If Obama Wants a Win, We'd Be Better off If He Signed a Blank Page of "Legislation" and Called That Health Reform

Looks like the Senate is going to pass their health "reform." Have you noticed the language? Everyone is talking about access to health insurance rather than access to health care.

President Barack Obama has clearly watched Blazing Saddles one too many times. He's building a fake town hoping nobody will notice. And everyone keeps saying that no other president in the past 6,013 years of American history has ever passed health care reform.

Technically the record still goes on, because calling a facade a town doesn't make it one. Obama has set minimum standards on what his town looks like and doesn't care about the final result. It must have windows (but they don't have to open), it must have walls (but not necessarily four), and it must be built by Christmas (but only the facade).

Obama talks about eliminating pre-existing conditions, but he never mentions that policy holders will have to pay more because of this. Didn't they have this option already? They could still get health care if they paid more for it. The only problem was they couldn't get health insurance. The real problem is the cost, not the availability.

Deficit spending will go down they prophesize. Well, deficit spending could go down depending on how you represent the numbers. We could raise taxes and cause deficit spending to go down. We could speculate a three percent growth in GDP, and therefore revenue, and ignore inflationary dollars, and then state that deficit spending will go down. Or we could do what health care "reform" is doing and simply transfer more of the cost from explicit taxes to insurance policy holders.

Under Obama's plan, not only will costs shift to policy holders, but new taxes will emerge. Because the new taxes are technically less than the current cost against tax dollars, one could state deficit spending goes down. The reality is that the overall cost to citizens for health care will go up because of the combined cost of policies and taxes. We cannot avoid the cost of health care. The only thing we can avoid is profiteering from health care.

Obama talks about the millions who will continue to die without health reform, but he never mentions the millions who will continue to die with Obama health "reform." Sure I don't like it that millions are dying of treatable health conditions, but our solution to saving a troubled ship is to throw half the people overboard. That's fine if you stay dry, but the better solution is to fix the ship.

And Obama talks about doing what nobody before him could do: "reform" health care. You'll hear the politicians say that not everyone is going to be happy with this "reform." True. But let's figure out who will be happy. Health insurance companies are happy as well as their stock holders based on their share prices rising dramatically as this "reform" gets closer to realization. Doctors, as represented by the American Medical Association, because their profit margins stay secure also. Basically everyone who has the potential to profit financially from this "reform" are happy. This begs the question: Who exactly are not happy? And what does this tell us about whose behavior is being "reformed?"

But don't worry. Bill Clinton tells us that like all other legislation, we'll be able to make changes down the road. Clinton is exactly right in this respect. Just ask former Senator Carter Glass or former Congressman Henry B. Steagall. Their Glass-Steagall Act changed dramatically in the years that followed to the point that made it possible for banks to post record earnings this year. So don't worry, as Clinton reminds us "reform" will always be "reformed." And we don't have to worry about the law of entropy because this is politics not physics.

In the meantime, Representative Elijah Cummings has reassured us that the House will bend over backwards to give up their principles and roll over to the Senate.

And when Senator Barbara Boxer was asked to defend her position of supporting anti-abortion language in the health "reform" bill, she offered a statement that nobody could refute, mainly because nobody could understand the mindless babbling that dribbled out of her mouth. The good Senator has difficulty completing a sentence, not to mention a thought.

Howard Dean, my hero of last week, seems to have lost his voice this week. His outrage has been footnoted, perhaps due to Vermont's latest kickbacks. Dean's Vermont legacy gets saved, at least on paper for the time being. Sure he still has the balls to place blame on Obama for the lack of real reform here, but those balls have shrunk along with his power of speech.

Those thinking of retirement may want to think Nebraska rather than Florida. Sure you trade tornadoes for hurricanes, corn for oranges, cows for topless women. But your Medicaid is covered by every other state thanks to the kickbacks to the good Senator Ben Nelson.

Now as I close this rant, I've noticed that I've picked on nothing but Democrats. Before I once again get that flurry of right-wing/conservative email making me an honorary cult member, please note that my lack of Republican taunting is only due to a lack of Republican activity.

While much, almost to the point of stating all, of what Democrats do turns to shit, the Republicans lack this track record lately because they simply haven't done much. In fact, most, almost to the point of stating all, of the Republican Congress could stay at home during these debates and most Americans would not notice.

