Still here...

Well it's been a few days since my last post. It has been a rather busy week. Of course football season is now in full swing, which does take time away from other pursuits. As the Steelers go after lucky #7 and the Purdue Boilermakers try to regain their respect in the Big Ten, I have been watching a great deal more tube than I usually do. I also watched a very interesting speech by POTUS this past Wednesday.

My daughter found it humorous that I was actually taking notes during the speech. I wanted to make sure that when I did have time to post again, that I was not relying on my almost 40 year old brain to formulate my response. Hopefully, it will be better than the lame excuse that the GOP offered. So without further delay:

My first issue which occured early in the address was the President referring to "our democracy". Apparently, his speechwriter, as well as a great many citizens are still unaware that we live in a republic, not a democracy. This is by design. The framers knew full well the dangers that would accompany a true democracy. History has shown time and time again that true democracies eventually devolve first into mob rule and then further into anarchy.

Second on the docket is the list of restrictions that POTUS wants to place on insurance companies. 1) no pre-existing conditions 2) inability to drop coverage at any point 3) required coverage of preventitive care 4) cap on out of pocket expenses. This all well and good, yet without any way to limit their risk, how will any private insurance companies be able to survive? Oh yes, all of those new customers that the government is going to hand deliver which brings me to my third issue. Which is forced health insurance!

POTUS stated that the proposed plan will MANDATE coverage for all individuals (like the young and the healthy). So much for freedom of choice. Your government demands that you have health insurance "much like auto insurance". Except that, mandatory auto insurance is designed to make the other party whole, not you! Liability and Medical coverage is for the other party, not you!!! So this is an apples to oranges comparison and a silly one at that.

Speaking of silly, I witnessed one of the silliest things I have ever seen during a Presidential address. Congressman Joe Wilson (R) calling the President a liar in the middle of his speech. It is this type of nonsense that really has caused my philosophical separation from the GOP. They simply continue to lack civility and leadership during this pivotal time. But I digress...

My fourth issue is a basic economic one. The President stated (and it is written in the bill) that businesses who do not offer health insurance to their employees will be charged a penalty equal to 8% of their payroll. Below is an excerpt from a report by Christine Eibner at the Rand Corporation. You can see the entire report here.

Eibner found that typical businesses offering health insurance spent between 7 percent and 10 percent of their payroll on health insurance. But small companies saw their share grow from an average of 8.4 percent in 2000 to 10.8 percent of payroll by 2005, an increase of nearly 30 percent.

This says to me, that POTUS is offering a chance for businesses to not offer health coverage to their employees while reducing their payroll costs(by anywhere from 1-4%) at the same time! Yet he pontificates that those of us who now have coverage through our employers would see no change. I ask you, what CEO in their right mind would not jump at the chance to reduce their payroll by almost 4%?

So let's wrap this up:
1) POTUS (a Constitutional scholar) thinks we live in a democracy.
2) We somehow expect private insurance companies to be profitable while allowing them absolutely no way to control their costs (risk). You think there will be a several private options for long?
3) The government wants to require individuals to carry health insurance. So much for personal responsibility, personal choice, and liberty.
4) Companies will be able to reduce their payroll costs by as much as 4% by legally eliminating their employee health plans. And since there will be no private insurance options (see #2), guess we better include that public option, since it will be mandatory for all subjects of the realm to have insurance.

Oh, and one more thing. If we have $662 billion worth of inefficiencies in Medicare, why not make those cuts right now? Why do they hinge on this plan?

AA