For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Senate Health Care Bill Will Put 1/3 Of US On Welfare
Written By : McQ

That’s a truly stunning number. 90 million will be on either SCHIP or Medicaid (not Medicare … Medicaid) if the Senate Finance version of health care becomes ObamaCare according to the Heritage Foundation:

But of those 29 million with new insurance coverage, almost half (14 million), will get their coverage through the welfare programs Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). That is equivalent to adding every resident of Ohio and Nevada to the welfare rolls.

In other words, for half of those Americans who are being promised health reform, they are going to be stunned to find themselves in a welfare office applying for Medicaid. Under the current baselines for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), there will be 76 million individuals served by these programs for at least some part of the year in 2019. If the SFC proposal becomes law, the number on Medicaid/SCHIP will top 90 million.

So why does the government want to push so many people into SCHIP and Medicaid asks Heritage? Because it is cheaper than providing them with competitive (and private) health care coverage (and access). Medicaid pays about 20 to 25% less than private insurance. As you might imagine then, it is hard to find doctors or hospitals which accept Medicaid patients. The obvious question then is how are those who do going to handle this huge influx of patients? The obvious answer is “not very well”. Shorter office visits and longer waits for appointments are inevitable.

And here’s another hidden truth:

The majority of individuals moved into Medicaid will be young and healthy. Keeping them on welfare rolls will shift even more costs to individuals and families buying private health insurance, as doctors and hospitals recoup their losses from Medicare/SCHIP by charging more to the privately insured. In effect, the congressional policy seems to be to expand dependency by discriminating against individuals based on their income.

Emphasis mine. With the addition, then, of a public option – the Democrats “single payer” Trojan Horse – companies would begin dumping employees coverage in favor of a cheaper “fine” for doing so. The rest is fairly inevitable. “Choice and competition” would then become redefined post-modern terms having nothing to do with their traditional meanings.

I listened to Sen. Judd Gregg yesterday talking about legislative tipping points. He said that at some point in the life of a bill, its passage become inevitable. He says some form of health care legislation is going to pass and Democrats will use whatever parliamentary tricks necessary to do so. That’s now beyond question. What its final form will be is the only question. That said, it’s worth remembering the words of Cheri Jacobus when considering the final form of the bill and what passage of this monstrosity will eventually mean to our freedoms and liberty:

A little bit of government control over health care requires even more government control over healthcare in order to make it all “work.”

Of course that’s “work” as defined by government which has no relevance whatsoever to cost, efficiency or quality. Especially when they are in full control. The unfunded future liabilities of current government programs make that abundantly clear. So given their track record you have to ask: how did they suddenly become the experts in how to make this system better? Counter-intuitive, isn’t it?

One-third of the country on medical welfare. It just staggers the mind. The rhetorical questions, being studiously ignored by the media and Congress, abound – who will pay for this? What choice will we really have? Where is the real competition? By what right do you make us participate in this (“right”, not power)? Why can’t we opt out? Etc.

I think we all know the answers.

[Crossposted at QandO]

0
  • Jack Schite

    You say the govt doesn't know what to so to make it work, well you don't gave a clue about what will make it work. In fact you probably think everything is dandy with health care.

    What would Sara the moose hunter do?

  • aharris

    You have less of a clue, Jack.

    1. Enact tort reform to control lawsuit costs or reduce the number of lawsuits. Cost to do – $0

    2. Break down the walls the confine insurance plans to their state and their state only. If there are 1300 private insurers in the nation why should my choice be confined the less than 10 that are confined to my state? Cost to do – $0

    3. Expand the ability for people to have HSA plans if they wish returning most routine medical care to out of pocket expense. Cost to do – $0

    4. Create some kind of insurace rollover plan that would allow people to carry their employer-based insurance for a time after they leave a job to create a buffer between jobs.

    5. Stop underpaying doctors for their Medicare and Medicaid service thus creating expanded costs for the rest of us. Given that both programs are essentially going broke, they are going to have to be addressed somehow.

    The government already can't handle the insurance plans it does force us to subsidize. Why on earth would you think that total control of the system by a body that has no incentive to handle money wisely would correct anything?

  • GDR

    In light of the PWC report, lets not forget that for months on end the Health Insurance lobby was colluding with the enemy in the WH to take away our liberties and advocated the use of FORCE to make us buy there product.

    I care about having a truly free market in health care and health insurance, not simply about helping the Insurance companies get fines up enough in an already Unconstitutional law to keep them profitable.

    Until they renounce the Individual Mandate provision, they are not to be trusted any more then Reid, Pelosi, etc as this all could be nothing but political theater to throw us off track.

    A government takeover is still result of a plan without a government option entitlement – we need to keep the focus on the Individual Mandate and insist that the Health Insurance lobby also drop this requirement a condition for our support.

    Yes, I understand that private Health Insurance is threatened without the Individual Mandate because of the "preexsisting condition" and "community rating" mandates. However, that is their own lobbiests putting them into that box with backdoor deals with a dishonest WH (it was always the lefts intent to destroy Private Health Insurance, any fool could see thatt). We are obligated to fight for our Individual Liberties and the concept of a Free Market/Private Health Insurance. However, we are under NO obligation to defend the creation of a quasi-government monopoly under the guise of supposedly private Health Insurance.

    Isnt this the kind of government/business/union corruption we are all enraged about?

    Here is a great NRO blog that sums up the situation:

    "AHIP/PriceWaterhouse Blowback? [John R. Graham]

    Full disclosure (in the spirit of James C. Capretta): I don't do consulting work for private health insurers, and I doubt they'd have me. I share Benjamin Zycher's frustration with the various corporate interests, including AHIP (the health-insurers' trade association), which have managed to get the enemy (government) "exactly where they want us," with their eager appeasement of the ruling faction.

    All intellectual capitalists since Adam Smith have known that we cannot rely on business to carry our philosophical water for us, but even I'm amazed that AHIP has waited so long to release a report (so ably summarized by Mr. Capretta), that describes how the Baucus memorandum (it's not a "bill") will destroy Americans' access to private health care. Indeed, they waited so long that the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report has revived the so-called "public option."

    The health insurers have become so committed to the idea of the federal government ordering people to buy health insurance, that the media and most laypeople are convinced that the "public option" is the only way to prevent insurers from gouging beneficiaries.

    The government is not going to change tack as long as the corporate interests are encouraging it to assume greater power over Americans' access to medical services. Instead, it's time for AHIP to change tack, abandon the ill-founded notion of mandatory health insurance, and adopt a policy advocating individual choice and responsibility."

    I would make too much of this supposed "treachery" the health insurance lobby and the various Obama/Democrats threats on anti-trust etc. I think this all more "political theater" for the masses….

    Until such time as the Health Insruance lobby drops their call for the Unconstitutional Individual Mandate, they only have themselves to blame for cutting deals with devils….

    I think this is all just show to keep the far left appeased that they are "fighting" evil big health insurance and will have a "fall guy" to blame when the government option is dropped as negotiated….

    It also keeps Republican and Conservatives tied to unconditionally supporting the health insurance lobby – which is not good politically nor something we should do until they renounce the WHOLE backroom deal and OPPOSE THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE!

  • Pingback: Google

Advertisement
Featured Video

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info