Republicans are forced to show up because otherwise the Democrats get the floor and therefore the vote. And let's face it, the Republicans' real complaint is that the Democrats are using their time to get in good with corporate money. Because the real argument in Washington DC isn't who gets federal money. The real argument is who signs the check.

Drama in Copenhagen

World leaders at Copenhagen today agreed with President Obama that it is better to act than talk. So they will continue to act like they are doing something.

Dear Joe

Keep playing those video games.
You should know better than most,
You aren't missing very much.

Who Is Going to Pay for Health Care "Reform" ?

First, I'm getting tired of using quotes every time I have to use the word "reform." But we're not really talking about reform, we're talking about "reform," which necessitates the quotes.

Let's forget for a moment that very little reform actually takes place. Let's forget for a moment that this "reform" is simply a mandate to expand large insurance companies' market shares. Let's forget for a moment reality.

How do we pay for this? I keep hearing people say it will be paid by the savings from insuring currently uninsured people who use our health care system in the United States. Really? I never realized that having health insurance makes health care costs simply disappear.

Different folks beat slightly different drums in arguing for or against "reform." This cacophony makes trying to think straight quite confusing. Some state insuring the uninsured will pay for Medicare, and some are more vague and simply state the "savings" will pay for "it."

To calm the drums let's assume the "it" (whatever "it" is). Let's talk about the "savings" we get from insuring currently uninsured people. Will insuring the uninsured save us anything?

How many people are actually uninsured in the U.S.? Well I knew from listening to talking heads that this number was somewhere around 45 million. A quick Google search and I discovered some more specific numbers:

• 60% of Americans are insured by their employer,
• 14% of Americans are insured by Medicaid,
• 13% of Americans are insured by Medicaid/SCHIP,
• 9% of Americans directly purchased their health insurance,
• 4% of Americans get health insurance through the military,
• and 16% or 45.8 million Americans are uninsured.

See: Number of Uninsured In United States.

Now since this number of uninsured seems to match what talking heads generally state, let's assume this is at least close to the numbers they are working with. Immediately something seemed odd to me. If sixteen percent of Americans equal 45.8 million people, then that means there are only 286 million people in the United States. That didn't seem right.

Another quick Google search and I discover Population, the number of people in the U.S. based on U.S. Census Bureau statistics last updated on 20 November 2009. According to this estimate there are currently about 304 million people living in the United States.

This is a significant discovery because that means that 304 - 286 or 18 million Americans are unaccounted for. Based on the lower population number that is often cited in the news, this is six percent of the population. The significance is that the uninsured may be as high as 22 percent or 63 million Americans.

The talking heads seem to agree that this latest incarnation of health care "reform" will insure about 35 million currently uninsured Americans. And it is the savings we get from this action that can be applied to costs.

The White House goes so far as to state:

American families with insurance pay a hidden tax of roughly $1000 for the cost of caring for people without insurance. As more Americans become insured, that hidden tax will begin to disappear. In addition, covering everyone will put downward pressure on costs. Bringing younger, healthier people into the system will spread the risk. As more Americans become covered, insurance companies will compete for their business. That will begin to lower costs. And health insurance reform will create stability and security for everyone. If you lose or change jobs you will have the peace of mind of knowing that you will always be able to find an affordable health insurance option for your family.

(See: Q: Why should people with insurance pay to cover those who don’t have it? They are already paying for the uninsured.)

Now, if this number is correct, that we currently each pay about $1000 for uninsured Americans, then this "reform" will only reduce this cost by 56-76 percent depending on which numbers you use. Let's be optimistic and pretend the cost will be reduced by 76 percent. That leaves $240 each of us still have to pay for uninsured (being pessimistic, that leaves $440).

The pro-"reform" argument is that we each "save" at most $760 or $14.62 per week. This should translate to a reduction in tax while insurance cost at the very least remains constant. But let me ask a simple human behavior question. Who is more likely to seek medical attention, an uninsured person or an insured person?

Yes it is true that the uninsured person costs tax payers money. But it is also true that many uninsured people also pay at least a portion of their bill. And it is true that an insured person is more likely to seek medical care on more issues.

If we forget who is paying, it is easy to understand that an insured person will generate on average more health related costs than an uninsured person. An insured person will more likely seek medical care when they get sick, where an uninsured person will tend to seek medical care only in more critical cases.

