Obama appointed yet another socialist/communist/Marxist/wealth redistributionist to his administration. This time it’s Donald Berwick, appointed to head Medicare/Medicaid under the new government health system. This appointee was not vetted by Congress, as it’s on recess.

Berwick on the British National Health Service:

Indeed,

any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane, must, must, redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and less fortunate. Excellent healthcare is by definition redistributional. Britain you chose well.

So we must redistribute wealth to be excellent. Of course, the NHS never turns poor sick people down, and disease cure rates there are so high, they put the U.S. to shame, where people die on the streets you know! Not!

Oh, and how about this… The U.S. health care system is “unaccountable” and it plays “out in the darkness of free enterprise”.

You know, that evil dark free enterprise system, just horrible. They torture people in deep dark dungeons over there, and never bring any useful product or service to anyone. And it’s so unaccountable, that no one is ever sued for millions of dollars with the aid or Democrat lobbying attorneys.

A planned government system, on the other hand is always looking out for you! Those politicians and non-vetted Marxist appointees in the Obama administration never do anything to hurt the common good.

And undoubtedly all those free enterprise haters in the Obama administration are proof of Obama’s commitment to a laser like focus on job creation. Laser! Because no jobs are created by the free enterprise system and it’s only government that can crate productive long term jobs.

Here’s a Fox News segment chronicling the event, with Charles Krauthammer’s version of the answer:

“This legislation will have an effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America…”

To answer this question, let’s first put the size of the healthcare problem in the U.S. into perspective.

Counting the Number of the Uninsured in America

When Obama ran for president, he touted health care reform as a big issue because there were 47 million people uninsured in America.

This figure comes from the Census Bureau. And according to the Census Bureau there were 47 million people without health insurance in the United States in 2006.

But out of those, 9.3 million live in a household with an income of $75,000 a year or more, and also 10.2 million are not citizens of the U.S.

Let’s discount those from the uninsured figure to arrive at a number encompassing people we’d sanely expect to have a claim for receiving government assistance, (which is always funded by money that’s reluctantly taken away from someone else.)

47 – 9.3 – 10.2 = 27.5 million.

However, there may be some who are non-citizens and are in households making more that $75,000 a year, and we don’t want to double subtract those. Since the latter are 1/3 of the population, with no further information, we can expect the double counting to be 3.3 million. So 27.5 + 3.3 = 30.7 million.

So now we’re at a point where the number of the uninsured we’d sanely expect to be given government assistance in the matter is no more than 30.7 million or about 10% of the population in the United States.

But the problem posed by the above figure of 10% is much further diminished by the following fact:

Not Having Health Insurance Does Not Necessarily Mean You Are Sick or Can’t Get Healthcare If You Are!

Let’s see why:

• 8.5 million of the uninsured live in households of incomes between $50,000 and $74,999. Like those in households making over $75,000 per year, at least some are able to afford insurance, but just choose not to get it. Still others in America, especially those making between $50,000 and $74,999, may also afford to pay for doctor visits and medication out of their own pocket should the need arise, though admittedly probably not for major illnesses.
• 19 million of the uninsured are young adults between the ages of 18-34. I would venture to guess that most won’t encounter anything but a minor illness until they’re older, at which point many would be earning more money and able to afford insurance anyway. And in addition, high deductible health insurance for this demographic is inexpensive… well, at least in states whose government does not interfere and allow such coverage.
• By law, emergency room care has to be provided to anyone walking in. The patient is still liable for the expenses incurred, and often hospitals work out discounts and financing, but good luck to hospitals trying to collect from those who truly can’t afford it.
• There are those who are uninsured and qualify for a government plan (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), yet have not signed up.
• Many government assistance programs, provide healthcare to the uninsured. Those don’t count as insurance, but still give healthcare in certain instances.

