The Real Cost of ObamaCare

Here's a graph showing the real cost of ObamaCare. It's really a Congressional shell game. Congress claims that the government seizure of the health care industry will only coast $1.2 trillion dollars over it's 1st 10 years. That's a lie. Because the first 4 years, costs will be minimal, while the taxation will be huge. On the other hand, once the plan is actually implemented, in it's first 10 years of usage, it will cost $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS, that's more than double it's "projected" first 10 year costs. This is, again, because it won't be fully implemented in the first 4 years of the "10 year plan". Thus, the Democratic leadership in Congress is lying to America in order to make their plan for ObamaCare merely SEEM to be saving money.It goes without saying the if Congress was actually going to be covered by the plan they are foisting off on the rest of us, the pill they are shoving down our throats wouldn't be nearly so bitter.

AP Finally Fact Checks Democrat Claims Of Health Insurance "Skyrocketing Profits"

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up." But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. Ledgers tell a different reality.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Barack Obama.

The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.

A look at some claims, and the numbers:

THE CLAIMS

-"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers' "obscene profits."

-"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants. Their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

-"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.

THE NUMBERS:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th of 53 industries on the Fortune 500 list. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

It's almost like the Democrats are lying and merely trying to grab more power for the Federal Government. But, they'd never do that now would they. What really angers me is the simple fact that Congress has exempted themselves from the "government option" that they are planning to inflict upon the rest of us. I would be more inclined to accept it if they didn't say it was to be done equally to ALL American...not just those of us who aren't Federal Employees, or members of Congress or THEIR employees. That is wrong and sheer hypocracy.

Run Health Care like the Post Office

Just received this email from the RNC...outside the blatant pitch for money, here it is:

Barack Obama recently said, "I think private insurers should be able to compete...I mean. If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

The President is acknowledging what Republicans have been saying all along: That the private sector does a better job offering choices and delivering services to customers in a competitive and cost effective manner than a government-run monopoly.
But Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress are pushing for a government-run health care scheme that is inefficient, limits choices and hemorrhages taxpayer money like the Post Office.

Two weeks ago, the Post Office was called a "high risk" federal agency by the Government Accountability Office. The Post Office will have a $7 billion operating loss this year. So what makes the President, Nancy Pelosi and their left-wing allies think that government bureaucracy can run health care better than the private sector?

Your generous support of the RNC is critical to laying the foundation Republicans need to defeat the Democrats and stop their leftward push to control every facet and detail of our lives.

No matter how the President and his liberal allies try to spin it, they cannot escape the fact that his government-run health care plan would increase costs, increase taxes, increase the deficit and reduce health care choice and quality.

Other than the pitch for money, I agree with the basic sentiment of the email. We, as a nation can't expect anything our Government does, be done efficiently. The US (much less state) government can't DO ANYTHING EFFICIENTLY. Now, how would we want our health care to be run along the same lines as either the USPS, or G-d forbid, the VA!

Sarbanes, Again, Dodges the Question

My Congressman, John Sarbanes, (D MD3) once again dodeges the simple question I asked. Here is my reply to his longwinded non-answer:

Mr. Sarbanes,
You have yet again dodged my question. If your health care plan is so good, WHY is Congress, all their employees, all federal employees, and employees of the Executive branch specifically exempted from coverage? If you want to screw around with health care, then YOU MUST ACCEPT FOR YOUR FAMILY THE SAME PLAN YOU ARE FOISTING ON THE REST OF AMERICA.

To do less is to be hypocritical. When you can answer this that you personally will accept this plan for your family, then I will do so for mine.

Sincerely,

Richard A. Vail
Pikesville, MD 21208


“Pray that you will never have to bear all that you are able to endure.”
Jewish Proverb


In a message dated 8/14/2009 9:35:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, md03ima@mail.house.gov writes:

August 13, 2009

Dear Dr. Vail:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the "public option" health plan proposed in health reform legislation being considered in the Congress. As a member of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I have been fully engaged in this debate since the beginning of the year and I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue.
First, I want to be clear that this proposal is not a radical attempt to eliminate private health insurance in favor of a government run system. If you like your doctor and your current plan, you can absolutely keep them if this proposal becomes law. Members of Congress will receive no special treatment under the bill and will be afforded the opportunity to retain the health plan they share with two million other federal workers if they choose to do so.
For those who do not have health insurance, are looking to change plans, or are worried that they will lose their coverage because of their job, there will be a new framework in place to give you options. The bill creates a health care exchange where individuals can choose from multiple plans and benefit from access to the kind of group rates that only large employers can offer now. This approach will also make health insurance more "portable" and give Americans the assurance that they can continue to receive health care if they change jobs, are laid off, or simply don't like the plan offered through their employer.
Along with the many plans offered in the exchange by familiar private insurers, there will also be a public health plan option that will offer some long-overdue competition for the private health insurance industry that currently has a stranglehold on the system. Enhanced competition in the health care market will reduce cost, promote innovation and provide recourse for those who are currently without coverage. The "public option" makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, it has been wildly mischaracterized as a "government takeover." This has been flatly refuted by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which projects that the public plan will draw approximately twelve million participants by 2019. That's large enough to help influence best practices and push private insurers to provide consumers with quality service, but at 4% of the total population of our country, it's about as far from a "government takeover" as you can get.
It is natural to feel anxious about these reform efforts because health care policy touches every American family in a very personal way. That is why this dialogue is important. But I believe we have a good bill. It is a measured approach that will preserve what works about the current system and fix what doesn't.
The proposed reform will ensure that you get what you pay for when you commit your hard earned money to pay premiums every month. For example, the bill will prohibit insurance companies from increasing your rates for pre-existing conditions, gender, or occupation. It will cap annual out of pocket expenses and do away with lifetime limits on how much insurance companies will pay to cover. It guarantees affordable oral, hearing, and vision care for children. And it will do away with co-pays or deductibles for preventive care.
I hope this information is useful to you as the Congress continues to make progress on health care legislation. I believe it is possible to make intelligent reforms to our health care system that expand coverage and improve quality of care. I also believe there are many areas where we can reduce cost by eliminating wasted and making our system more efficient. The status quo is unsustainable for our economy and I am convinced that long term security will be elusive until we find out health care system. If you have access to the Internet and would like additional information about the health care reform bill, please visit the Energy and Commerce website at www.energycommerce.house.gov. If you have specific questions, feel free to contact my office at 410-832-8890.

Sincerely,
John Sarbanes
Member of Congress

As you can see, he just doesn't want to answer. Nor, interestingly enough is he going to hold any town halls. He is only going to hold "virtual" or teleconferences. I guess that he is afraid of actually talking to his constiuents. Imagine that, a public servant who doesn't want to face his voters.

The People Spreading Disinformation about Obamacare

Here is a brief list of those who would like to eliminate choice in American health care:

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) at a Health Care for America Now rally: “And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who argued against the public health insurance option, saying it wouldn’t let private insurance compete. That a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer. My single-payer friends, he was right. The man was right.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) told Single Payer Action: “I think that if we get a good public option it could lead to single-payer and that is the best way to reach single-payer. Saying you’ll do nothing till you get single-payer is a sure way never to get it. … I think the best way we’re going to get single-payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate the strength of its power.”

Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein at the Democratic National Convention last year: “They have a sneaky strategy, the point of which is to put in place something that over time the natural incentives within its own market will move it to single-payer.”

Noble Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: “[T]he only reason not to do [single-payer] is that politically it’s hard to do in one step…You’d have to convince people completely give up the insurance they have, whereas something that lets people keep the insurance they have but then offers the option of a public plan, that may evolve into single-payer.”