This story about Ohio has nationwide application. That's because Ohio's media have been awfully quiet about the tax increases that will be necessary if the Buckeye State's version of "universal health care" comes to pass. The bill was introduced on April 25, according to this Ohio Legislative Services Commission bill analysis, and has flown under the radar ever since. I expect that national Old Media scrutiny of the Second Coming of Hillarycare will also be minimal.
My interest in the so-called "Ohio Health Care Plan" was perked when I heard an ad from the Ohio Chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) claiming that the plan would cost Ohio taxpayers $50 billion.
$50 billion. With a "b." In one state.
That's over $4,400 for every man, woman, and child in Ohio, or over $17,000 for a family of four.
A separate fiscal analysis by the Legislative Services Commission is pending, so I thought that the NFIB might be engaging in a bit of reckless hyperbole.
They are not.
A cruise through the state-related stats at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMMS) shows that total health care expenditures in Ohio from all sources (employees, employers, Medicare, and Medicaid) were $65.6 billion in 2004 (a very large JPEG copy of the relevant page that will open in a separate window is here). Add 20% or so to that $65.6 billion to account for health care inflation in the intervening years, and a good ballpark estimate for statewide health care expenditures in 2007 is $80 billion.
Now, about how much of that $80 billion is currently handled by Medicare and Medicaid? Here's your answer, with the 2004 numbers coming from the same source (see this CMMS page for links to PDFs of State-by-State Medicaid and Medicare costs):

The NFIB's $50 billion is right there in the red box.
So, based on estimated costs today, a truly universal, single-payer system, as is being proposed, would shift responsibility for all of the estimated $50.9 billion in payments currently being made by "-EEs, -ERs and others" to ..... the State of Ohio.
That means that the State of Ohio would have to raise taxes, revenues, fees, etc. by $50.9 billion a year (i.e., over $4,400 per person or over $17,000 for a family of four), so the State would have the money to pay for all of the services for which it has assumed responsibility.
A little context: The entire two-year 2007-2009 budget for the Buckeye State just passed by the General Assembly is $52 billion.
But you may be thinking, "Big deal. If employers and employees didn't have to pay health insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, and direct costs (for self-insured employers), you're just talking about a cost-shift."
For that not to be a "big deal," you'd need to have confidence that the government will be a more efficient provider of medical services than the private sector.
On the surface, it's an appealing argument. After all, administrative services currently at all of the different providers might be consolidated into one leaner operation, management layers might be eliminated, etc.
The trouble is that reality differs -- bigtime.
If the government were so much more efficient at providing medical services, it should have long since proven its efficiency in the provision of Medicare and Medicaid services. After all, you would think that once you get to a million members, economies of scale should have kicked in.
It hasn't happened, even, as you'll see, if you separate out the uninsured from the non-Medicare/Medicaid population:

(2004 is the latest year for which complete data is available. Cost per person for Medicare and Medicaid came from this Exhibit at Health Affairs, and total Ohio population in 2004 from the Census Bureau. The Total Spending numbers were already discussed above. All other items are calculated as expected. The calculated statewide cost per person is only $1 different from the figure at this link. The uninsured figure came from the Ohio Health Policy Review.)
Okay, you can argue that the Medicare difference is explainable, because it covers the higher-cost elderly. I doubt that this accounts for the entire difference, but I'll let it go for the moment.
The Medicare justification isn't available with Medicaid. And it doesn't include amounts likely in the hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions, in cost-shifting from Medicaid to the rest of the population (this occurs in Medicare too).
Adverse selection? I'm not buying it. That argument has worn out its welcome, because for at least a decade, employers have been required to fully cover anyone who applies, regardless of pre-existing conditions, as long as that person had employer or other coverage when they applied for employment at their new company. Even pre-existing condition riders go away after 12 months.
So the promoters of the Ohio Health Care Plan want us to shift all insurance coverage from the lower-cost private sector to the higher-cost public sector. Costs will explode to the tune of billions of dollars -- and that's even before you consider the ramp-up in utilization when health care is perceived as a "free" good, or the increase in the number and types of conditions that will inevitably be covered.