  For example, the Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP) in New York, is a “comprehensive prenatal care program that offers complete pregnancy care and other health services to women and teens who live in New York State.” To qualify, the woman can earn up to 200% of the federal poverty level, which means this is available to many who don’t qualify for Medicare.

  Another example is the HIV Uninsured Care Programs (ADAP), which provides “access to free healthcare (HIV Drugs, Primary Care, Home Care, and APIC) for New York State residents with HIV infection who are uninsured or underinsured.”

• There are clinics across the USA providing free healthcare for the uninsured.

  For example, the New York City Free Health Clinic is a private clinic providing healthcare to uninsured people in NYC.

  Here’s the Web site of Georgia’s free clinic network.

  And here’s the Web site of the National Association of Free Clinics (NAFC), “whose mission is solely focused on the issues and needs of the more than 1,200 free clinics and the people they serve in the United States.”

• There are resources of financial aid for those who are uninsured and fall victim to serious illness.

  For example see the Memorial Solan-Kettering Cancer Center’s financial assistance program.

Therefore, the problems with the healthcare system in the U.S. may be a government actionable “crisis” for a percentage of the population that’s well into the… single digits!

Just looking at the Census Bureau report, it’s not possible to calculate exactly for how many of the 10%, not having insurance is a big problem or a problem at all, but one thing is for sure, all the above factors mean that for quite a large number of the uninsured, not having insurance is NOT a big problem. Therefore, for simplicity, let’s say of the 10%, it’s a problem for half. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less.

Therefore, all the panic, crisis, “people are dying on the streets”, “we should join every other civilized nation”, “in America people have to choose between food and healthcare” rhetoric of the left, in reality is actually referring to about 5% of the population who don’t have access to all the healthcare they need, but they do have access to some!

Reality Check: What This Debate Really Comes Down To

We all know that liberals and socialists demand government intervention in private industry because of their compassion for others, or at least that’s what some of them claim.

And as such, the following sentence comes out the mouths of proponents of national healthcare very frequently: “How can we live in a country where some people don’t have access to basic healthcare?”

First of all, the premise of the question is flawed. As shown above, we’d be hard pressed to find people unable to receive any basic healthcare at all in the U.S. should they seek it.

Is it good that 5% have problems getting full access to healthcare they need? Of course not.

However, and this is key, in countries that have a national healthcare service, a.k.a. single payer systems, people do not get access to all the healthcare they need either! Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a need for private supplemental health insurance in the U.K., and there wouldn’t be a need for average Canadian citizens to seek treatment across the border in the United States at their own expense.

No government healthcare program we can implement is ever going to give all the healthcare anyone needs to everybody. The NHS (National Healthcare Service) in the U.K. doesn’t do it, the Canadian system doesn’t do it, the French don’t do it, and Medicare and Medicaid in the U.S. don’t provide comprehensive healthcare for those who are covered.

Michael D. Tanner of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, writes the following points about government controlled healthcare systems around the world:

• Health insurance does not mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have long waiting lists for treatment.
• Rising health care costs are not a uniquely American phenomenon. Although other countries spend considerably less than the United States on health care, both as a percentage of GDP and per capita, costs are rising almost everywhere, leading to budget deficits, tax increases, and benefit reductions.
• In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.
• Countries with more effective national health care systems are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost sharing, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.

You can access Tanner’s full analysis of international health systems here on the Cato Institute’s Web site.

You may also read this December 2008 New York Times article about Bruce Hardy, an NHS cancer patient in the United Kingdom, who was deprived of life saving, yet costly, medicine because “at that price, Mr. Hardy’s life is not worth prolonging.”

And you may read this March 2010 Daily Mail article about how thousands of NHS cancer patients are denied life saving drugs:

Last year the Government’s drugs rationing body, NICE, promised to make it easier for patients suffering from rarer cancers to receive life-prolonging drugs on the NHS.

Today, we reveal just how hollow that pledge has proved.

Since it was made, ten drugs – which could have provided as many as 20,000 cancer sufferers with precious extra months or years – have been rejected on the grounds they are too expensive.

