Health Care

Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than the private sector.
Ignoring the reality that Medicare--the government-funded program for the elderly--has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama wants to model a government insurance plan--the so-called "public option"--after Medicare in order to control the country's rising health care costs. Why? Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower administrative costs and overhead than private plans--to wit, 3% for Medicare compared to 10% to 20% for private plans. Hence, he says, subjecting private plans to competition against an entity delivering such superior efficiency will release health care dollars for universal coverage.
But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater efficiency. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year chastised Medicare's lax attitude on this front. "The traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach," it noted on page 93.
In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin--not improve--even the functioning aspects of private plans.

Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.
Obama has repeatedly claimed that forcing private plans to compete with a public plan will simply "keep them honest" and give patients more options--not lead to a full-blown, Canadian-style, single-payer monopoly. As I argued in my previous column, this is wishful thinking given that government programs such as Medicare have a history of controlling costs by underpaying providers, who make up the losses by charging private plans more. Any public plan modeled after Medicare will greatly increase this forced subsidy, eventually driving private plans out of business, even if that weren't Obama's intention.
But, as it turns out, it very much is his intention. Before he decided to run for office--and even during the initial days of his campaign--Obama repeatedly said that he was in favor of a single-payer system. What's more, University of California, Berkeley Professor Jacob Hacker, who is a key influence on the Obama administration, is on tape explicitly boasting that a public plan is a means for creating a single-payer system. "It's not a Trojan horse," he quips, "it's just right there."
But even if Obama wanted to, it is simply impossible to design a public plan that could compete with private insurers on a level playing field and without "feeding off the public trough" as Obama claims.
At the very least, such a plan would always carry an implicit government guarantee that, should it go bust, no one in the plan would lose coverage. This guarantee would artificially lower the plan's capital reserve requirements, giving it an unfair edge over private plans. What's more, it is simply not plausible to expect that the plan wouldn't receive any start-up subsidies or use the government's muscle to negotiate lower rates with providers. If it eschewed all these things, there would be no reason for it to exist--because it would be just like any other private plan.

Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.
Obama has been insisting, including during his ABC Town Hall event last week, that the rationing patients would face under a government-run system wouldn't be any more draconian than what they currently confront under private plans. This is complete nonsense.
The left has been trying to address fears of rationing by trotting out an old and tired trope, namely, that rationing is an inescapable fact of life because every system rations whether by price or fiat. But there is a big difference between the two. If I can't afford caviar and champagne every night, any rationing involved is metaphoric, not real. Genuine rationing occurs when someone else controls access--how much of a particular good I can consume.
By that token, Obama's stimulus bill has set in motion rationing on a scale unimaginable in the land of the free. Indeed, the bill commits over $1 billion to conduct comparative effectiveness research that will evaluate the relative merits of various treatments. That in itself wouldn't be so objectionable--if it weren't for the fact that a board will then "direct financing" toward approved, standardized treatments. In short, doctors will find it much harder to prescribe newer or non-standard treatments not yet deemed effective by health care bureaucrats. This is exactly along the lines of the British system, where breast cancer patients were denied Herceptin, a new miracle drug, until enraged women fought back. Even the much-vilified managed care plans would appear to be a paragon of generosity in comparison with this.
Obama has repeatedly asked for honesty in the health care debate. It is high time he started showing some.

I'm 62 and am living for the day I turn 65 and can get on Medicare. Trust me, individual health insurance for a person of my age is very expensive and pre-existings prevent us from seeking new policies. I am working myself to death and stressing so badly that I hope I live to see 65. We pay $6,325.00 per quarter now. We are hanging on by our fingernails now. I'm praying as hard for Obama as the other side is praying against him.

At the rate this congress is going I am not sure there will be a health care plan. I will believe it when I see it.

I hope not My  employees will suffer badly

If the American people want to know what the Brits are doing about health care educate yourself instead of trusting the Media or anyone else to tell you. I get so sick of the just say no to everything. Most of what people think is spoon fed to them. Instead of having people go to the emergency room for care, which costs a bundle and gets passed on to you with higher premiums we need a plan. Why should any American be without food or medical care? Why should any child suffer because the fear mongering about a national plan has taken over common sense? Where is the hope for those who happen to be on the low income side of the stick.  If we can get some decent people to sit in congress we might have a shot of getting a plan that would be better than lines at the emergency room. or people dieing because they can't afford care. Cooperate greed on every level runs rampant and that includes health care and drug companies. WE need election reform and term limits to get rid of a lot of dead wood in Washington. It is time they got busy and did their job. They spend far to much time bickering over everything and not producing results.

You know what "they still don't get it" You believe that they didn't know the Economy was this BAD!! President Obama didn't think the Economy (and  his staff of goones) did Not KNOW the Economy was worst then they thought. SH_ _, why don't they take a look around them. Get out of the White House and look at the USA town by town. Each State is different but following right behind each other in dispair.

I don't see a Health Care Plan that would help. Face it, Americans living in State by State things are not improving they are getting worse. Yes, people that still have jobs feel they will loose them. What is scary is they just might.

I was just talking to someone who has a very bad wound on his leg, I told him of a Hospital that has a Chamber that heals wounds for those who are "Diabetic". "Wound Care Chamber" He check into it and his Insurance does not cover it. "Employer Insurance Coverage" So SAD the Country we LIVE IN does this too its PEOPLE!!!! "Blue Cross Blue Shield" Shame on this Insurance Company. "Profit Profit Profit" Yes, they are in the business to make money, hummm at the cost of lives! This man will probably loose his leg to infection! So SAD and so unnecessary, that we have a cure for wounds and Insurance does not cover it---Shame, Shame. This is only one story, there are MILLIONS more just like this one!

I hope all of us when we go to bed at night, pray to God to remain in good Health!