This is madness.
Now to the Second Coming of Hillarycare. If the tax increases required in just one state for the Ohio Health Care Plan will be over $50 billion, how can Hillary Clinton credibly claim that her "universal" health care scheme will only "cost" $110 billion, $370 per person? Why is Old Media not challenging a number that, based on applying Ohio's plan to the rest of the country, appears to be off by at least a factor of 10?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What did Buckeye voters expect?
September 20, 2007 - 20:31 ET by goldenthroatAs a resident of Ohio this proposal scares the beegeebies out of me. First of all, this is what happens when liberals increase in numbers or take over the governor's mansion - in spite of the knucklehead Republican governor we had before.
I saw this coming when I voted last fall. If the libs can't start something like this on the national level, they'll try it on the state level first. Govenor Strickland would more than likely sign this into law if it gets passed in the statehouse.
Ohioans need to rise up and protest this socialist agenda to their state legislative reps and senators before our wallets get even thinner and socialized medicine crowds doctors offices all over the state.
Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.
DITTO! Fellow Buckeye ...
September 20, 2007 - 20:41 ET by drillanwrDITTO! Fellow Buckeye ...
As a resident of OH, I am
September 20, 2007 - 22:01 ET by gueinAs a resident of OH, I am passing this along to my co-workers and anyone who will listen.
You hit the knuckle right on the head there goldenthroat.
September 21, 2007 - 09:26 ET by KarmaCeleste...Voinovich...Taft...Strickland. Two R's & two "D"'s. I voted for two of them ONCE. Not a big difference between them in my opinion. What else can you expect from a State who gave me the honor of plugging my ears and moaning at last years' Ohio State University commencement address.
I suggest we start a list
September 20, 2007 - 20:41 ET by motherbeltI suggest we start a list of things that the government has done more efficiently and at a lower cost than the private sector.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
motherbelt,
September 24, 2007 - 15:16 ET by Dave RHere's your list:
Impressive, ain't it?
Tom, as a business
September 20, 2007 - 20:43 ET by JABTom, as a business owner in Florida, this is exactly why I am an active member of NFIB. They are a quality organization that looks out for us, the small business owner.
Thanks for the article, those less educated (read as eye's closed) might learn something from your dedication to expose the truth.
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
Ohio is spelled with two zeroes
September 20, 2007 - 21:29 ET by Lame CherryI will of course with the following comments upset a number of Ohio people, but if the stupid fits......wear it.
After suffering under that crook Taft who seemed to have a way of loosing investment money, they tossed off the best GOP candidate to who was honest for the current communist in office.
You have to understand Ohio people though. They are all the offspring of massive wages, massive real estate inflationary wealth, massive union influence and massive motor and defense contracts keeping ole pops around bleeding the nation dry in benefits. They are allot like Minnesotans in being too engulfed in their own dimentia to know anything besides 3 year old me me me exists.
They are a doper, redneck, ghetto and leftist ilk coupled with a very well to do millionaire class which gets you an Ohio brain on drugs between Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde.
I once in a discussion had a woman inform me how great Bill Clinton was at passing legislation (she had been informed of this by her ditzy clan) and was astounded to speechless when told that Bill Clinton passed ALL Republican bills which dealt with Newt's Contract with America.
Ohio people are what came out of the trailer class, got nifty jobs, lost nifty jobs, but have been living on Gramp's wealth as they drive their state into ruin.
So enter the Democrat Governor with all the suckling oinker answers in health care..........having the answers, because Hillary has hinted to him if makes Ohio into a communist state she or Al Gore will make him Vice President......and like a panting dog Gov. Poodle is in the process to implementing the Arkansas health plan.
Now of course Ohio people are too busy with dope, football and acting like moral people in public to be bothered with a little thing like they are signing away themselves into eternal slavery in trying to pay for this.
