Great. Thanks for sharing!!!…

I will not make many people happy with this, but I believe that tort reform is a red herring in this discussion. Malpractice insurance costs simply cannot account for the outrageous growth in medical costs. Why does it cost $150 to see a doctor (this does not include any labs or radiology)? If malpractice insurance is 10% of a doctor’s overhead we are still looking at $135 to see the doctor for 15 minutes. How is this justified?

I believe that the answer is quite simply that this is what medical insurance companies and the Federal government are willing to pay.

A Progressive friend of mine says that his doctor is always complaining about how much time and effort goes into dealing with the multitude of insurance companies. I believe that this is also a red herring. It brings to mind nearly sweatshop conditions as scores of people labor over large stacks of paper trying to get them to the right place. I do know that much if not most of the filing is completed automatically by computer.

I don’t know exactly what the solution to this problem is. We must find some way to reintroduce free market principles into health care.

I think your 3% estimate may be a little “rose colored” since many people will fall into more than one category that you are deducting. Since these numbers also don’t come from the same sampling base, they are also not directly related. Think back to college Statistics – we learned that you can make a statistic say whatever you want. If I poll people in a dog park if they own cats, then poll animal control agencies to deduct the number of euthanized cats – I can say there is a declining cat population. Is there? Probably not.

I agree that the Obama plan is poorly conceived and will open the door to much bigger problems in the future, but at least he is making a lot of noise on the subject which is raising awareness. There are no easy answers, but I am happy to see some educated discussion on the subject.

http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2009/07/27/texas-tort-reform/

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

From the report:
Uninsured *people* living in the US 46.577 million.

Census data includes (you can verify all these numbers at the link to the report provided) 9.5 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtract the 10 million people who aren’t Americans and the number of uninsured Americans drops to approximately 37 million.

Also, according to the same Census report, 8.3 million uninsured people make $50,000 to $74,999 per year. And there are 8.74 million more uninsured who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s about 17 million people who can “afford” health insurance (and if they don’t want health insurance can at least afford health care our of pocket) because they make a lot more than the U.S. median household income of $46,326.

So, now, subtracting non-citizens and those who can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it, about 20 million people are left – less than 7 percent of the population.

Now, according to the Congressional Budget Office (link to report below) 45 percent of these uninsured will be insured within four months because they are transitioning between jobs and most people get health insurance through their employers (employers have wait periods, enrollment periods, etc).

See the stats from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report at its website:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/42xx/doc4210/05-12-Uninsured.pdf

The CBO, in another report, also said that 7.9 million of the uninsured are under 24 years old; that’s the healthiest group of americans and the people least like to need and use health care. Here’s that report: http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

So, true uninsured?

The Kaiser Family Foundation puts the number at between 13.9 million and 8.2 million.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451_04_Data_Tables.pdf

Oh, and Kaiser and various other news sources have reports on children who qualify for coverage but whose parents haven’t signed them up (this is primary kids who qualify for Medicaid). See reports at:
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7451.cfm

Here’s a news story that references the kids coverage: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/06/trying_to_cover_the_unenthusia.html

We didn’t cite these in the original post because the numbers we quoted are well-documented elsewhere, but they have remained largely unseen by the public because the liberal media and dishonest politicians who know the facts are happy to keep you in the dark because they are fabricating a crisis and the fake number serves their interests. But what else do you expect from Big Government and their enablers?

We’ll add a link to this citations comment to the original post for other skeptics who find their way here . . .

Best,
SBABG.org

The problem is that if I wrote a paper for my company that did not include sources and references, as you do, I’d be fired.

Your breakdown of how many of the uninsured don’t want it, are illegals, etc does just this. Every breakdown I have ever seem does this.

Personally, I don’t see a big difference between the govt option and the private one. The main difference is WHO will turn down your claim, not If it will be turned down.

Once again, those of us who can think and are not that easily led want to see facts, not fabricated numbers. That’s all your breakdown is until I and others like me see the polling and census data.

The plan punishes small businesses and that’s been well documented. It punishes all small businesses (with an 8% fee for the larger ones) that don’t currently provide benefits to all their employees, and it currently carries a 5.4% Surtax on “the rich” which – because of the filing status of most small businesses – includes small business owners, too. Oh, and it takes away choice and leads to rationing of services.

You are certainly free to provide any argument you’d like to back up your claim that any of what we’ve said is “one-sided uneducated propaganda about the health care issue.” Feel free to expose the “propaganda” of all of the mainstream media sources we’ve cited to back up the claims, too.

