Health Insurance Mandate a Tax after all, who knew?!

Not forgetting that people are not guaranteed to keep their health insurance per the President's foolish promise, the New York Times reports that the Obama administration will defend the ObamaCare mandates as part of its power to tax, despite Barack Obama’s contentious debate with George Stephanopoulos when Obama denied it was a tax at all:

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”
And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.
Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

Remember when asked about the mandate, President Obama's response:



That is exactly what the mandates do — regulate individual behavior in an area where the federal government has no jurisdiction and punish those who don’t exhibit favored choices, in this case buying comprehensive health insurance regardless of whether it makes sense for anyone. This court will almost certainly take a dim view of the same attempt that the 1922 court struck down as a gross overreach by the government.

My Rant about the Healtcare Debate (August 2009)

I'm all for reform but based on the crap they've tried to pass thus far, they may end up making things worse rather than better. By no means am I advocating that healthcare is a human right. I believe that everyone, who is able, should be responsible for the choices they’ve made especially regarding their well-being. That being said I’m going to attempt to explain how health insurance works before tackling the Public and Private solutions (Took me all day to write this up. Missing quite a bit so far, but its worth a look/discussion. It is a bit long, so bear with me….):


We know the basics of what insurance is. Whether it is for your car/home/health/etc. it is coverage “in case” something bad happens. Obtaining coverage, you must go through a screening in order for the insurance investor (lets be real, they are investing that nothing will happen to you while you are paying them, that’s how businesses make money). Your rate is determined by “pre-existing” factors. For cars: your driving history, tickets, accidents, etc. For homes: environmental factors (flood, earthquakes, etc), condition of home, etc. For health: lifestyle habits (smoking, eating, drinking), family history, etc. Let’s be clear, you can be denied access to coverage for any type of insurance if you present that you will cost the investor. You can be denied auto insurance. You can be denied home insurance. You can be denied life insurance. You can be denied health insurance. That being said if you ARE covered, you are essentially in a pool with other individuals being covered. The cost you pay for covered is based on the information you’ve given plus the cost of the goods and services required for keeping you healthy. When someone in your pool becomes sick, the cost for covering that person is spread amongst the other members of the pool. There are ways to drive costs down, and all it takes is volunteering to adjust your lifestyle by living healthier. That means: exercise, eating habits, smoking, drinking, sexual habits, etc would have to lean towards improving your personal health. If we each take a little more care in how we take care of OURSELVES and instill those habits into our children, prices are more than likely to drop. There are other factors (prescription costs, inflation, etc), but I’ll try to cover them ahead.

We do have a public (Government) plan in place. Medicare and Medicaid. Medicaid and Medicare have its shortcomings. There are cases of the government rationing benefits in order to save money but at the cost of your health. It should not be that way. Imagine cases like this on a national scale and you can see why the opponents to the Healthcare Bill are worried. (Hint: it isn’t about color of the skin of our President) For this government system to work, EVERYONE who works and collects a paycheck has to pay into the system (which you already do for Medicaid, Medicare & Social Security by the way and are set to increase for everyone for the program to work. No taxes on the middle class my ass…). Similar to how the insurance system works, everyone is a part of the pool. This program should work as a “safety net” for the public. It should cover those people who could not be covered by the private system, which it does, but it LIMITS COVERAGE to keep costs down. The more people in the pool needing coverage, the more costly it is to cover them, which means the more money will be needed to cover the people needing help. A board looks at your case and determines if you should have that operation. They don’t care if you pay them back, but they care if this operation will affect the national deficit. Another credible reason why opposition to the Government plan fears it: increasing the deficit. Ways to keep the costs down are similar to the private option. Changing your personal lifestyle is the first step. The difference is, the Government can “force” you to change your habits by influencing you. The cigarette and sugar taxes aren’t just for revenue people. It is just the beginning of controlling lifestyle habits through taxation. Also, it is one of the ways that the middle and poor classes will be affected. The second, of which we covered earlier, is by limiting coverage. (You should wonder why some hospitals don’t accept Medicaid as a form of coverage: it doesn’t cover costly procedures)

The private plans are your “evil” insurance companies. Let’s get this straight; businesses are in it for making profit. Similar to the Government plan, the private companies are trying to save money anyway they can by rationing coverage (yes, we already have a system where coverage is rationed…lets be real Republicans). A board looks at your case and determines if you should have that operation. They look at the type of career you have and determine if you have the ability to pay them back if the procedure has been approved. (I’m going to get chewed out for this next one) The business has a right to deny coverage because they are investing in you NOT to get sick. The empathic part of me understands the anger towards the private market because a lot of the problems stem from greed, plain and simple. The bad kind. (There is such thing as good greed) This is where decisions are made to make the company profit, but at the cost the service it supplies to its customers. Companies should follow suit as we should as individuals, stated in our Bill of Rights and our Constitution: you have the freedom to do whatever you like, with the exception that it does not infringe upon the welfare of others.