I would point out what do you think is going to happen when real estate markets have no more people who can afford 10 grande an acre farmland.....the entire system will collapse into a state owned provision of housing for people working for health care.
So throw down Ohio people who take offense at the above comments that you are stupid people.......what is the definition of a people who enslave themselves by charging themselves the bill of sale............blacks never even did that in slavery. They at least had to be rounded up by other blacks and sold.
That though is communist Ohio spelled now with two zeroes for lack of intelligence.
Hike!
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
PS Hillarycare
September 20, 2007 - 21:33 ET by Lame CherryWas not Hillary touting her plan would cost an additional 100 billion or so for health care?
As Ohio will cost 50 billion alone, America is talking about a number 2.5 Trillion Dollars A YEAR for Hillarycare.
Worth repeating, 2.5 Trillion Dollars a year for Hillarycare.
There will not be a thing left of America literally after 1 year.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Ohio
September 20, 2007 - 22:41 ET by Tom BlumerAs an Ohioan, I think your tripe is too tedious to waste my time being offended. You could at least consider sparing SW Ohio (home of Boehner, Chabot, and Schmidt, three consistently conservative congresscritters) your wrath. I'll admit the pickings are slim after that.
Can't wait to hear what you have to say about NY, MA, and NJ.
Just wait till the
September 21, 2007 - 08:21 ET by Roger the ShrubberJust wait till the Youngstown mob sees Lame's rant!
People who talk too much...
September 21, 2007 - 10:08 ET by Karmaare usually liberal with extreme exagerations. Do you stand by your "all" and "they" generalizations Lame?
Terrific report,
September 20, 2007 - 21:55 ET by jdhawkTerrific report, Tom!
Where to start . . .
It appears that this is just what is needed - a little sunshine shone on the issue. However, we probably will never get it.
Note, the drive-by media has talked about everything but the specific plan that Clintoon has laid out. She states that it will only cost 110 billion. Even without you walking us through the numbers for just Ohio, we know that her numbers are low balling it to the extreme.
So, let's do the numbers.
It there are 300,000 million Americans and it costs $7,343 (see dollar figure for Medicare in the above article) per year per American, that equals over $2 trillion dollars.
In case you were wondering, our federal budget went over $2 trillion dollars for the first time this fiscal year! So, like Ohio, expect that the federal budget will double if this crazy plan of billary ever gets inacted.
That is simply outrageous!
If the above doesn't motivate our citizens to run the liberals out of office next year, I don't know what will.
You don't think age can
September 20, 2007 - 21:55 ET by cleverpigYou don't think age can account for a difference in spending of a thousand-odd dollars per person? Accoding to HHS, healthcare costs in the last year of life account for 28% of total Medicare spending. That's huge! Between the year people die and five years before that, their healthcare costs rise TEN FOLD. Given that 75% of those 65 and older rely on Medicare to cover their healthcare costs, I think that could more than make up for an 18% difference between private and government health coverage.
OK, cleverpic, have it your
September 20, 2007 - 22:02 ET by jdhawkOK, cleverpic, have it your way.
So, let's do the numbers:
If there are 300,000 million Americans and it costs $5,070 (see dollar figure for EE, ER, Other in the above article) per year per American, that equals over $1.5 trillion dollars.
In case you were wondering, our federal budget went over $2 trillion dollars for the first time this fiscal year! So, like Ohio, expect that the federal budget will nearly double if this crazy plan of billary's ever gets inacted.
That's a far cry from Clintoon's $110 billion or $370 per American per year. Do you agree? Are you outraged, yet? If not, why not?
The numbers for EE and ER
September 21, 2007 - 22:00 ET by cleverpigThe numbers for EE and ER represent money that we are already paying, either through wages we never get because our employer contributes or through insurance premiums. Our healthcare already costs that much. The only increase in cost will be in any inefficiency introduced by centralization. I think the preponerance of elderly who are factored into the Medicare figures accounts for the numbers there, so I don't see anything here that indicates healthcare will cost more this way. Ideally, bureaucratic inefficiencies will be balanced out by economies of scale.
