Any Bets ? ? ?

While campaigning for the Oval Office, President Obama made this promise to all of Main Street USA:

"When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government's doing."

Any bets on whether or not the massive pork and earmark-filled healthcare reform bill will even make it to the WH website, let alone be on it for five full days prior to his signature?

Within the first two months of his presidency, of 11 major bills that the president signed, only six of them (55%) made it online for review prior to his signing them and none of them (0%) were posted a full five days.

And it has not gotten any better.

With the number of votes that had to be purchased to push this legislation through the House it is this taxpayer's opinion that most of us will not see the full bill for quite some time.

As has been stated, the Congressional Special Interest Group (the buying of Senate and House votes through legislation earmarks especially for them) is much more dangerous than any single SIG in existence.

This bill proves it.

The government will now be responsible for over 50% of our gross domestic product.

Certain civil rights, such as the right to choose if one wants healthcare coverage or not, are gone.

That all members of Main Street USA must pay for walking parks in some town in a state many have never even visited is not what this country should be doing.

Ad infinitum.

At a time when unemployment is over 10% nationwide, when state officials are unable to raise enough funds to cover bare necessities of what government should be doing, when city municipalities are not able to honor bonds issued and where our own federal government has been "borrowing" from the social security trust fund (to the tune of over three trillion dollars), our elected representatives should be focused on making effective financial cuts, not spending yet another trillion dollars we do not have.

Our Founding Fathers may have had it right placing "In God We Trust" everywhere.

Because politicians continue to prove they cannot be trusted.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Banking & Insurance Regulation

It is unclear to this taxpayer why there is such a disparity between the handling of banks that were viewed as causing the Financial Collapse of 2008 and the healthcare reform proposals aimed at insurance companies.

The one similarity that does jump out is that our government is attempting to super-regulate both industries, and, in the case of House Bill 3200 (healthcare reform), possibly even eliminate the insurance industry altogether.

Case in point, as reported in the New York Times this morning, President Obama has called for an overhaul in the banking arena: "Mr. Obama said the banks had nearly wrecked the economy by taking 'huge, reckless risks in pursuit of quick profits and massive bonuses.' The administration wants to ban bank holding companies from owning, investing in or sponsoring hedge funds or private equity funds and from engaging in proprietary trading, or trading on their own accounts, as opposed to the money of their customers."

That in itself may not be a bad thing. Afterall, the entirety of Main Street USA suffered the consequences.

The NYT also reported, "Mr. Obama also is seeking to limit consolidation in the financial sector, by placing curbs on the market share of liabilities at the largest firms. Since 1994, the share of insured deposits that can be held by any one bank has been capped at 10 percent. The administration wants to expand that cap to include all liabilities, to limit the concentration of too much risk in any single bank."

That one does seem logical.

However, the ideas being formulated and, indeed, legislation that has already been written (fortunately, not passed) actually amount to more and more government regulation occurring in every large industry. 

Should there be more scrutiny placed in the discovery, and prosecution, of criminal activities by, perhaps, a handful of over-zealous, greedy people? That would certainly send a message throughout the financial sector.

As this topic relates to the banking industry, there are either too many existing loopholes in current law allowing financial institutions to be reckless with OPM (other people's money) or certain individuals at those businesses simply broke the law executing their plans for profit.

Either way, there does not appear to this taxpayer enough reason to completely overhaul and, eventually, over-regulate the entire banking extablishment.

As to healthcare reform, which is needed, one reason why insurance costs what it does is due to X-Tort (extreme tort) compensation awarded in litigation. 

However, not one person in the White House, Senate or House of Representatives has proclaimed that Tort Reform (which would affect the income of attorneys) is needed in an attempt to scale back the cost of insurance. (At least, if there are any elected officials talking about this aspect they must be whispering.)

Yet, Tort Reform is definitely a large component of what is needed, not government-run healthcare.

There are still too many ideas floating around Capitol Hill these days that amount to government over-regulation of our lives and the eventual erosion of America's Bill of Rights.

If our elected officials really believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they should pay much more attention to the words of our Founding Fathers.

To wit:

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. Patrick Henry

Most bad government has grown out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Health Care and Numbers

In the most recent article I read this morning (December 6, 2009, AP: Obama heads to Hill to push on health bill) it states of the House version: "The nearly $1 trillion, 10-year legislation would provide coverage to more than 30 million more people over the next decade with a new requirement for nearly everyone to purchase insurance."