Another negative aspect of the private system falls upon private practices run by doctors whose duty it is to help their patients, have been clouded by "bad greed". There are cases in which certain doctors will authorize unnecessary procedures/test because of the finacial gain it brings to the practice. The motives could range from personal debts, cost of supplies, malpractice insurance rates, etc. So how do we control this? The options are being floated around: lowering the inflated cost of the supplies, doing away with the no-limit malpractice suits, subsidizing/lowering the costs for medical school, etc. (Quick way: FairTax baby...) Of course there will be some that will seek to take advantage, even if these problems didn't exist, but we shouldn't need the Government to step in to find a solution on how to deal with criminals, or do we?

Washington has recently pulled the public option from their draft of the Healthcare Bill. The Democrats control all three branches of government and have removed the public option the day before our President said he’d sign what ever they bring him a week ago. The Republicans were not responsible for the defeat of the Healthcare Bill back in 1994, despite what the President said last night. The people in this country read the bill the Democrats (they ran ALL three branches of Government in 1994) attempted to pass during that time and called their representatives to demand that it doesn’t pass. the people then knew the danger and so should you here in 2009. Democratic Senators have said in the last few weeks that they don’t even know what’s in this bill because it’s too confusing. Do you feel safe that they AREN'T READING/COMPREHENDING THE BILLS THEY PASS?! You think this is about helping you? You aren’t worried of the future implications?

We need real discussion before passage of ANY bill of this magnitude. Plowing forward and making “bold” moves can shackle future generations to a possible mistake that we know NOTHING about because our leaders know less about it than we do.

Alternative Healthcare Plan (The One You Don't Hear About) (April 2009)

Took some time to write this one out, bear with me. Feel free to add your opinions.

Health Care should be readily available to everyone
Health Insurance should not be available to everyone. It is Unconstitutional to force others to pay for the choices one makes in life concerning their life and health.It's important that you review how a business works. Here's a refresher course on the subject


The Baucus Health Plan

• Mandated coverage across the board
  
  • Unconstitutional as it forces individuals to be responsible for the life decisions of others
• Tax on Medical Items/Procedures beginning in 2011
  
  • On Class II and above Items/Procedures (priced at $100+) Link here
  • Tax will be applied for each time used
  • Results in higher Employer Contributions on Insurance Premiums
    
    1. Has negative impact on wages and employment
    2. May cause employer to drop private insurance for an affordable plan with less benefits (or pay the government fines if less expensive)
  • Results in higher Consumer Insurance Premiums
    
    1. Has negative impact on Middle Class buying power
    2. Less buying power results in slower moving economy
• Should the Public Option be Included
  
  • Due to tax, Employers and Consumers will drop Private Insurance to either pay the fines for lack of coverage, or join the public option in 2013
  • Private Insurers go under if they can’t force premiums down to compete against government subsidies in 2013
  • Public option becomes the only option unless it’s found that the fines cost less than paying the public option fees. We now have a single-payer system.

Alternative Health Plan

• Allow Tax Credits for Consumers
  
  • Consumers may deduct the annual cost of their insurance from their taxes just as their employers do now
  • This removes the disparity for cost of coverage as an individual compared to being covered through the Employer
  • Resulting with employers no longer needing to provide coverage, freeing up capital to go towards increasing wages, hiring more employees, improving the business
• Remove State Mandates
  
  • Will avoid confusion due to state differences in coverage eligibility
  • Will push Private Insurers to compete with others in states that have better coverage and lower premiums
• Consumers may shop for nationwide options
  
  • Will force competitiveness among insurers, drive down costs and improve benefits as a result
  • Gives the individual authority over what plan they are looking for and the price they are willing to pay for it, no bureaucracy
• TORT Reform
  
  • Will lower the number of frivolous malpractice claims once claims are capped
  • Will lower Malpractice Insurance Premiums for doctors, which will drive down fees for service especially with private practices
  • Lower service fees results in lower medical costs, which results in lower Insurance Premiums across the board
• Create pool for the un-insurable
  
  • Fix Medicare first and foremost
  • Subsidize the uninsurable through the government and allow them access to Medicare
  • Should Private Insurers be forced to lower their standards in order to cover high risk cases, the system will be unsustainable. (Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Federal Housing authority are prime examples of the predictable result, a bubble system)
• Consumer access to health history
  
  • Companies like Keas, Inc. (run by Adam Bosworth) are working on a system built to store medical data/history of patients which is inputted on a voluntary basis
  • Doctors will have access to medical records from anywhere in the nation, quicker response due to readily available information on patient
  • Individuals will have unlimited access to their own records, which allows them to make decisions to improve their health
  • Long term effect: Consumers make better health decisions, which will drive down health costs

The result of the Alternative Health Plan:

• The average individual will have the freedom to choose their own health plan and not be limited by employer choice, state/federal limitations and lack of competition.
• The ultimate goal of healthcare for a majority of the population, with little to no impact on the federal deficit due to a minor government presence
• Lower competitive rates based upon economic principles as the system reaches equilibrium
• Will not require a tax increase on any citizen to pay for it, besides the current tax on Medicare and Medicade