I suppose the British government just doesn’t have enough money to pay for everyone’s care after all!

Therefore this debate is really about whether approximately 5% of the population in the United States should receive somewhat more healthcare than they do now. And it’s not whether they would go from no healthcare to complete coverage, just whether they’ll get somewhat more… at the expense of others. No, not the rich “others”, everybody! That includes you and me and all of middle class America.

So What’s Wrong With Providing More Healthcare to Those 5%?

There’s nothing wrong, as long as you can actually do it in a way that doesn’t make things worse overall. And, experience has shown this is extremely difficult or impossible to do so with more government involvement in the health care industry.

I just gave examples of cancer patients in the U.K. being denied care by the NHS. But, as some may say, healthcare is also being denied by the “evil” insurance companies in America. That sometimes happens, however despite that “evil”, cancer treatment outcomes, for example, are better in the United States than anywhere else in the world, even if you count those with no insurance.

The following is from the National Center for Policy Analysis Web site:

According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology:

• American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women.
• American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.
• Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
• For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.

These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal healthcare system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.

You can find the full article here.

U.S. cancer survival rates are also higher than those in Canada.

So I suppose the “evil” private insurance industry indeed fairs better at providing care than the “benevolent” governments around the world.

And there are concrete reasons for that. Primary among those is that once the health care system is opened up to strong government influence, the decision making process starts running on political merits and not on the merits of science or quality of care.

Obamacare isn’t even in effect and this is already happening! This past week, the vote of Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana (to start debate on the Senate health care bill) was bought off with $300,000,000 of state aid. The following is from a Wall Street Journal article dated November 22, 2009:

Take Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu, who claims to have grave concerns about the bill’s cost. Those worries became less pressing when Majority Leader Harry Reid added language on page 432 of the 2,074-page opus that would raise the bill’s cost by increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.” Guess which state is the only one that would qualify under that wording?

This political gratuity was quickly reported as costing $100 million, but Senator Landrieu made clear after her floor speech that her vote couldn’t be bought that cheaply. “I will correct something. It’s not $100 million, it’s $300 million, and I’m proud of it and will keep fighting for it,” she told reporters.

Was Senator Landrieu’s vote cast on the health care quality or finance merits of the bill? No! It was cast on the merits of a dollar taken from each and every person in the United States to increase her chances of reelection in Louisiana. So that’s how socialized health care reduces costs! What a plan!

I can already hear liberals saying “but private health care isn’t about quality care either, it’s all about PROFIT!” To that I say that even assuming the motivation is all about profit, there is far more direct connection between profit and quality of product in private industry than between political gain and quality of product in the government sector. And I dare anyone to demonstrate otherwise!

Therefore, instead of legislating government takeovers of an industry, perhaps we should do something else.

To the socialists viewing this: Yes, I know, I know, private insurance denies care to people as well, but –
1. Socialized medicine is worse.
2. If socialized medicine denies health care to people, why bother with it? Because…
3. …it leads to the usual avalanche of negative side-effects of socialism. One of which is that the…
4. …middle class and poor will get stuck with socialized crap-care, while only the rich would be able to afford quality private care. Go equality!

And yes, I know the current bill up for vote today does not instill single payer socialized medicine, but it’s a stepping stone to that end because it puts such restrictions on private insurance, the private industry is likely to collapse in years to come. Just ask Obama!

So much of a crisis that labor unions, big supporters of the Democratic Party, have struck a deal, whereby their members would be exempt from a tax on high cost “Cadillac” health care plans designed to help pay for this expansion of government. (More on this here.)

Socialism is for equality right? Apparently those the Democrats need in order to stay in power are more equal than others.

This is a classic example of how government sponsored redistribution of wealth, redistributes it to those with political power.

Senator Ben Nelson for example, got a $100,000,000 exemption from new state Medicaid spending mandated by the bill for his state of Nebraska. How swell for just those living in Nebraska. Hurray for the liberal principle of equality!

