While President Obama continues to say that national healthcare reform will not put Main Street USA further into debt, the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office says otherwise.
Even though the president campaigned with the promise that "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," those making over one quarter of a million a year most likely would be shouldering a large chunk of the burden.
Plus, if projections are not on target in two years, there will be an automatic tax increase for those folks.
And even President Obama's Chief Economic Advisor, Larry Summers, is not ready to rule out higher taxes for middle class America.
I, for one, cannot recall a major government program that did not end up costing all Americans (other than those who are not working) more in taxes and other forms of taking-away-our-earnings, such as the proposed sugary drink consumption tax.
On another front, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is telling her Democrats to inform their constituents what's in it for us and we will support it.
The problem with that is anything can sound good presented in the right way. That does not make it right.
Why not explain to everyone the elusive concept of one trillion dollars…spending one million dollars a day, each and every day, for over 2,700 years.
That is a whole lot of money, of national debt.
Senate Democrat John Rockefeller doesn't want to support something that "sounds user-friendly" like a public co-op and espouses that a co-op cannot take on the "gigantic insurance" companies.
Senator Rockefeller, how big are your family holdings in oil and banking (and other things we don't even know about)?
Besides, this isn't about anyone "taking on" the insurance companies, least of all our government, because if we are to do that, we are surely doomed. The "government" (i.e., Main Street USA taxpayers) will subsidize lower and lower insurance costs in order to "compete."
When there are so many disagreements about what this healthcare reform is really going to cost I think it is time to put on the brakes.
You cannot project revenue on assumptions and goals. You must have realistic figures; otherwise it all becomes pie in the sky.
And, I continue to state, not one of our elected officials are talking about Tort Reform as a way to reduce insurance costs, which it absolutely would accomplish. Perhaps that is because attorneys and law firms are one of the major lobbying blocks and that sector earns substantial fees for tremendous tort verdicts.
As a matter of fact, I have not counted them up, but I'd venture to say that a large percentage of Senators and House members came from those very ranks.
Coincidence, I suppose.
What Main Street USA must must must demand is accountability from our elected officials.
What if they take a pay cut, or don't take a vacation, or take a cut in their hefty pension plan if they can't balance a budget, or enact some legislation that doesn't earn the revenue they plan on or costs go over the allotted amounts.
Accountability goes both ways.
Some things to think about.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Showing posts with label national health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national health. Show all posts
Monday, August 3, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Famous Quotes & Broken Promises
President Barack Obama, during his campaign, pledged the following:
"No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s."
Oops.
The House, with increased and substantial prodding by President Obama to pass their version of a health care reform bill, have, it appears, decided to raise over $540 Billion by adding a “surcharge” to higher income earners over the next decade.
That’s called, I think, a “two-fer.”
I would not be willing to rely on government projections to be met.
Thus, I will be betting right now that the second increase is a certainty.
As an added note, thought I would remind people what headline grabbers have to say about health care reform:
House Ways and Means Chairman, Democrat Charles Rangel, calls this “innovative bill” a “uniquely American solution.”
Over For Now,
Main Street One
"No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s."
Oops.
The House, with increased and substantial prodding by President Obama to pass their version of a health care reform bill, have, it appears, decided to raise over $540 Billion by adding a “surcharge” to higher income earners over the next decade.
And these tax payers will be paying, potentially, much more than during the 1990's.
Interesting that the House apparently have a backup plan built into the proposal.
That’s called, I think, a “two-fer.”
I would not be willing to rely on government projections to be met.
Thus, I will be betting right now that the second increase is a certainty.
As an added note, thought I would remind people what headline grabbers have to say about health care reform:
House Ways and Means Chairman, Democrat Charles Rangel, calls this “innovative bill” a “uniquely American solution.”
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Saturday, July 11, 2009
One Trillion Dollars, Illustrated (sort of)
We have all heard the news about the proposed national health care reform.
Conservative estimates put the price tag at $1 Trillion, assuming, of course, that the revenue and expense projections are correct.
What exactly is One Trillion Dollars?
Numerically that is: $ 1, 000, 000, 000, 000.
One Trillion is 1,000 times more than One Billion.
One Trillion is also One Million times One Million.
Just how long would it take a person to spend One Trillion Dollars if you spent One Million Dollars per day?
You know, picture yourself buying a One Million Dollar home every day.
It would take One Million Days, or 2,739.73 years, to spend One Trillion Dollars at that rate.
Make no mistake, One Trillion Dollars is a huge sum of money.
So, let’s stop our number calculating with national health care reform and not even consider the overall current national debt, which treasurydirect.gov puts at $11, 545, 275, 000, 000 as of June 30, 2009.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Conservative estimates put the price tag at $1 Trillion, assuming, of course, that the revenue and expense projections are correct.
What exactly is One Trillion Dollars?
Numerically that is: $ 1, 000, 000, 000, 000.
One Trillion is 1,000 times more than One Billion.
One Trillion is also One Million times One Million.
Just how long would it take a person to spend One Trillion Dollars if you spent One Million Dollars per day?
You know, picture yourself buying a One Million Dollar home every day.
It would take One Million Days, or 2,739.73 years, to spend One Trillion Dollars at that rate.
Make no mistake, One Trillion Dollars is a huge sum of money.
So, let’s stop our number calculating with national health care reform and not even consider the overall current national debt, which treasurydirect.gov puts at $11, 545, 275, 000, 000 as of June 30, 2009.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Thursday, July 9, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)