Gibbs, Gibbs, Gibbs... tsk tsk.

Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Single-Payer System Works



Interestingly the google results for this topic have changed dramatically over the past couple of weeks. Even when I search specifically for articles I've previously seen showing the low satisfaction of health care in the UK, Canada, and many European countries, where they were previously easy to find.... they are absolutely drowned by commentary and polls promoting Universal Health Care in the U.S. The left has utilized the Internet to effectively mute the opposition. With Obama getting free air time to spread the propaganda from ABC without opposition, with the super-democrat-majority, and with legions of brain washed people who are somehow both satisfied with their care and yet are convinced that it is somehow of poor quality and availability (figure those polls out..), with these assets the left is going to probably finally see their dream come to fruition.

People don't and probably won't get it, even after it is too late. By the time we are really seeing the heavy damage of socialized medicine perhaps there will be another administration to blame for the country's plight.

Probably one of the most amusing items with the most prominent of the Democrat Health plans on the table:

CBO Cost Estimate on Health-Reform Bill: $1T
"The initial estimate -- for parts of a comprehensive reform plan drafted by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) -- would spend $1 trillion over 10 years but end up reducing the number of uninsured people in the U.S. by around than a third, providing just 16 million more people with health insurance."

CBO: Healthcare bill exceeds $1 trillion
"The 10-year cost of reform could approach $2 trillion if the projections are made from the date that proposals are fully implemented. While the projected cost for a new system may reach $1.5 trillion for 2010-2019, it could run significantly higher for 2013-2022, as healthcare costs rise steadily each year."

So a universal health care bill that is potentially going to cost 2 trillion dollars will leave 2/3 of the 47 million people estimated to be uninsured... uninsured? Obviously at the core of Kennedy's heart is a desire to help the people... not to expand government and take more civil liberties and independence from people, and not to create a larger voting base for the party that supports an expansion of government... no, those obviously are not top concerns for these policy makers. Couldn't be further from their minds.

This health care thing sounds REALLY familiar. That's because in some ways George W. Bush already pulled this stunt when he passed the $550 billion medicare bill, at the time the biggest increase in social spending since FDR. Since the bill's initial passing the cost of it has skyrocketed, and that was during a GOOD economy, not the stagnant, and perhaps slowly declining mess our economy has become and will be over the next several years for Obama's masterpiece.

New White House Estimate Lifts Drug Benefit Cost to $720 Billion
Feb. 8 - The Bush administration offered a new estimate of the cost of the Medicare drug benefit on Tuesday, saying it would cost $720 billion in the next 10 years.

The original cost stated by W was 400 billion, so 720 billion represents a 180% increase in cost. In other words, if this health care thing is ANYTHING like W's debacle (and it will be worse...) then at the very least, you can expect Obama's projected 1 trillion cost to be 1.8 trillion. BUT...... the real scary part is Obama is basing his numbers off of statistics that are ALREADY incorrect. 45.7 million uninsured??? Well those are 2007 numbers.

Worst year for jobs since '45 to the tune of 2.6 million jobs
Weak outlook for jobs, GDP in 2009
UCLA report expects 2 million jobs lost, four straight quarters of GDP decline.
"In the report, senior economist David Shulman said the recession will include four quarters of declining real gross domestic product, and unemployment will rise to 8.5% by late 2009 from the 6.7% reported last month."
Hey wait a minute.... its mid 2009 and isn't the unemployment significantly worse than 8.5%?
U.S. Civilian Unemployment Rate Forecast
Currently at 9.2%, the forecast here says it may be 10.9% by the end of the year.
So if the original projection of 8.5% represents 2 million jobs, it seems to me that the correct number should actually be an approximation of 2.6 million (again) (of course it would have been much worse without the stimulus package *wink*)
Totalling 5.2 million people who will probably be soon unemployed.... that is likely a modest increase because doesn't count potential family members that they had on their insurance.

So.... 45.7+5.2= 50.9 million MEANING..... The number of uninsured have already increased by 13% also increasing initial cost estimates by this same value.

What also needs to be considered is the ripple effect.... Much like an ecosystem disrupting one thing will have BROAD ramifications in other areas which on the surface may not seem closely connected. Lets list a few.

1) The public alternative that Democrats desire will employ thousands who will have their salary paid for by you and I (regardless of whether we are on the public system... ironic isn't it?). Regulations will favor the public system which will make it more attractive for individuals and businesses to choose it over the private insurance providers. The private companies will ultimately begin laying people off, and while the government may pick up some of those employees, most will be left without income.

2) Rationing. It is already on the table, this is precisely what Barack's 1.7 trillion cost cutting conversation with providers is about. What does it really mean? Well it means less equipment, less tests, less preventative care, less choice for you to choose. Even when you are willing to pay out of your own pocket if push comes to shove... Sans insurance, you won't be able to. Less equipment means a lower quality of health care. Less preventative medicine. More pain, more going without, even if technically you have health care when you once did not. Less equipment means less demand meaning... layoffs... medical suppliers begin laying people off, as do hospitals etc. This will likely happen over time but it means LESS people in the employment force and MORE people that the government will have to insure, further increasing the costs.

3)Medical Advancement dries up. Pressure for low costing prescription drugs, increased regulation over industry, and more lax patent laws becomes the equalizer for one of the last vestiges of a powerhouse that used to be the US economy. High Tech see you later. If we are lucky we'll have a few generics manufacturers pop up, but it is more likely that they'll choose to locate in more favored locations like India and China. This means... YEP you guessed it, More layoffs, less tax revenue, and more people for the government to insure on that wonderful public system that is supposed to create competition. Oh and yes of course it means poorer quality care.

I could go on.... but I think you get the idea. The main reason these ideas don't work is that to collect tax revenue to support a broad social system you need steady income. The problem is the broad social system actually stifles the economy! How is this sustainable? Perhaps we should ask someone from California, or an ex Soviet maybe? Paying people with the money they pay you???? Ooooh my head hurts.