Chicago style health care

[TXduckdog]

Before opening the backroom door of Chicago-style politics, let's review the big picture. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) puts things into perspective by reminding us that even if we take Obama's 46 million uninsured number as true, that equates to about 15 percent of the population. With that in mind, the Democrats are prepared to tax the Hades out of the 85 percent who work hard to earn or provide health insurance. The Democrats are willing to tax, penalize, cut Medicare, and regulate the entire health care industry in order to insure a mere 15 percent. No, wait, the overreaching and punitive Baucus "bill" wouldn't even cover the full 15 percent -- it would only add coverage to approximately 7 percent of the population. The Baucus "bill" would control the entire population in order to cover 7 percent of the population!

"Why would we punish the part that's working to cover the part that's not?" asks Rep. Mike Rogers. Good question. Assuming arguendo, that federal intervention is constitutional, why not spend money on the 15 percent rather than extend unprecedented central power to control every person's health care in the country? Who in his right mind would "remake" the system that has produced the greatest medical innovation and health care in the world?

The 15 percent problem could be fixed by less intrusive means: Like taking a few billion from of the waste-laden "stimulus" package and paying for the 15 percent. Problem solved. We certainly don't need to be taxed more.

The production of a "bill" that will cut the deficit is another Obama sleight of hand. This is akin to Obama coming out right after ramming through the $787 billion stimulus bill and talking about fiscal responsibility. Or it's like Obama preaching about a new era of responsibility while proposing a $3 trillion budget for 2010. The alleged deficit-negative Baucus bill is likewise a sham. With a projected price-tag of $829 billion it really costs nothing at all -- in fact, it saves money! Tell that to the 85 percent who would get hammered to pay for it.

From the American Thinker.

[dnf777]

One aspect of "gov't run healthcare" that I don't hear discussed, is would such a system unburden our ailing manufacturing base from the huge expense of employee-provided healthcare, and render them better able to compete in the global market?

If you think about it, they're being asked to compete with foreign companies who are NOT burdened with health care costs....in effect, they're being subsidized by the gov't to the amount of health insurance, which I've heard tacks on a couple thousand dollars to the price of every ford, chevy, and dodge that rolls off our lines.

That question could easily evolve into a whole discussion on NAFTA, with healthcare "rights" being a major player. I honestly don't understand NAFTA. Bush was quick to drop Kyoto based on the argument that it was "unfair" to American industry. What happened with NAFTA? I won't guess if it's "fair" or not, but when you look at trade balances after it's passage, I can't see how it's been "fair" to US manufacturers???? And every administration since Reagan has supported it?!?

[WaterDogRem]

If you think about it, they're being asked to compete with foreign companies who are NOT burdened with health care costs....in effect, they're being subsidized by the gov't to the amount of health insurance, which I've heard tacks on a couple thousand dollars to the price of every ford, chevy, and dodge that rolls off our lines.

Alot of the foreign auto companies (Toyota, honda, nissan) build their vehicles here in the US (TX, OH, TN, AL, etc.), are you saying those companies don't have health care costs?

[Buzz]

One aspect of "gov't run healthcare" that I don't hear discussed, is would such a system unburden our ailing manufacturing base from the huge expense of employee-provided healthcare, and render them better able to compete in the global market?

If you think about it, they're being asked to compete with foreign companies who are NOT burdened with health care costs....in effect, they're being subsidized by the gov't to the amount of health insurance, which I've heard tacks on a couple thousand dollars to the price of every ford, chevy, and dodge that rolls off our lines.

That question could easily evolve into a whole discussion on NAFTA, with healthcare "rights" being a major player. I honestly don't understand NAFTA. Bush was quick to drop Kyoto based on the argument that it was "unfair" to American industry. What happened with NAFTA? I won't guess if it's "fair" or not, but when you look at trade balances after it's passage, I can't see how it's been "fair" to US manufacturers???? And every administration since Reagan has supported it?!?

This is one thing that I for the life of me do not understand about conservatives. They fight mandates for business to provide health insurance based on the argument that it will be harmful to small businesses. The rail against taxes on the wealthy on the premise that it will be harmful to business. On the other hand they support employer based healthcare, regardless even though it is a tremendous burden on business trying to compete in a global marketplace. We already know that some foreign car makers have located in Canada of all places, to avoid the cost of providing healthcare.

But after-all we are not talking about reform that will take the burden off of business are we?

Business moving across the border is something I know a little about. I worked for one of the largest electrical manufacturers in the world. They are based in Germany. I had the unenviable pleasures of helping transfer manufacturing and engineering of electrical products from the USA to places like Mexico and China. I'll never forget a meeting in Guadalajara Mexico with top managers from Germany. We were in a conference room waiting for a meeting to start. On one wall was a huge window, and outside there were literally hundreds of workers swinging picks and operating shovels. They were digging the foundation for an expansion of the factory to accommodate the products we were transferring from Little Rock Arkansas to Guadalajara. I asked why they didn't use cranes and bulldozers. The answer was, it's not worth it. Labor is too cheap to risk a labor uprising of workers upset that the machines are taking food out of their mouths. This was during the NAFTA debate. The CEO of this 80 Billion a year company told me, your politicians are either fools or they are liars. He says they tell your people that wages will rise here, and these people will become consumers of your goods and services. Well, for all intents and purposes, the supply of labor around the world is INFINITE. If wages rise here, we'll simply find another place to move our manufacturing to.

[dnf777]

Alot of the foreign auto companies (Toyota, honda, nissan) build their vehicles here in the US (TX, OH, TN, AL, etc.), are you saying those companies don't have health care costs?