Personally, even if there is a slight increase in overall cost when all is said and done, I think it is worth it to make sure that fewer people slip through the cracks.
The Trouble Is
September 21, 2007 - 22:32 ET by Tom BlumerThe trouble is that it hasn't worked out that way in Canada, Britain, France, etc. etc. etc.
People aren't falling through the cracks. Since 1986, as Gregg Jackson points out, "The U.S. Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986 which requires emergency rooms to treat any person who shows up seeking medical treatment, regardless of their ability to pay or whether they are a legal US citizen or an illegal alien."
So who is falling through the cracks?
There are lots of things
September 22, 2007 - 23:06 ET by cleverpigThere are lots of things not covered by basic emergency room care, including the kind of care that prevents trips to the emergency room!
You do have a valid point
September 21, 2007 - 10:48 ET by dscottYou do have a valid point on senior care being far more costly than other age groups. As has already been pointed out, Medicare farmed out many of the seniors to private insurers like United Health Care to contain costs and actually get better benefits than Medicare proper. However, what is your explaination for Medicaid being so high per person?
The central issue here is really not equal access to medical care as everyone by law can walk into an emergency room if they are in need of medical treatment, it really is about a power grab, who gets to make the decisions? I have no confidence in government bureaucrats to make a proper decision about individual health care choices which are more appropriately between the doctor and the patient. HMOs enforced a discipline of sorts as to what are the standard medically accepted care should be for a given medical problem forcing a doctor a to explain him/her self if they deviated from those accepted protocols. At least with HMO's they can be sued if they restrict medical treatment inappropriately, not so with the government bureaucracy, their word is final.
IMO what's really going on here is that the Dems recognize the Medicare Trust Fund is going to go broke as the demographics continue toward more seniors porportionately in the population. No amount of cost control is going to save Medicare without increasing the dollar amount of healthier payers pay into the system, hence Socialized Medicine will cover up the problem.
Additionally, we need to recognize that Medicaid is mostly funded by the States, Ohio gets to walk away from it's obligation under this proposal since the cost will be shifted from the State directly onto the backs of the taxpayer in the form of insurance premiums and hence it ceases to be a "tax". Thus the Dems can claim either tax expenses went down or even better for them, they now have a pot of money freed up to bribe the next group of fools. There are no altrustic reasons to do Socialized Medicine, it's just a cover to do something else.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
There are two major
September 21, 2007 - 13:08 ET by BruzillaThere are two major differences between Medicare and Medicaid, which result in differences in how much they cost. The first is that most people who enroll in Medicare already have insurance with another carrier. Few seniors rely on Medicare as a sole provider. What usually happens is they'll keep their benefits when they retire (if they are able) and Medicare becomes a primary insurer while the existing insurer becomes secondary. Most Medicaid members do not have a secondary insurer and Medicaid gets hit with the whole bill.
The second reason is that under Medicare Part C, aka Medicare Advantage, private insurers can choose to absorb costs for service that's not covered by Medicare. This often results in members obtaining services that Medicare doesn't have to pay for. Medicaid doesn't have this option.
I strongly disagree that
September 21, 2007 - 22:08 ET by cleverpigI strongly disagree that this is a power grab. Government is already intricately tied to HMOs and other healthcare industry, they don't need to take the whole thing over in order to share a bed.
Maybe it's about saving social security, but why not save social security if a plan like this would actually make it solvent? The alternative to saving it is royally screwing at least one generation of Americans who will pay into a system and never see any benefit. That stinks.
Social Security
September 21, 2007 - 22:27 ET by Tom BlumerHow this relates to SocSec you'll have to explain.
The only potential "relationship" I see is that the inevitable rationing of care to the elderly will cause them to die sooner and cut down on SocSec payments while cutting down life expectancy at the same time.