You can also explain how the plan is “semi-flawed” (as you say it is) and how it is not “semi-flawed” instead of just making the claim.

The Soviet Union was also “designed to HELP people,” but we’re not talking about “intentions” we’re talking about “actual policy” and how it affects people. And the actual policy of the current Congress and Administration both makes the economy weaker, adds to the national debt and deficits, and robs people of their liberties.

You ask that we “do some actual research before you send these letters!” We’ve documented all claims we’ve made, unlike yourself, so please, if you desire, provide counter-evidence to support your claims.

You say, “If you dont support Healthcare, than you dont support small businesses.”

We’re not sure where you draw that conclusion from, or what that even means. We support “health care.” We don’t support government run health care. But we think health care is good. I guess we have to say that, for the record, since people like yourself somehow get the impression that if you oppose government nationalizing health care and determining what kind and level of care you are eligible to get that means you don’t support health care.

You say, “If you send anymore letters like this, not only will I leave the group, but I will use my 10,000 plus network of people, to discredit this group publicly. If this is your main goal in this group then it is misleading and flat out wrong!”

Our “main goal” in this group is to oppose Big Government, by way of small business owners and employees. We are small business owners and employees helping other small business owners and employees understand how the kleptocrats in Washington are plotting to take their money and their freedoms.

Frankly, we are not quite sure what interest you’d have even had in joining this group since your views are probably not going to be consistent with those people who are “Against Big Government.” Assuredly, there will be more emails about this from us, so you may want to spare yourself the apoplexy and unsubscribe. If you’d like to use your network of 10,000 to publicly “discredit” the group, by all means, do so.

But instead of doing that, how about sending them here to present their views as to why this “semi-flawed” (your words) program is GOOD for small business, good for personal freedoms, etc? Debate, with facts, is healthy for a democratic republic. We welcome factual debate.

The problem with Health Care is that costs are rising. The answer is not to put “caps on pricing” (which only leads to rationing), but to increase supply. Instead, the plan punishes doctors and assuredly will lead to less of them (which will then lead to more rationing). Tort reform would help, too.

The problems with Health Insurance are mostly tied to health care costs and regulation that prevents competition, and there are other structural problems that lead to people losing coverage (lack of portability) or not getting it in the first place (price). There are ways to make the Health Insurance market more competitive, which in turn makes it more affordable. Oh yeah, and for everyone who buys health insurance, not just companies, make it tax deductible. Want to help people purchase health insurance? Stop taking their money in taxes. Let them take that money and buy insurance with it. And let small businesses and individuals pool their risks with other individuals and small businesses.

Jim Demint and Paul Ryan have both introduced bills that do this. They’re not perfect, but they’re not outright socialism. I know you heard the Propagandist in Chief saying, “The ‘other side’ thinks we should just do nothing.” But that’s where you need to turn off the TV. We are not aligned with any party. We align with any person who is fighting for the principle of limited government and making markets more free and competitive.

The Ryan and Demint plans are linked below. We don’t endorse either of these plans, though we fully support the measures in them that introduce more competition into health care; competition always drives down price and increases selection and options. We list them merely point out that there are others who are advocating “doing something” without soaking small businesses and taking over 1/6th of the US economy.

Demint:
http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=0db98529-0230-3564-0e4b-fe84bdb1971b

Ryan:
http://www.house.gov/ryan/issuepapers/healthcareissuepaper.html

We’d like to see a free market in health care. That would be good for small business. Anything else just grows “Big Government.”

We invite you to stick around and keep learning about these issues.

Best regards,
SBABG.org

Those who govern are made out of the same stuff as those who don’t, that is an admixture of good and bad . . . but absolute power tends to amplify the bad, whereas limited (i.e. checked) power in a free society allows to the good to be amplified. When I don’t have be as concerned about defending my property from pillagers, it’s much easier to be aware of the plight of those in need and meet those needs. And the more of my property I keep (instead of siphoning 40% of it into the hands of the bureaucrats that eat 85% of ), the more I have to share with others (either through charity, investment in businesses that create jobs for workers and goods for consumers that improve their lives).