My question then is that even if the level of medical care remains constant, where does the cost go of previously uninsured Americans? The White House seems to think it simply disappears. Not only will it not simply disappear, I'm stating that it will increase. The only thing that happens to this cost is that it transforms from a tax premium to a policy premium.

One of two possibilities must happen. Either health premium costs will go up or quality of service will go down. If you've participated at all in our capitalistic system (which I support) you should realize that generally both happen.

This leads us to the second question. Why do the uninsured not have health insurance? My guess is that they don't have it because they cannot afford it. This latest "reform" will mandate (require by federal law) that these people buy health insurance. Well how can they if they can't afford it?

Alex, I'll take "Talking Out Your Ass" for $1000, please. What is a corporate subsidy? Ok maybe you prefer to call it an individual subsidy (i.e., welfare). I call it a corporate subsidy because the individual never touches the money and is required by law to give it to a big corporation. Therefore, corporate subsidy.

And tell me, President Obama, tell me Democratic Party, tell me speaking buttocks, who will pay for this subsidy? Ok, for now, it will probably be the Chinese, but my question is who is going to pay back the Chinese for financing our health care "reform?"

That's correct: taxpayers. Wait a second. I'm a taxpayer. And you are telling me that I am still paying $240-$440 for those people you still haven't covered. I'm paying more for health insurance for less service. And now, I have to pay a brand new tax to subsidize the same health insurance corporations that I'm paying more money for less stuff?

Well at least we are going to insure more people, right? Yeah, that's completely true and very good for those people. I'm happy to give more people access to health care. But at the same time one of your arguments is that these people already have access to health care and that is what is costing us.

If we applied the strategy of our currently purposed health care "reform" to something like national defense, then we would come up with a plan to increase the security of the United States by leaving a state or two out of our plans. In other words, let's increase our national security by focusing on just 48 or 49 states. Sure we leave out a few million people, but we increase the security of most of our people. Right?

The bottom line is that health care costs don't simply go away by changing a few laws. Costs decrease by elimination. We can either choose to eliminate quality of service, or we can choose to eliminate administrative cost. Subsidizing health insurance corporations supports administrative costs and therefore will reduce quality of service or raise costs. One or the other or both.

Only when we reduce administrative costs, i.e., reduce the power and reach of health insurance companies, will we have the greatest chance of maintaining quality of service while reducing costs. Most experts agree that health insurance corporations add at least a 30 percent premium on health care costs.

Based on pro-"reform" numbers, that 30 percent is more than enough to fully cover currently uninsured Americans without touching our current level of service. In other words, we could have the same system we have now and cover everyone without changing costs. Oh, and you won't have to show up 30 minutes early to fill out that paperwork.

People Are Pretentious, We All Pay for Sex

I ran across a story of a woman being charged with promoting prostitution because she offered sex for World Series tickets (see: PA woman due in court on sex-for-World Series tickets case). Dinner and a movie for sex is ok, but world series tickets are out?

It hasn't happened too often that a woman simply offers me sex. In most cases, some form of quid-pro-quo occurs. There's dinner, for most people an average of three. There's flowers, or chocolate, or jewelry. There's spending three to five hours pretending to listen to them. All sorts of trade is involved.

But get an efficiency expert into the equation, one who says, hey, how about we just cut to the chase, and suddenly we enter moral crisis (i.e., people are thinking for themselves and someone has a problem with that).

This is the same reason we have euphemisms, those odd words or phrases that refer to subject matter too beneath us to discuss openly. You're on your third date, you've just given your date a single rose after you walked her to her door, she invites you in, and you make love. Someone gives you some World Series tickets, and you fuck them.

It isn't as if the first couple went inside to solve the dissonance in the Middle East. They weren't creating any universal harmony. They were fucking just like the second couple. Everyone here was a consenting adult.

We all pay for sex, men and women alike, only the market varies. Religious folks might try to counter by claiming that this is the reason sex should only occur between married people. Well, get married and you'll be paying for it the rest of your life.

You can change all the words, but you're talking about the same topic. Penis and vagina aren't dirty words, so how can words like dick and pussy be dirty when they refer to the same thing? All other factors being the same, how can sex between one consenting couple be any different than sex between any other.

If cash money or World Series tickets isn't an acceptable standard of trade for sex, then stick to the others and leave everyone else alone. But if you really want to get rid of prostitution, create a law requiring that sex must occur at the beginning of a date. Of course this would simultaneously destroy the restaurant and movie industry. And you'll never see another heterosexual man in a dance club again.