I am a bit confused about this statement.

The number of Americans who do not have insurance when healthcare again hit center stage during the presidential campaign was 46 million.

What happened to over 25 percent of those people who seemed to need it?

Perhaps the over 9 million non-citizens, who were included in the 46 million count were taken off the list. At least that is good news as I do not believe that Main Street USA should be paying anything for them unless they are here legally and paying taxes and then perhaps only emergency care, not monthly subsidies.

However, without that group the number only goes down to about 37 million.

Of other significant groups included in the number of uninsured there are included slightly over 10 million who earn more than three times the stated "poverty level" but have decided, for whatever reasons, not to purchase insurance. (Though there will be a mandate in the House bill for them to do so. But, as it is subsidized, they still won't have to pay.)

When analyzing the numbers further there are estimated to be roughly 6 million Americans identified as having been undercounted in Medicaid. That is a significant number but also one where the people are actually insured and are listed as not insured.

There are also over 4 million people who already qualify for free or nearly free government subsidized insurance but have not signed up.

As food for thought, I assume those people who qualify for it but have not signed up are already included in some current budget somewhere but, by leaving them in the numbers, it becomes that much more inflated.

And, there are estimates that roughly 5 million Americans who are uninsured are between 18 and 34, single and in relatively good health, making a choice for themselves that they do not yet need insurance.

Thus, realistically, the number of the most needy uninsured Americans (i.e., do not have insurance and most likely cannot afford it) is more likely in the 10 million range.

Doesn't this put the issue in a different light?

I believe that it does.

Yes, health reform may be needed in areas of tort reform and absurd profits for drug companies, but the House and Senate do not address these two issues.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Even More Discord Among The Troops

Despite Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi promising President Obama that health care reform would be on his desk in the White House before the House adjourns for their August break, a group of conservative Democrats, the Blue Dog Coalition, seem to be a major roadblock to her commitment.

It is interesting that with each new story that is released a little bit more information finally comes forward.

This morning I asked in my blog how much money would be raised by taxing those individuals who earn $200,000 (couples, $250,000) and, lo and behold, a number comes forth: $100 Billion. Great, one answer down. That’s $10 Billion a year if the projections are accurate and hold up over time.

Then again, I could not help but laugh when I read that some Democrats actually want the Government to compete with private businesses in the sale of insurance. But it is not that funny. In fact, that one really frightens me.

Are we to believe that our Government, which does not have a great track record in meeting budget obligations, should be allowed to compete in the open marketplace for products and services? What’s next, will we have a proposal for a chain of Uncle Sam’s Gas Station/Convenience Stores?

At least Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) voices one of the main concerns that I have repeatedly stated, there are not enough cost containment measures included in the current legislation.

Let’s face it, if there are not enough factors to control costs and if the revenue estimates are shy of the projections what will result is an absolute calamity.

But wait, according to news reports, “officials” have other brilliant suggestions.

One of the ideas would be to levy “fees” on insurance companies or perhaps the drug industry. Do our elected officials not understand that if the cost of a product or service goes up, whatever the reason, the cost of that product or service increases to protect the bottom line.

That fact is not only something taught in college in a very basic business class, but, as an example, I learned that specific point when I was 16 working in a Texaco station. When the cost increased from a distributor on a tire or an oil filter, we adjusted our retail prices accordingly to maintain a certain markup percentage.

That is standard operating procedure for any business.

Another idea is to allow states to issue health care bonds. With the economic problems many states are currently facing at present, with no signs of relief readily in sight, is this where investors will want to risk their hard-earned money? Doubtful.

Of course, they would probably be “government insured,” meaning that Main Street USA will ultimately pay if the state cannot.

That seems to be the sticking point in all of this.

Whether it be through direct or product and service taxes or by way of increased prices paid for goods and services due to company costs increasing, Main Street USA will ultimately be paying for every penny of the $1-plus Trillion health care system.

Regardless of how our representatives try to paint the picture, that is how it really turns out.

I have to keep reminding myself of what Patrick Henry believed: "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

And, right now, there is not enough restraint.

At least there are some Democrats and Republicans who seem to be asking the hard questions on this nationalized health care issue. And there are no good answers coming forth.

