The True Cost of the Health Care Bill

Recently someone in the administration stated that accounting was not an exact science. Excuse me, it most certainly is an exact science – at least it is out here in the real world. Apparently in Washington it is not. The Senate’s new health care bill is a fine example of this.

It was announced that over ten years it would cost 849 billion dollars and would have a surplus of 127 billion dollars. This sounds good until you observe the creative accounting tricks that are used. The rules of mathematics are suspended in Washington. One does not have to equal one. It can equal anything that politicians desire. Mathematical facts are deliberately obscured in this new health care bill.

The bill is paid for by over 400 billion dollars in cuts in Medicare. Old people are not popular in Washington. Old people will remember this in the next elections. At some point politicians may decide that it is against their interest to make these cuts. The bill is also paid for by taxes, fines and fees. Do you remember that there is a recession going on in this country? Individuals and companies can not afford more taxes.

This bill is paid for by taxing Americans and slashing Medicare for ten years. The benefits are received for only six years – some parts for less than that. A true cost analysis should be for ten years of payment and ten years of program. It has been estimated that ten years of the program would cost 2.5 trillion dollars. Let’s stop comparing apples and oranges.

This bill does not address the doctor fix. This will cost an additional 250 – 300 billion dollars. Oops, there goes the surplus.

This bill applies another accounting trick. This bill greatly increases the number of people on Medicaid. The federal government only pays about half the costs of Medicaid. States are required to pay the rest. This is an unfunded state mandate. The public will have to pay higher taxes at the federal level and pay for it again at the state level.

Can we not at least be honest about what this bill will actually cost? Congress needs to stop trying to fool the public. This is a BAD bill. Please don’t vote for it.

Signed,
The Electorate

Health Care Must Be Paid For

While Congress debates what they want or don’t want in a health care bill, they are glossing over a vital issue. This bill has to be paid for. The national debt is increasing at an alarming rate. This level of spending can not be sustained. This federal spending spree has got to stop – NOW.

Congress seems to want to fund this enormous program by cutting Medicare and raising taxes. Whether or not Congress is actually willing to cut Medicare, it is irresponsible for them to propose cutting Medicare by ten percent as more and more “baby bloomers” are entering the system. Increasing taxes in a struggling economy will only deepen and prolong the recession. Ask your constituents – the recession is not over.

The costs of the health care bills are not mathematically correct. Taxes and cuts will begin in 2010. The programs will not begin until 2013 and will not be fully implemented until 2017. Basically Americans are paying for this program for ten years and receiving about five years of benefits. Ten years of the program would cost twice the estimates. Even that would be a low ball figure. Government programs always cost more than the initial estimates. Bernie Madoff would be so proud.

Health care proposals need to be cut down to the basic needs. Increase competition by allowing Americans to purchase insurance from any American based insurance company – NO cost to government. Make it illegal to refuse coverage because of a pre-existing condition – NO cost to government. Enact real tort reform – This will lower the cost of insurance at NO cost to government. Reasonably expand the eligibility for Medicaid and fund the mandates to states. This has a cost, but it is far less than the proposed trillion dollar bills.

Does Congress understand that this is a time to live within our means? Be responsible. The future of our children is at stake.

Signed,
The Electorate

Are We Cost Effective?

A pattern is developing. The Stimulus Bill established the Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) panel. This panel was to determine what treatments and medications would be used to treat various illnesses. It would also determine who was eligible to receive these. Cost effectiveness is to be determined by dividing the cost of the treatment by the number of years the treatment would benefit the patient. Seniors will not fare well under these recommendations.

The House bill proposes a Benefits Advisory Board. This board will be comprised of 27 appointees. It will determine what coverage constitutes “acceptable” health care coverage. All insurance plans are required to meet this standard. We do not know if this refer to only minimum coverage or if it also restricts maximum coverage. The bill also does not address abortion. Previous court decisions have ruled that if abortion is not specifically excluded, it will be included.

An Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC) is proposed. IMAC, a 5 member appointed board, has the authority to curtail Medicare spending and recommend broader Medicare reform. The Administration has already stated that cuts in Medicare will help fund health care reform. Seniors are again targeted.

The concept of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) is being discussed. The patient is assigned a numerical rating of 1.0 – 0.0. If treatment is not deemed, using this number, to be “cost effective”, treatmen t will be denied. This will adversely effect those with chronic illnesses, disabilities, and again seniors.

I don’t think the plug will be pulled on Granny. I think she will simply be denied treatment.

Is this what health care is really about – “cost effectiveness?