These political bribes are a glimpse into how this type of health care legislation is going to transform the handling of health care in the U.S.

If you’re a liberal thinking that the ends justify the means, consider this:

The UK first passed its National Health Service Act, nationalizing health care, in 1946. And until this day they are still constantly debating, legislating, and changing how the National Health Service works.

If we go down this path in the U.S., there will be no end to health care legislation, and this wheeling-and-dealing bribery type government spending will go on forever.

But, but, but… the Republicans do it too you may say. Yes, that’s right, and Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, seems to agree…

From the Wall Street Journal:

Democrats defended the provisions and said this was how lawmaking has always worked, including when Republicans controlled Congress. “That’s what legislation is all about — it’s the art of compromise,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.). “It’s no different than other pieces of legislation.”

Wow, that’s an amazing revelation, Mr. Reid! “It’s no different than other pieces of legislation.” So this means this is how government normally operates… on special interests and political bribes! Who would have thought! And with Obamacare we’re going for a WHOLE lot more of that.

So now we’re supposed to believe that legislation born in special interest and political bribes that mandates there would be no limits on health insurance payments and “insurance” of preexisting conditions would somehow cut the budget deficit and reduce premium costs.

To anyone who does believe that, I have some highly desirable beach front property to sell you in Nebraska… for 10 cents on the dollar… a real bargain!

How Obamacare will be free for all?

Simple…

Obamacare, will force you to buy health insurance by law.

If you don’t buy health insurance, you’ll be fined by the IRS.

If you don’t pay the fine, you’ll go to jail.

In jail you’ll get free health care!

This brings up two important points. One specific and one more general. The general point is that it is so typical of liberals to invoke the necessity of government intervention to fix things that were caused by government intervention to begin with. And this brings me to the second more specific point:

Government intervention with the free markets is the reason why we have this distortion where health insurance is dependent on one’s job.

The beginning of employment based health insurance dates back to World War II. Back then it was thought unfair that so many soldiers risked their lives overseas for low government controlled wages, while those who stayed at home enjoyed high wages. Therefore those not fighting the war should also share the burden of war by having their wages controlled. In addition, shortages in labor due to increased wartime production and so many workers shipped to war, drove the cost of labor up, and wage controls were deemed necessary to keep production up. And therefore the U.S. government set wage limits in numerous private industries.

Consequently, to attract good workers, employers got around wage restrictions by offering various benefits, such as health insurance, pension plans, paid holidays, etc., that were not subject to the government mandated wage ceilings. And this is how the employment based health insurance we have today was born.

U.S. tax laws then further skewed the market in favor of an employment based health insurance system by allowing employers to get tax deductions for the expense of paying for such a benefit, yet not taxing employees for receiving it, and not allowing taxpayers to deduct the cost of insurance if they get it on their own. This effectively means that health insurance obtained through employment is not taxed, while health insurance obtained independently is.

Therefore, market distortions that emerged as a result of government intervention in the free markets is the reason why we have employment dependent health now. What’s the typical socialist solution then? More government intervention! Just swell…

Sources:
“Is Employer-Based Health Insurance Worth Saving?” – NY Times Blog
“Price Controls” – U-S-History.com
“National War Labor Board” – Wikipedia

See…

• What’s really wrong with the health care system in America?
• Is socialized medicine that great?
• John Stossel debates Michael Moore.
• How the free market can provide solutions to rising health care costs over and above what the government can ever hope to do.
• And much more…

This should be required viewing for everyone! Especially Obama voters. :-P Please forward this page to friends. Everybody should be aware of what we’re dealing with when it comes to Obamacare! And this program has many lessons applicable to Socialism vs. Free Market in general, not just health care.

You may also send it to flag@whitehouse.gov… only kidding here!

Grab a cup of coffee, or a glass of whine, and go to it…