Ultimately I suspect that
September 22, 2007 - 21:21 ET by dscottUltimately I suspect that given the demonstrated track record of Socialist medical systems in rationing care to the elderly, if allowed to proceed will result in the premature deaths. IMO, what we are on the verge of seeing is a well planned culling of the population, beginning with the genocide of the elderly. Yes, I realize that sounds extreme, however, when 10,000 instutitionalized people died in France during the heatwave because they choose not to have air conditioning. That was a bureaucratic choice, among many more choices that bureaucrats make when they have the power to make those choices without accountability other than the bottom line. If you think Capitalists are heartless because the weigh actions by their efficiency, Socialists are absolutely cruel because they weigh the value of the individual as worthless.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
While you can disagree with
September 22, 2007 - 23:07 ET by cleverpigWhile you can disagree with the priorities in a socialist system, I think accusing them of planning to kill the elderly is wild paranoia!
I said it was my opinion,
September 23, 2007 - 11:00 ET by dscottI said it was my opinion, (IMO), based on the track record. You are right, there is a fine line between sitting down as a group to plot the deaths of people (murder) and sitting down as a group to follow an agenda that ultimately causes the deaths of people (incompetence). Was their plan apart of an intentional agenda or a byproduct of their agenda? In legal speak, this fine line is called gross negligence versus simple negligence. Gross Negligence is when you knew that a situation existed will result in harm and did nothing, whereas Simple Negligence is you should have known better based on the circumstances. I contend Socialists are incompetent boobs whose agenda is more important to them than the consequences on the individual. Sometimes however, I have to wonder how it is possible for a group of people to be that obtuse about the consequences of their choices.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
As someone who has many
September 24, 2007 - 13:29 ET by cleverpigAs someone who has many family members living in democratic socialist countries right now, I can say there are many many positive consequences to the choices socialists make. The lifestyle my relatives enjoy is almost unheard of in this country. At the same time, none of them are millionaires. We trade security and relative comfort for boundless opportunity. In the end, I think the extremes of both systems are bad news, and I think if you tried living in a purely free market capitalist society, you'd agree.
People die in heat waves in the U.S., too, and we have to pay for the priviledge!
"We trade security and
September 24, 2007 - 13:36 ET by MightyMouth"We trade security and relative comfort for boundless opportunity"
Gee, I wonder which country ultimately provides for their security since they don't provide for their own? Could it be old dependable USA? hmmm?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Different kind of security
September 25, 2007 - 02:44 ET by cleverpigI don't mean military security, I mean personal security-- financial, health, etc.
notsocleverpig, you are full of bs
September 24, 2007 - 14:05 ET by RJ"I can say there are many many positive consequences to the choices socialists make. The lifestyle my relatives enjoy is almost unheard of in this country."
Yes, we understand that you love Socialism, but you're not going to get away unchallenged with that broad and unlikely generalization.
I'm calling your hand, notsoclever. I want details. I want your firsthand, specific proof of this worker's utopia.
RJ, Those examples are
September 24, 2007 - 14:28 ET by LeonRJ,
Those examples are plentiful. I'll start:
France - average number of vacation days = 37
USA - average number of vacation days = 13
I'd say over a month of vacation is a lifestyle that is unheard of in this country.
Not true Leon. I get 6
September 24, 2007 - 14:32 ET by bassndudeNot true Leon. I get 6 weeks a year.
Military get 30 days a year.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, 1) How long have
September 24, 2007 - 14:33 ET by LeonBass,
1) How long have been at your job?
2) 30 days is not more than a month.
Leon, 1) a little less
September 24, 2007 - 14:37 ET by bassndudeLeon,
1) a little less than 30 years...very little less, but still less than.
2) If you include reenlistment leaves, sick time off and hollidays, military get more than a month off every year. 4 days thanksgiving, almost always 4 or 5 days at christmas. There were some years while I was in I got more than 90 days off that year.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Exactly my point
September 24, 2007 - 14:43 ET by LeonExactly my point bass.
1) I don't get 30 vacation days until my 26th year of service! Most people don't have this many vacation days until they've worked for a loooong time. In a socialist country, you get this many vacation days from day one of hire. That is a different lifestyle than America. I've shown this with the average number of vacation days.
