More observations on the economy

Second, one of the first causalities of Obamacare was the "public option" provision. This would have set up a government run and funded insurance plan open to anyone. Its proponents said that the provision would provide a little healthy competition to private insurers to "keep them honest." Private insurers are not saints, but they do not need politicians and bureaucrats to "keep them honest." Insurers today are the referees of this game we call a health care industry. Health care providers want to be paid well for all their training and services given to their patients. Patients want the best care possible with minimal out of pocket expenses. Employers want low premiums. Guess who has to come up with a way to appease these demands and stay on a budget. That's right, the insurers. Imagine, if you will, that the health care providers, consumers and employers were all guests at a dinner party. The host is the insurers. A large strawberry cheesecake is placed on the table for dessert. Each of the guests demanded one half of the cheesecake as their well earned slice. Do you still think the insurers are as greedy and evil as our politicians claim?

Also, the public option was a mandate, which is politico-speak for legal requirement. Option means choice. If the public "option" is required by law, it is not a choice or option. The politicians should have called it a public mandate. I think they were afraid the mandate would give away their real intent, to let the taxpayer subsidized "option" be chosen by so many people it would become a single payer system. Under a single payer system, who do you think will control the system. If you said the politicians, move to the head of the class.

Look back at the end of the first paragraph and the dinner party cheesecake dilemma. Now imagine the same situation except the government is the host instead of private insurers. How do you think the government would have handled the dilemma? Based on their past performances in similar situations, I believe they would have ordered 2 more cheesecakes and put the bill on a credit card billable to the American Taxpayers, present and future generations.

A sign of REAL Hope from the health care front.

Quote of the Day:

"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius says, "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices, we need some competition." Kathleen Sebelius US Secretary of HHS. NY Times August 16, 2009.

Counterquote of the Day

"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error."
-- Robert Houghwout Jackson, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and Chief Judge at the War-Crimes Tribunal in Nuremberg

I am glad to hear the President and his health care reform comrades are finally starting to listen to Americans who live outside of the DC Beltway. Most Americans know that health care costs are climbing but they still want their current insurance (if they have it). Remember, when the New Deal gave us the Social Security Act, the social security tax was 1% of the first $3000.00 annual wages for then covered employees. Now workers pay 6.2% of the first $102,000.00 for social security and 1.45% for Medicare on all wages, the sky's the limit for Medicare. Despite these increases lots of people do not believe they will be able to depend on it at all. This is a major reason why American Voters are so concerned about a public option for health care. They believe it will open yet another door for more government intrusion in their personal lives and the American Economy.

Here is my suggestion for President Obama, Secretary Selebius, Speaker Pelosi et al.
Read Charles Krauthammer's article "Health care reform: a better plan" in the August 7, 2009 edition of the Washington Post. He believes tort reform is the first priority. He cites a Massachusetts Medical Society study that shows that 5 of 6 doctors report 1 of 4 procedures they order are purely for defense from lawsuits. Cut down on these wasteful tests and you will save lots of money that can be directed to more productive use.