It just so happens that free societies work. America was at its greatest when it was its freest, and the voluntary charity system worked far, far better than the coercive welfare system ever has. I have lived for several years in the third world, where property rights are not recognized and where the ruling class steals everything. Relative to those places, we are a paradise. In America, our “poverty” is their “comfortable upper class.” As Thomas Sowell said (I’m paraphrasing), “America isn’t a society of Haves and Have-nots. It is a society of Haves and Have-mores.” But those who are envious, and peddle the politics of victimhood through grievance mongering would rather have a society of Have-nots and Have-nots than one that has “unjust distribution”; equality of outcome is the goal, regardless of the *quality* of the outcome.

Thanks for joining the conversation… “Clint” is just one of many who fail to respond to logic… they either drop out of the conversation or start hurling insults and claim we’re “social darwinists”

The “true” uninsured are probably less than 10M, or 3% of Americans.

see http://www.sbabg.org/2009/07/24/thetwo-biggest-fattest-lies-in-the-health-care-reform-debate/

Secondly, there is no such thing as “society” and people here advocating for socialized health care should stop using this word . . . there is no “society”, there are only individuals.

When you say, “society should provide health care” that is just nonsense.

There is no such entity as “society.”

What you should say is what you mean, and what the truth of what you are saying is . . . “you should provide me with free health care.”

What right can you identify that I should provide you with free health care? If we are equal, and we have equal rights, you should be providing me with free health care, too, correct, since we both have a right to claim it from each other.

But if you should provide me with it (you have the obligation to be my servant), and I should provide you with it (I am obligated to be your servant), then, really, it’s a wash and as soon as you stop providing for my health care, you’re in violation of my right and the contract is broken (should I prosecute you?). So anyone asking for health care without being a provider for health care is just a free loader.

It’s been belabored here, but no one has the right to steal from another person to pay for a 3rd party’s health care. Your conscience or morals might “compel” you to help those in need of health care (and I hope that we all feel the need to help those is need), but you do not have the right to force doctors to work without pay, to take the products of the work and labors of others and give it to others.

Health care is not a “right”. It’s a “service” or “good” just like any other service or good in the economy. And services and goods don’t grow on trees. They are all fulfilled by someone who has paid a price and sacrificed to develop the skills to deliver that good or service.

Who gets to be compelled at the point of a gun to hand out all that free health care to all those non-payers?

Those who want free health care can have it – they just need to study hard, go to medical school, and treat themselves – then they can have all the free care they want, and they don’t need to steal from others to get it.

There certainly is an entitlement mentality amongst many people, and it’s based in how they “feel” about the world, and no amount of logic, reason, proof, etc will dissuade them from their feeling that the world (i.e. other people) owe them something that they, in turn, don’t owe others.

“We’re all created equal, it’s just that some of us are more equal than others.”

I’d be interested in any studies that have looked at the “entitlement mindset” (production/consumption ratio) of people who make up the groups that engage in mob violence. My guess is that they’re almost entirely made up of these kinds of people.

We did make some of the arguments you stated but it seems to go over their heads or ignored. One commenter even tried to get into the positive rights vs. negative rights issue. It’s interesting how a lot of people are conditioned to think that the world owes them something.

I think that – in the absence of a concrete bill – many of the special interests are having a hard time figuring out if they’re going to profit at the expense of others or if others are going to profit at their expense.

As the specifics of the bills come closer, we should expect much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

Isn’t it remarkable how few people in government understand basic economics, value creation, the capital structure of production, and incentive systems? And the economists they do consult on fiscal issues are Keynesians? Blech. The Keynesians are popular because their policy recommendations always amount to, “government needs more power and needs to control more of the economy.” Keynesian economists and egomaniacal pols were made for each other!

It always helps to point out that in their conception of a right is embedded a conception of duty or responsibility. If health care is a right (entitlement), then some one else is obligated (responsible) to provide it. But if it’s the case that everyone has this “right” then everyone has a claim on everyone else, in equal degrees, to provide it. Which means that those who claim the right without providing it are in violation of the right, since they aren’t fulfilling the responsibility to meet everyone else’s right.

The bottom line is that they’re just muddled thinkers who don’t understand what a right is, how value is created in the world, how goods and services get delivered, and they just want something for nothings. Goods just “magically appear” in the world and the only reason they don’t have it is because you do.

Health care is a good that is wonderful, and in a free market the supply of that good will meet the demand, and competition will not only spur innovation, but will also bring the cost of such down . . .

But health care as a right? Then I demand they provide me with it . . .

At bottom isn’t it just about envy and wanting something for nothing?

We have a libertarian website where we’ve been getting hammered by people the last few days claiming health care is a right. It’s impossible to reason with them because they don’t seem to have a clue what our rights really are.