Over For Now,

Main Street One

Still A Bit Confusing . . .

The actual funding needed for the national health care system is still a bit confusing.

There are quite a few articles on the subject with various bits and pieces of how the financial aspect is supposed to play out, but almost everything I read just raises more questions.

For instance, AP reports that House Democrats are working on a bill that will tax individuals earning over $200,000 annually and couples making in excess of $250,000. This is obviously an attempt to keep President Obama's promise not to tax Main Street USA.

The article also attributes to the House Ways and Means Chairman, Charles Rangel, a comment that this is part of making up the estimated $600 Billion still needed to fund nationalized health insurance for the 50 million uninsured.

However, there has been no mention yet on just how much of that $600 Billion needed will come from the additional income tax on these people.

In that same article, and others, there is also talk of taxing sugared soft drinks. I am not sure if this will deter people from buying these but taxing items people buy is just a slightly different way from taxing us directly. The difference is that if you decide not to buy sugary drinks, you don’t pay the tax. It would be interesting to see what amount of tax revenue the House expects to raise from this action. And, did they take into account, depending on the size of the tax, what impact that would have on sales of these drinks.

Now, here is one I like. Eliminating the current tax break drug companies receive for advertising. I must ask why drug companies (which, as I pointed out in a previous post, earn some of the highest Net Profits of any industry) have a tax break for advertising in the first place. All I can say about that right now is the drug companies must have some very excellent and, more than likely, exquisitely compensated lobbyists.

Think about it, Main Street USA. Why on Earth would the government grant an advertising tax break to the pharmaceutical industry?

That is beyond mind-boggling.

The one point, though, is that the House should have a fairly accurate number that is expected to come from that. I, for one, would like to see what kind of tax breaks these companies have been enjoying, and for how long.

So, please, House members, enlighten us on how much the drug companies have been benefitting from an advertising tax break, because all that means is that whatever they have saved in these breaks has, ultimately, been paid for by good ole Main Street USA through some other form of taxation to make up that shortfall in revenue.

The potential drawback to cutting the tax break is that, in order to keep their bottom line as high as possible, the drug companies will undoubtedly have to raise the prices of their product.

Did the House calculate that increase into their equation?

Probably not.

The House also talks about hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Hundreds of billions. And they need to make up a $600 Billion shortfall on a estimated Trillion Dollar cost.

What exactly will be the effect to Main Street USA by cutting “hundreds of billions” from Medicare and Medicaid?

Is part of that the reduction in those payments to hospitals now paid for treating uninsured and low-income families discussed in my earlier post? If it is, okay, but won’t the hospitals be making a trade off by being paid by the federal government (i.e., Main Street USA) when these people are covered by nationalized insurance?

As I said, the more I hear, without full disclosure of what comes from where and what goes to where, the more confused I get and the more questions I have. Does anyone have a balance sheet of all the financial plusses and minuses for review and comment?

It is certainly going to be very interesting to see exactly how this plays out.

Over For Now,

Main Street One

Giving Up $155 Billion?

It is hard for me to comprehend that hospitals are willingly going to “give up” over $155 Billion in future Medicare and Medicaid payments as is right now being reported all over the web.

Granted this is over a span of several years, but given that the health care proposal is hundreds of pages long I wonder if anyone really, with 100% certainty, knows every little financial detail involved in nationalizing health care.

So, let’s take a quick look at this $155 Billion hospitals are “giving up.”

As reported, there would be a reduction of federal payments of between $40 and $50 Billion that hospitals would normally receive for treating low income and uninsured individuals. But from what I read, that does not start until 2015. Hmmm.

And, is that really a loss if this national health care coverage plan is intended to provide care for currently uninsured individuals? Does that mean that hospitals “give up” $40 Billion here to receive an equal amount there? And, on top of that, start receiving it earlier? I think more information and, certainly, clarification is needed and required.

Then there is anticipated to be $100 Billion in “savings” that comes from “slowing down” increases in Medicare payments to hospitals.

Not having all of that paperwork here in front of me I am not sure exactly how that works, other than surmising there must be some sort of built-in annual increase in Medicare payments that is going to be slowly reduced in size.

Of course, if that purported savings of $100 Billion is stretched out over a decade or so it really does not seem to be that much of a savings, although it is between 5% and 10% of what the projected national health care system will cost Main Street USA.