I don't know. There's more to industry than just cars. The Carolinas used to make furniture and textiles. Woolrich used to make excellent products in Pa. Filson used to be made in Washington. Just posing the question. It seems that much of what was moved overseas is being manufactured by people who have no healthcare, or gov't provided care. Not sayin if it's right or wrong, just wondering if it would help bring back some jobs if companies were unburdened from health costs. Boeing and McDonnell-Douglass were pissed when they had to compete with Airbus Industries, that was largely subsidized by the European countries. Isn't that the same thing thats going on with many other products nowadays?

[WaterDogRem]

I don't know. There's more to industry than just cars. The Carolinas used to make furniture and textiles. Woolrich used to make excellent products in Pa. Filson used to be made in Washington. Just posing the question. It seems that much of what was moved overseas is being manufactured by people who have no healthcare, or gov't provided care. Not sayin if it's right or wrong, just wondering if it would help bring back some jobs if companies were unburdened from health costs. Boeing and McDonnell-Douglass were pissed when they had to compete with Airbus Industries, that was largely subsidized by the European countries. Isn't that the same thing thats going on with many other products nowadays?

edit: not all honda, nissan, toyotas are made in the USA. Many are still made overseas or Mexico.

You're correct not all foreign auto are made here, but I think you'd be surprised at how many are actually are. I honestly don't know what the comparison is between paying health insurance cost (for US companies) vs. higher taxes in some foreign countries. But for products being made in places like China, there are clear advantages on labor costs & benefits, and our corp. tax system is just pushing more companies out of the US to compete.

[YardleyLabs]

Before opening the backroom door of Chicago-style politics, let's review the big picture. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) puts things into perspective by reminding us that even if we take Obama's 46 million uninsured number as true, that equates to about 15 percent of the population. With that in mind, the Democrats are prepared to tax the Hades out of the 85 percent who work hard to earn or provide health insurance. The Democrats are willing to tax, penalize, cut Medicare, and regulate the entire health care industry in order to insure a mere 15 percent. No, wait, the overreaching and punitive Baucus "bill" wouldn't even cover the full 15 percent -- it would only add coverage to approximately 7 percent of the population. The Baucus "bill" would control the entire population in order to cover 7 percent of the population!

"Why would we punish the part that's working to cover the part that's not?" asks Rep. Mike Rogers. Good question. Assuming arguendo, that federal intervention is constitutional, why not spend money on the 15 percent rather than extend unprecedented central power to control every person's health care in the country? Who in his right mind would "remake" the system that has produced the greatest medical innovation and health care in the world?

The 15 percent problem could be fixed by less intrusive means: Like taking a few billion from of the waste-laden "stimulus" package and paying for the 15 percent. Problem solved. We certainly don't need to be taxed more.

The production of a "bill" that will cut the deficit is another Obama sleight of hand. This is akin to Obama coming out right after ramming through the $787 billion stimulus bill and talking about fiscal responsibility. Or it's like Obama preaching about a new era of responsibility while proposing a $3 trillion budget for 2010. The alleged deficit-negative Baucus bill is likewise a sham. With a projected price-tag of $829 billion it really costs nothing at all -- in fact, it saves money! Tell that to the 85 percent who would get hammered to pay for it.

From the American Thinker.

1. The 46 million number, to be clear, is actually Bush's number. It is produced by the Census Bureau and has been measured consistently for years. It is not a number that was developed for this debate. It is the reason for this debate. What it conceals is that many more people spend some part of the year uninsured. Whether as a result of a job change, temporary unemployment, or simply a cash flow problem, a much higher percentage of the population is unemployed for part of they year. Beyond that, the number of people counted as insured includes many who do not have sufficient coverage to protect them in the event of a major illness or injury, and may others who do not have coverage in the event of recurrence of a pre-existing condition. All of these people will benefit from the plan, not just those who are counted as uninsured in the Censs reports.

2. Actually, none of the plans tax or "punish" the 85% with insurance to cover those without. The costs are not spread equally, just as the benefits of the current health system are not spread equally. The pharamaceutical industry will lose tens of billions in windfall profits given to them as part of the Medicare drug program. Those gifts were not needed to pay for the benefit; they were needed to pay off asome political debts. The insurance industry will lose a 13% gift given to them for providing benefits for some Medicare recipients. The companies were unhappy being paid the same amounts as the public program, so the Bush administration gave them a little windfall costing billions. Both the pharamaceutical and insurance companies were prepared to live with these losses because of the prospect of increased sales associated with broader coverage. Without that enticement, there would be mouc greater lobbying to protect the windfalls provided by the last administration and it is not clear that the Medicare cuts could be implemented.

3. This is rhe most serious shortcoming of the Baucus bill and is the reason for insurance company opposition.

4. I'm still waiting to see all those controls. The only serious controls are those defining minimum requirements for coverage in "qualified" plans to prevent wesel conditions that would allow claims to be denied arbitrarily. There are also controls to require that coverage be obtained. Beyond that, almost the entire cost of the bills goes to subsidizing coverage for the uninsured. It doesn't cost just a few billion, it costs much more.

[WaterDogRem]

2. Actually, none of the plans tax or "punish" the 85% with insurance to cover those without.

So the 85% with insurance won't have to pay a penny more in taxes and none of their taxes will go towards this gov health Insurance program?

[YardleyLabs]

So the 85% with insurance won't have to pay a penny more in taxes and none of their taxes will go towards this gov health Insurance program?

The tax increases proposed in the health care bills will only affect a small percentage of Americans directly. The indirect effects may be harder to prove one way or the other.

[TXduckdog]

And how do you know this Jeff.....when there isn't any concrete legislative language to the bill.......I think your thoughts are a pipe dream.