2) Sick time & Holidays are not vacation days.
Leon, Ive been getting 6
September 24, 2007 - 14:47 ET by bassndudeLeon, Ive been getting 6 weeks a year for 20 years now. I dident have to work that long to get there. Of course, I will not get any more. I am at the max.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Americans don't want time off...
September 24, 2007 - 14:56 ET by TruthMongerI know a guy who has not taken a vacation in almost 15 years - he hates vacation. And after 10 years I had two cousins and an aunt both with 2 months of time off accrued at their companies - and they had to be forced to take the time off...
That's wild bass. Well
September 24, 2007 - 15:01 ET by LeonThat's wild bass. Well great for you!
However, I think that you are the exception to the rule in the good old USA.
A good point, but while it
September 24, 2007 - 15:01 ET by dscottA good point, but while it may be great benefit to some individuals, how about the cost of this great benefit? Having relatives there, I know unemployment is at 10% and age discrimination is LEGAL. One of my cousins was tossed from her job after she trained a younger person. This is legal in Germany as a means to trade out older for younger workers. The justification for this discrimination is the government made a decision that if there is going to be unemployment, the younger people of child bearing age should be employed. The reason there is such high unemployment is the government decided that the minimum wage and benefits will be such that no commercial enterprise will pay a small wage. This bass ackwards thinking ensured unemployment because it was too expensive to employ more people, not to mention, the Blue Laws long ago abandoned in the US are still in effect in Europe! But not for religious reasons, the quality of life issue the government decided was that businesses are not open generally on Sundays, most stores close up shop after 6 p.m. on week days and 9 p.m. on Saturdays. Fully 40% of the potential man hours that could be worked are closed off by government policy, hence the high unemployment. That btw is why Europeans use less energy than the US, it's called restricted energy utilization by business. These are all choices made by Socialists.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
dscott, Again I agree
September 24, 2007 - 15:05 ET by Leondscott,
Again I agree with your post, but I wasn't trying to argue it was better to have more vacation. I was simply saying that over a month of vacation is almost unheard of in America and I think for the most part, this is true.
Obviously more vacation has many many downsides.
Oh and Bass keep in mind,
September 24, 2007 - 14:35 ET by LeonOh and Bass keep in mind, cleverpig said ALMOST unheard of.
Ahh, ok. Almost unheard
September 24, 2007 - 14:38 ET by bassndudeAhh, ok. Almost unheard of.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Hell, leon, if time off is your criteria for a "good lifestyle",
September 24, 2007 - 14:37 ET by RJ.....all those people on the dole have more time off than that. Sorry, no cigar.
Still, I'd rather hear from notsocleverpig's family experience, rather than from you American would-be leftists who are looking at socialism through an emotional Walt Disney lens.
RJ, You should stick to
September 24, 2007 - 14:40 ET by LeonRJ,
You should stick to what he said instead of trying to extrapolate.
I never commented on the validity/'goodness' for a society in having lots of vacation days.
I merely pointed out that over a month of vacation is "is almost unheard of in this country."
In this I am correct and you are wrong.
NIce try, leon....still no cigar
September 24, 2007 - 14:42 ET by RJ"lifestyle" isn't limited to time off.
It's a clear example of
September 24, 2007 - 14:44 ET by LeonIt's a clear example of difference between our lifestyle and the socialist lifestyle.
That is all. One example. You asked for one, I gave you one.
Not even sure what you're arguing about.
Of course you're not sure, leon
September 24, 2007 - 14:48 ET by RJYou jumped to a knee-jerk defense of Socialism without having a clear idea of what notsocleverpig (or I) had said.
Try reading the thread with comprehension, instead of what you THINK you read.
BTW, You are incorrect in stating that I asked for an example. I challenged him for proof of a lifestyle. Time off is not a "lifestyle." My dog has time off.
