posted 09-26-2007 07:47 AM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by PROWLEU:

I just don't think we can wake up fast enough before we lose this country.

---

Sadly,,,,I agree.

This once great country,,,,is on a course for collapse.

Its a grim picture for our children and grandchildren.

We can't take care of our own,,,,but we'll damn sure take care of the rest of the world

Its the end of the world,,,I tell ya,,,,the end of the world

posted 09-26-2007 09:04 AM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kraut:
I arrived legally.

---

As it should be!!

Glad to have you as an American

posted 09-26-2007 11:48 AM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by ETMIDZT:
Are you of Mexican descent Kraut?

---

What difference does Krauts nationality make, or are you saying its only ok for Mexicans to come here illegally, and every other nationality needs to follow immigration rules?

posted 09-26-2007 07:06 PM                  

But there are caveats about that number. For one thing, despite newspaper pieces describing the Census report as counting “47 million Americans” without health insurance, the count includes 10.2 million noncitizens. Also, other reports suggest that only a subset of the total — perhaps as few as half — lacked health insurance for the entire year; the rest were covered for at least part of it.

The immigration issue is significant because not all nominally universal health-care plans cover all noncitizens who reside in the U.S. (California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a plan covering every state resident, including illegal immigrants, but that is one issue holding up approval of his plan in that state’s legislature.) The new Clinton plan doesn’t include the words “citizen” nor “immigrant,” but does refer to “Americans” 30 times. A Clinton spokesman said the plan doesn’t cover illegal immigrants; he didn’t respond to a follow-up inquiry asking about other noncitizens such as residents with green cards.

The Census report doesn’t distinguish between groups of noncitizens because the survey it’s based on doesn’t ask noncitizens whether they are documented. “That would definitely inhibit cooperation with Census surveys,” a Census spokesman said. (For more on the number of illegal immigrants, see my column on the topic last year.)

Meanwhile, the Census Bureau acknowledges, in Appendix C, that “health insurance coverage is likely to be underreported” in its report. That’s because the survey it relies on asks about the prior year’s coverage, which appears to yield the number of people uninsured at a specific time of the year, rather than the number who were uninsured for the entire year.

The Census Bureau refers to a 2003 report from the Congressional Budget Office exploring this issue in further detail. The CBO examined other surveys that asked people to recall their coverage for shorter periods, typically four or five months rather than a whole year, and concluded that the number of people uninsured for the entire year of 1998 was between 21 million and 31 million, even as the Census Bureau at the time was reporting uninsured totals of 43.9 million.

Neither number by itself paints a complete picture of the problem of lack of health insurance. The smaller number, which covers those who are uninsured for the entire year, is appropriate for analyzing the problem of people forgoing needed medical treatments and preventive care that could head off bigger problems — and bigger costs down the line. The bigger number, those without health insurance at any given moment, covers everyone vulnerable to an unexpected, expensive medical cost. (That number, by the way, isn’t the biggest number that can be used to count the uninsured; the reports analyzed by the CBO found that between 56 million and 59 million Americans lacked health insurance at some point in a year’s time.)

What do you think? What’s the best way to count uninsured Americans? Should noncitizens be included in universal health-care plans? Are politicians using the numbers responsibly? Please let me know in the comments.

Further reading: Many have criticized the count of uninsured Americans as inflated, including Bob Newbell in TCS Daily, the Business & Media Institute and a San Diego Union-Tribune blog. Among their other critiques: The numbers include many young and healthy people who could afford health insurance but choose not to buy it.

posted 09-26-2007 07:14 PM                  

Mrs. Clinton's proposed health care reforms were estimated by her presidential campaign to cost $110 billion a year. But fiscal analysts are doubtful, noting that previous government cost estimates have been notoriously low in the past and that her proposal will likely be significantly higher.

"I've never known of a new government program where the initial estimate wasn't less than it actually cost. Take those numbers with a grain of salt. All we know is that it is going to cost a lot and more than she says," said Michael Tanner, chief domestic policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

Roughly half her proposal's costs will come from higher taxes on people earning more than $250,000 and half from cost savings derived from administrative efficiencies in the health care industry and preventive care. "But there's no evidence the hoped for savings will actually save money which will mean higher taxes," Mr. Tanner said.

Heritage Foundation analysts are also skeptical. "Even neutral estimates from the Congressional Budget Office often understate the costs of new entitlement programs. If neutral cost estimates understate them, those put out by a campaign understate them a lot more," said Brian Riedl, Heritage's chief budget analyst.