Of the other hand, government budgets, unfortunately, do not have a sterling reputation for coming in at what is projected.

However, and this may be a huge however, if the public health insurance plan (as currently envisioned by the Finance Committee) passes, it will allow higher future hospital reimbursement rates from Medicare and Medicaid.

Wait a minute . . .

Are the higher reimbursement rates essentially a trade-off for this $100 Billion?

If so, why are these provisions even in the legislation?

Why is it that Congress cannot write and enact less complicated and cumbersome legislation?

Do they think they are getting paid by each and every word that they write? That was quite snide, I will admit. But, I do not, for the life of me, understand why Congress must write volumes and volumes of pages, books really, to become law. That said, back to my original point.

Are we (Main Street USA) really going to save anything by asking hospitals to “give up” $155 Billion when it seems that we may be handing them an equivalent amount in another way. (Note: I have not read what the fine print says about all these financial dealings.)

Or, is this some kind of Public Relations ploy to make it seem like hospitals are taking some sort of burden off of Main Street USA and that the administration is negotiating really hard on our behalf.

At this point, only time will tell.

Over For Now,

Main Street One

National Health Insurance, Really?

I know this is going to be a touchy subject for some but I hope that people will read and digest what is being said in this blog.

Medical insurance is available to all of us, at a cost. Unfortunately for many people the cost is more than they can afford, whether it is offered via their employer or purchased from an insurance company directly.

Insurance companies, as do all businesses, exist to provide a service and make a profit. If the cost of doing business exceeds the revenue received for their service an entity will fold. Insurance companies cover a huge amount of our collective medical expenses.

Let's look at why medical service is costing Americans so much today. A lot of the problem can be summed up in one word...lawsuits.

There have been too many juries award what I believe are excessive awards to defendants. This ranges from malpractice to wrongful death and all things in between and from side to side.

In a fairly recent letter to President Obama on this subject I stated that instead of nationalizing health insurance one should first look at how costs could be lowered and, thus, make premiums more available to all Americans. (Once again, I am sure that one of his aides failed to deliver my words of wisdom.)

What if legislation was introduced to limit punitive awards? What would the effect be on the cost of insurance? I believe that we would find that it would be less.

I do feel that if a family loses the breadwinner (or main breadwinner) wrongfully that there should be some recompense. However, if the person lost to loved ones earned $40,000 a year and had ten good years of work left there is no logical reason to award tens or scores of millions.

I know these millions are supposed to repay people for pain, suffering, and the like. The real problem is that money DOES NOT make that pain and suffering go away.

Yes, the family should receive something but the monetary award should not be totally influenced by attorneys who should have been actors earning academy awards for their performances.

I can hear the screams now but I can assure you I have been there.

When I was 20 away at college I lost my father in an accident involving a train where evidence clearly showed the railroad company was in the wrong. My mother, on the advice of a wimpy attorney, settled out of court for a grand total of $50,000. My dad was 51. He had recently gotten back to very good health and could easily have worked to age 65. I strongly believe that my mother should have received a much greater sum than she did but not tens of millions, regardless of how easily it was to prove the railroad company in the wrong.

All that said, when insurance companies have to pay hundreds of millions for claims and lawsuits they end up raising the premiums we pay for coverage.

When doctors have to pay astronomically high premiums for malpractice insurance, just in case, the costs of medical services increase.

Thus, my argument in favor of placing a cap on punitive awards. Let's do something effective to lower insurance costs.

And, by the way, the health care bill being proposed will cost somewhere between One and Two Trillion Dollars to fund.

People, where does that money come from?

Heaven? I don't think so.

Ultimately, it will come primarily from the middle class, Main Street USA.

Whether that trillion-plus dollars is repaid in the form of increased income taxes or raising one or more of the dozens of other taxes we all pay, make no mistake, in the end, the piper must be paid.

Please think this over.

We, Main Street USA, have been mortgaged to the hilt already. The deficit in our national budget that has been incurred in our names is staggering.

Insurance costs can be brought under control and, thus, premiums should lower, making affordable plans available to us all.

We DO NOT need nationalized health insurance.

We DO NEED people willing to find solutions to problems that really are solutions and not something that merely puts it off to another day (or another administration).

Over for now,

Main Street One