government setting the rules, forcing everyone to participate, and is paying the bills for most of the middle class through subsidies how is this anything other than Nationalization?

And its clearly a government take-over of health care – only the names are changed to make us feel better about the arrangement. Since the government will be controlling the market and setting the terms, health insurance companies will essentially quasi-governmental agencies who get to administer the plan. They will be controlled in the same manner as GM or CITIGROUP and will be private in name only.

The common thread in all of the so-called "compromise" or bi-partisan plans is the Individual Mandate to force people to buy government dictated health insurance. This needs to be the focus for conservatives now!

Clearly, the Individual Mandate is a gross violation of our liberty and an Unconstitutional Tax – in essence the government is giving no choice in how you get to take care of your own body. These Mandates force everyone in the country into insurance plans that are designed by the Federal Government thus giving them control over everyone's choices. Mandates also fund the whole plan since they force young and healthy citizens or citizens who prefer to self insure to buy expensive policies that really don’t need and won’t likely use and employers to pay huge taxes (yes, in a lot of cases health insurance make no economic sense and nobody should be forced to buy a product or service they don’t need.) This is a stealth tax on the young and healthy by the government. It allows the politicians to continue to shift the costs of the bankrupt Medicare/Medicade program by continuing the practice of allowing providers to overcharge private consumers/insurance to make up for those programs payment shortfalls (this will get worse too as there are 500 billion in Medicare cuts in the plan too).

Finally, the Mandates are the carrot that keeps the insurance industry on board with the scheme since they give them millions and millions of new customers – it is basically another big industry bailout (big Health Insurance companies are in great financial distress since they lost heavily in last year’s market collapse and have a disproportionate number of aging “babyboomer” customers who are getting older and sicker thus more costly – 80 million of their 135 million customers are between the ages of 50-65 years old).

I would strongly advocate to conservatives in the Media/GOP elected officials that they stress to three very simple messages:

(1) The Individual Mandates need to be opposed and need to be the center piece of the opposition message – they are the most political unpopular feature of the Obamacare plan and they hold the whole scheme. Simply put, there is no government takeover without Mandates.

(2) Health Insurance Companies need to be called out for receiving Bailout money and a Monopoly Market . Health Insurance execs are politically unpopular and this would put the GOP/Opponents on the side of the people and not the special interests. We conservatives have a responsibility to defend the concept of insurance and free markets but not the current government and special interest distorted market.

(3) Obamacare is a corrupt barging that benefits big government, powerful Washington politicians, big union, and big companies/industry at the expense (once again) of the taxpayer, small business, the elderly, and the young.

Particularly, Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate need to understand this as many of the “compromise” plans being discussed contain all of these elements. They need to be forced to go on record as not only opposing the “government options” but these Employer/Individual Mandates too before they fall into the trap of thinking they are acceptable and not government run health care. The “free rider” argument makes little sense too as an excuse for conservatives to fall for supporting the Individual Mandate – we should not except this excuse from our elected represenative. Basically, the total amount of uncompesated care by the uninsured equates to about 3% of total health care spending in this country. This is a vey small cost to pay to keep our own individual liberty and choices as a free people.

Individual Mandates to buy private insurance sound like a “free market” solution and “individual responsibility” but in this context they are not – they are simply a front for a government run system. Again, the common thread in every liberal/statist health care bill is the Individual Mandate. To see it in action, look no further then how these Mandates in MA work to give government full control and to skyrocket costs. Many conservatives can be easily fooled by this faux “private” front (Mitt Romney was) – there needs to be united conservative opposition to Mandates now!

It was a bad idea when Mitt Romney proposed it and it remains a bad idea today. Aside from being an anathema to liberty, it is also a massive hand out to the insurance industry, and won't be done without incredible regulatory strings attached.

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-17 13:47:50

Health Savings Accounts along with high deductible plans offer a good 'in between' space. They cover a wider array of health scenarios than catastrophic coverage plans, but you still have to spend out-of-pocket money for more routine healthcare stuff.

We switched to one three years ago and it has saved us thousands of dollars per year up until this year, when we've had to lay down about $3k of out-of-pocket money on medical bills for my wife. But even with that money we are probably spending about the same amount as we did on our previous plan when you factor in the higher premiums it had.

The problem I see is that, at the rate our premiums keep going up every year, it is just a matter of time until our $4K high deductible plan has a monthly premium as high as our old plan did. Curbing inlationary pressures on doctors and insurance companies has got to be key to any meaningful reform, and the best leverage there begins with tort reform (an idea I have always been skeptical of, but now see as the lesser evil).

Forcing insurance companies to cover every sick person who applies for insurance is certainly not going to help!

Actually it’s a great example of why our whole concept of health insurance is screwed up and yeah, it’s because of the government.
Health insurance didn’t even exist until the 1920′s, and it was set up as insurance for accidents and hospitalization for injuries and illness.
This nonsense of filing an insurance claim every time you need a flu shot didn’t start until Medicare was created. Only then did people start expecting every medical transaction to be paid for by insurance, which routed all medical care and payments through the bureaucracy of the government or private companies.
Catastrophic coverage is available, but isn’t even offered by most employers. Of course, most people panic at the thought of paying cash for a service because they’ve been conditioned to believe that health care is a right, and that insurance creates free money that reduces their medical bills.

Forcing everyone to buy will not reduce costs. You've jsut eliminated the market pressure of needing to entice customers, and since the government will be essentially writing insurance policies, there is no competition via options in the plans to be bought. You risk a feedback loop similar to student loans and college tuition.

But then there is that elastic “General Welfare Clause” that has been so misused by Congress and misinterpreted by a succession of Supreme Courts. Many feel that this clause covers Obama’s socialized healthcare policies.

Some believe the General Welfare Clause gives the government absolute power over all. That's called "communism." If you believe in limited government then the G.W. clause should be strictly limited, otherwise all other parts of the Constitution are moot.