[Part 1 is here]
Only this July, Kathleen Whatshername at HHS told the nation that $5 billion was now available for the hundreds of thousands of people who can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition. The average person could be forgiven for believing that this was a crisis of near-Biblical proportions. OK, so what happened?
Well, on November 12, I read that a grand total of 8,011 people had signed up for government-subsidized individual insurance having no pre-existing conditions exclusion.
The Wall Street Journal had some fun with the enrollment of 8,011, stating that “HHS created a program designed to operate at a loss and still can’t lure customers”. The Journal added that “HHS won’t take this for an answer, so . . . it said it will cut premiums by 20% and expand benefits . . . to encourage more people to enroll.”
In other words HHS takes as a given that the government’s failure to solve the crisis - - calls for more government.
The way I see it, appropriating $5 billion to meet the medical care needs of less than 10,000 people shows something is terribly wrong within HHS. And besides, the way I see it, this HHS insurance plan suffers from the same basic flaw as the government’s unemployment insurance strategy: overreliance on “government subsidies”. Government subsidies can only come from taxes paid by productive workers. Increasing subsidies means increasing taxes. Higher taxes dampen economic activity. So I still see reducing taxes as a better strategy than increasing taxes. Of course that also means reducing government spending and that is not in the lexicon of most lawmakers.
I have the same view about the uninsured. I still don’t see why a 2,000-page statute that commandeers virtually 100% of the U.S insurance and health care delivery systems is necessary to assist the 15% of the population who are uninsured. I don’t see why helping that 15% should cost anywhere near a trillion dollars a year. And I also don't see how that trillion dollars of annual spending ends up “saving” us money.
My lack of vision in these things probably explains why I could never be successful in government.
Minggu, 21 November 2010
Langganan:
Posting Komentar (Atom)
Recent Posts
Popular Posts
-
Bob recently posted about the act of balance billing by providers . While I would never question Bob’s expertise in the field of insurance, ...
-
So it appears that women "of a certain age" may well benefit from not one, but two shots of the good stuff: " A glass or two...
-
The "PR" in this case being Paul Ryan. We've been pretty rough on the AMA (whose membership, IB readers may recall, " rep...
-
Given the high stakes ObamneyCare © SCOTUS case , the on-going MLR assault , and the pending PCIP implosion , what better time could there ...
-
Last week, we reported on the unlikely story of an agent facing major problems for selling an annuity to an 83-year-old. Today comes word t...
-
Five years ago, we participated in the "Project 2,996" campaign to remember and honor those killed in 9/11. Today, on the 10th ann...
-
For those in the path of Hurricane/TS Sandy (and/or for those who may face other severe weather conditions) the Insurance Information Instit...
-
From the "I told you so" files: Back in January , we observed that, even though the ObamaTax had heavy union backing, there was so...
-
I love it when the government supports my theory. The theory in this case is that we will go metric before we go ICD -10. Towards that...
-
It amazes me how often I see comments like this from Jodi Kantor of the NY Times: " By summer 2009, with the country still stunned by e...
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar