[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GggVSAPt-HY]YouTube - President Obama's Three Principles for Real Health Care Reform[/ame]
Three basic principles:
First- the rising cost of health care must be brought down.
The Pelosi bill will cost $1.2T, best case, over a ten year period, the first three years will provide no coverage but will include massive tax increases. So we are already shorting the estimate by at least 30%. The structure is such that you are including three full years of revenue without expense, and calling this the 10 year run rate. This is inaccurate. The actual run rate, using their own numbers, is $1.7T, best case, over a 10 year period and assuming the effect on jobs, the economy at large, and thus the tax revenues required to run this will be unchanged. This is inaccurate. The costs are paid for by raiding medicare, how we don't know, by raiding doctors salaries, by raiding businesses large and small to the tune of a full 10%, plus forcing them to pay 72.6% of employees health care, and by forcing the millions of voluntarily uninsured to buy coverage they don't want. These factors have the effect of raising the cost, by expanding the burden of a crippled and unsustainable health care system that, according to your own statements, is garbage.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0XGQfgDtbQ]YouTube - Obama: Healthcare Is The 'New Foundation For Our Economy'; 'No Excuses, The Stars Are Aligned.'[/ame]
"As I've said before, and as all Americans know: our health care system is broken. It's unsustainable for families, for businesses, it is unsustainable for the federal government and state governments... the fact of the matter is the most significant driver by far of our long term debt and our long term deficits is ever escalating health care costs... businesses are using money to pay their rising health care costs that should be going to innovation and growth and new hiring."
I agree with him there, the problem is the Pelosi plan does precisely the opposite of his stated reasons for the reform. It increases the cost, it takes the capital from businesses that "should be going to innovation and growth and new hiring", and as such will have a negative effect on the economy. If it were to pass as is companies would immediately reduce salaries to pay the mandatory 72.6% subsidy, or reduce headcount. By taking an additional 10% in taxes, which is a MASSIVE number, we are drastically reducing the capital necessary to grow businesses and hire additional employees, pay down debt, and stay globally competitive. This is not a complex equation, it is basic economics. I'm not making it up, I'm personally tasked with preparing for it should it pass. Employers simply wont have a choice, you cannot incur that much additional expense and that much of a reduction in profit without cutting other expenses and investments, and in most cases that means jobs.
What I find very interesting is that there has been no word whatsoever as to how much the individual premiums will cost as a result of this plan. There has not been one word saying we estimate this will curb the growth of health care premium expenses by xx% a year, or the public option will cost the individual $xxx a month. The CBO has somehow estimated this, but why hasn't anyone brought this up? Seems odd since if this plan actually decreased the cost, the dems would be screaming it from the hilltops and it would pass easily.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfusHgrXpRw]YouTube - Health Care And Fiscal Responsibility[/ame]
"We have a responsibility to act and to act now. That's why I'm working with congress to pass reform that lowers costs... we can't keep shifting the burden to future generations.... Real reform will mean reductions in our long term budget... If doctors have incentives to provide the best care and not just more care we can help americans avoid unnecessary hospital stays, treatments, and tests that drive up costs... the only changes you will see are lower costs and better health care."
Mr. President your Pelosi bill does not reduce the long term budget, it does NOTHING to provide incentives for doctors to reduce defensive overperscription that is the driver for increased unnecessary spending (if anything it increases the incentive to overperscribe by lowering their income, keeping it tied to proceedures, and ignoring the tort reform issue that is a root cause of overperscription in the first place), it does not protect the consumer from being forced to change plans and/or doctors (in fact it specifically states that the federal government will decide what coverage is required and make it universal, meaning if your plan doesn't mirror theirs, you can't keep it), and bottom line it does not provide lower costs, it shifts and greatly increases the burden to the employers and health care providers that WILL pass this cost on to the individual in the form of lower wages, layoffs, reduced economic growth, and according to the insurance industry themselves, higher premiums:
Karen Ignagni, president and chief executive of America’s Health Insurance Plans:
"The promise of health care reform has been that if you like your current coverage, you can keep it. We are concerned that this proposal will break this promise by increasing health care costs for families and employers across the country and significantly disrupting the quality coverage on which millions of Americans rely today.
The lack of system-wide cost containment is a missed opportunity. Without a greater focus on health care costs, families and employers will not be able to afford coverage and health care costs will rise at a rate much faster than the overall economy is able to sustain.
We share the concerns that doctors, hospitals, employers, and patients have all raised about the significant disruption a new government-run plan would have on the current health care system. A new government-run plan would bankrupt hospitals, dismantle employer coverage, exacerbate cost-shifting from Medicare and Medicaid, and ultimately increase the federal deficit.
Estimates show that a government-run plan would cause millions of people to lose their current coverage. Moreover, massive Medicare Advantage cuts would cause millions of seniors to lose their Medicare Advantage coverage altogether, while millions more would face benefit cuts and higher out-of-pocket costs.
Health plans strongly support comprehensive, bipartisan health care reform and have proposed sweeping insurance market reforms and new consumer protections to ensure that every American has guaranteed access to affordable health care coverage. Experience in the states has shown that insurance market reforms must be paired with an effective personal coverage requirement for these reforms to work. While this legislation recognizes the key linkage of market reforms and a personal coverage requirement, more needs to be done to ensure coverage is affordable and our health care system is sustainable.
As the process progresses, health plans will continue to work to advance bipartisan legislation this year that will cover all Americans, make coverage more affordable, and improve quality."
I agree with you that Obama's real reasons are not what he has said they were, he lied. His plan is to get 30+million people reliant on his handouts in exchange for votes. The trouble is that he has been VERY clear on the requirements of this bill, it's goals, the crisis we are all facing, but has come out with something that will only exacerbate these issues. Reducing unemployment and having a broad economic recovery are being thrown under the bus here, and the system they are attempting to set up, while very nice for some, will not be sustainable. He said so himself, and yet expects us to believe that by adding 30+ million to the "broken, unsustainable" system without also taking the necessary steps to curb the cost it will somehow come out in the wash. Scary stuff. Time will tell.