Heritage analysts who have been studying Mrs. Clinton's proposal said it is similar to an earlier plan offered by Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry in his 2004 presidential campaign that at the time was estimated to cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

When President Clinton addressed Congress on Mrs. Clinton's first health care plan in 1994, he said "it was structured in such a way that it would pay for itself," said Robert E. Moffit, director of health policy studies at Heritage.

"That was totally untrue. CBO said the plan would have added $70 billion to the deficit over time."

These analysts also dispute Mrs. Clinton's pledge this week that her health care coverage will not be "government-run" or create more bureaucracy.

In a draft analysis of the plan, Mr. Moffit said "Americans are getting an artful lesson in the new cosmetics of government control" from Mrs. Clinton.

"It appears that her latest program would enlist the energies of existing, but juiced up, federal agencies. Individuals and employers would be subject to government mandates to buy and pay for health insurance; and federal officials would define the 'affordability' of coverage with mathematical precision," he said.

But the plan's most far-reaching changes in health care policy "would be a massive shift in regulatory authority ... to the federal government," Mr. Moffit's analysis said.

"Federal rules would henceforth govern all health insurance products" and Mrs. Clinton "would standardize them for the nation" to insure universal coverage, he said.

posted 09-26-2007 07:15 PM                  

She would like you to believe that her plan is reasonable and cost effective reform. But no matter how many times she uses the word choice or insists that her plan doesn’t involve a new government bureaucracy, the fact is that this plan is another step toward government-controlled health care.

Read more below.

Hillary’s plan mandates health care coverage for both employers and individuals. Employers have to offer it and individuals, regardless of their employment, have to have it. Her plan doesn’t specify the punishments for failing to comply - she is leaving that decision up to Congress. She did, however, go so far as to suggest that proof of health insurance could be required in order to get a job! So we once again have government deciding what you can and can’t do to provide for yourself and your family.

Secondly, if coverage is required someone is going to have to decide what qualifies as such. Do you think this is going to be left to individuals? No, there will soon be standards and regulations that specify exactly what type of insurance and coverage are required, the documents required, etc. Hillary argues that her plan won’t require a new government bureaucracy, but this assertion requires, to adopt her own turn of phrase, a “willing suspension of disbelief.” Government mandates always mean more oversight, more paper work, and more bureaucracy.

By refusing to allow insurance companies to manage risk and allocate costs Hillary’s plan will also inevitably lead to rationing of care. When you socialize and subsidize costs you get increased costs because the end user isn’t paying the true cost of the care if something is free or cheap why not use more of it. At some point the costs are going to be prohibitive and the government will step in to impose restraint. This means limiting care or access to care.

In the same way by socializing costs and removing the profit motive, Hillary’s plan will stifle the very innovation that has led to so many health care breakthroughs. Instead of allowing private research to lead the way, she proposes a government agency to study best practices and recommend cost saving measures. When was the last time a government panel outperformed the private sector?

As if this increasing government control and involvement wasn’t bad enough, Hillary’s plan willfully ignores the looming entitlement crises, will lead to higher taxes, and undermine economic growth.

Hillary’s plan simply wishes away fundamental economics. The laws of supply and demand do not go away by wishing them so. And the nature of government control doesn’t change simply by saying the word choice over and over again.

Hillary promises everything to everyone: refundable tax credits and increased spending on government programs for those who can’t afford coverage; mandated coverage for everyone no matter what the health condition; tax credits for small businesses that can’t afford to offer coverage.

It doesn’t take an accountant to figure out that this sort of system is going to cost a lot of money. This means higher taxes. Oh sure, Hillary promises she will only tax the rich. But as the spending goes through the roof watch how surprisingly broad the definition of “the rich” becomes.

On top of all of this, Hillary’s plan exacerbates the looming entitlement crisis. Entitlement programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are already causing budget problems at the state and federal level and the Baby Boom generation threatens to bankrupt the system. Hillary’s plan increases eligibility and spending on these very programs at a time when they threaten to bust the budget and stagnate the economy.

Don’t be fooled by the spin. Hillary’s latest proposal is simply a better packaged less complicated version of the government run monstrosity she proposed previously. It may take a few more steps to get there, but it is still the path to government run health care.

Richard H. Collins is the founder of StopHerNow.com, a website dedicated to educating the public about Hillary Clinton’s liberal record.