Monday, July 20, 2009
Inside The Bureaucracy Obama Envisions
If you think government is too big and too costly, wait until ObamaCare kicks in. The Congressional Budget Office put the price tag of the House Democrats' health care takeover plans at $1.5 trillion over 10 years. But the CBO's fine print included a telltale caveat:
"We have not yet estimated the administrative costs to the federal government of implementing the specified policies, nor have we accounted for all of the proposal's likely effects on spending for other federal programs."
You don't need an accounting degree or clairvoyant powers. The administrative costs and spillover spending effects will be astronomical. Look at existing federal programs.
In 1966, the Office of Management and Budget put the total taxpayer costs for Medicare at $64 million. In 2011, Medicare costs are expected to balloon to nearly $500 billion.
Medicaid cost $770 million in 1966. By 2011, that program will cost taxpayers an estimated $264 billion.
The Virginia-based Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimated that the administrative expenses of both programs last decade were 66% higher than those of private sector health insurance companies....
Runaway Train To Less Freedom, Higher Taxes And Rationed Care
...The bill would increase income taxes by $583 billion. The White House says only the rich would be taxed. The truth is, this would be a tax on job creation. More than half of all those taxed would be small-business owners, and the taxes would be substantial.
The White House projection that 5 million jobs would be lost doesn't even factor in the adverse effects of this tax, but money taken from the pockets of job creators inevitably leads to pink slips for employees.
Even the Washington Post editorial board says "there is no case to be made" for this "ad hoc" and "unrealistic" tax. The Post notes the tax would encourage the wealthy to hide their money rather than make productive investments, and it would make it harder to tap the rich's incomes "if and when Congress and the Obama administration get serious about the long-term federal deficit." The Post concludes this "is bad policy any way you look at it."
In addition, the bill would impose a 2.5% penalty — or tax — on those who remain uninsured. So if you don't feel you can afford health insurance, you'll get to send money to the IRS instead. This is sort of the opposite of having your cake and eating it too. ...
Reformers' Claims Just Don't Add Up
...Forty-seven million people lack insurance. Of the remaining 85% of the population, or 258 million people, polls show high satisfaction with the current coverage. Indeed, a 2006 poll by ABC News, the Kaiser Family Foundation and USA Today found 89% of Americans were happy with their own health care.
As for the estimated 47 million not covered by health insurance, 20 million can afford to buy it, according to a study by former CBO Director June O'Neill. Most of the other 27 million are single and under 35, with as many as a third illegal aliens.
When it's all whittled down, as few as 12 million are unable to buy insurance — less than 4% of a population of 305 million. For this we need to nationalize 17% of our nation's $14 trillion economy and change the current care that 89% like? ...
...U.S. life expectancy in 2006 was 78.1 years, ranking behind 30 other countries. So if our health care is so good, why don't we live as long as everyone else?
Three reasons. One, our homicide rate is two to three times higher than other countries. Two, because we drive so much, we have a higher fatality rate on our roads — 14.24 fatalities per 100,000 people vs. 6.19 in Germany, 7.4 in France and 9.25 in Canada. Three, Americans eat far more than those in other nations, contributing to higher levels of heart disease, diabetes and some cancers.
These are diseases of wealth, not the fault of the health care system. A study by Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa found that if you subtract our higher death rates from accidents and homicide, Americans actually live longer than people in other countries.
In countries with nationalized care, medical outcomes are often catastrophically worse. Take breast cancer. According to the Heritage Foundation, breast cancer mortality in Germany is 52% higher than in the U.S.; the U.K.'s rate is 88% higher. For prostate cancer, mortality is 604% higher in the U.K. and 457% higher in Norway. Colorectal cancer? Forty percent higher in the U.K.
But what about the health care paradise to our north? Americans have almost uniformly better outcomes and lower mortality rates than Canada, where breast cancer mortality is 9% higher, prostate cancer 184% higher and colon cancer 10% higher....
...Recent polls show that more than 70% of Germans, Australians, Britons, Canadians and New Zealanders think their systems need "complete rebuilding" or "fundamental change."...