Rj, I am 100% on topic
September 24, 2007 - 15:04 ET by LeonRj,
I am 100% on topic and my post is directly in line with cleverpigs post and your reply. I read accurately.
Cleverpig said his family lives a lifestyle almost unheard of in America.
You challenged him aggressively asking for examples.
I showed you an example of a lifestyle factor (vacation) that is almost of unheard of in America.
End of discussion.
Vacation is a lifestyle factor. You can't be serious. You're arguing for the sake of arguing and it looks ridiculous.
Leon, my dog has "time off"
September 24, 2007 - 15:19 ET by RJ"End of discussion?" hahahaha! roflmao!
Leon, you keep saying I asked for "examples", but in fact, I told him I wanted proof of the better lifestyle he said socialists have.
No matter how defiantly you say it (in your cute and amusing way ;^> ), "time off", in and of itself, does not constitute a "lifestyle."
RJ, Tough day? Long
September 24, 2007 - 15:35 ET by LeonRJ,
Tough day? Long weekend? Brain fizzling on this Monday afternoon?
Somebody's got a case of the mondays? Awwwh.
1) You didn't ask for proof of a better lifestyle. You asked him to back up his assertion that his relatives in socialist countries enjoy a lifestyle completely unheard of in America.
2) Vacation is a factor of lifestyle. It's a piece of your overall lifestyle picture. Not sure how you're trying to argue against this.
3) Your dog's employed? That's incredible. What does he do for a career? How many vacation days does your dog get. Notice I've never said time off, from my first post I specifically referenced VACATION DAYS. It's only possible to have scheduled vacation days when you have a job. So unless your dog is working 9 to 5, I can't figure out why you would use him as an example.
Wow. It's kind of sad to see arguing so desperately for no other reason than you feel the need to argue.
leon, you're wound up a little tightly this afternoon
September 24, 2007 - 15:50 ET by RJLighten up, for goodness sake. I tried to put a little humor into the conversation with the dog comment, but you seem to have some kind of ranting anal-retention thing going. Now you want me to defend my dog's lifestyle? ;^>
Sorry, youngster, no matter how many times you repeat it in your knee-jerk defense of Socialism, time off doesn't make a "lifestyle."
P.S. Say, didn't you forget to include the government mandated short hour work week? There's even more proof of the "advantage" of your worker's utopia....
RJ
September 25, 2007 - 03:11 ET by cleverpigLay off Leon!
He had a valid point, for goodness sakes. And I'm a she, for future reference :)
My family is in Norway. They get six weeks of paid vacation from the day they start working. Paid maternity and paternity leave that is about twice as long as you can usually get here. The government pays a stipend each month for each child in the household until they are 18 to ensure that the family can afford necessities. Child care is paid for. As for age, in Norway there are systems that allow you to keep seniority earned at one job when you move to another, so that even if you've had to change companies there are some benefits for having worked for many years. When my aunt retired the government even sponsored classes to help seniors find hobbies and social activities to keep them active and happy. My grandparents died peacefully in a remarkably pleasant nursing facility that provided apartments for relatives to stay when they were visiting, as long as they wanted, free of charge. I only got to visit them there once, but they were happy, and the staff was caring and attentive. (Edit: other things I remember-- the government will fly you to other countries to get medical care you can't find in Norway. And if you live in a remote area and can't afford a car, they buy you one.)
Yes, there are costs to socialism. Both of my parents moved here from socialist countries because they were smart, entreprenurial people who felt stifled by the lack of economic opportunity in their native countries. They stayed here because the system worked for them, and because they fell in love with this country (and each other, that didn't hurt either!)
But coming from a system with such different values, they can't help but be saddened when they see people who are left behind in this country. They are frustrated with American pop culture that only seems to value personal success, rather than community. And they, and I, see many ways in which this country could do a little more to take care of the less fortunate without losing the drive and inventiveness that makes us great.
Both of my parents moved
September 25, 2007 - 08:27 ET by dscottBoth of my parents moved here from socialist countries because they were smart, entreprenurial people who felt stifled by the lack of economic opportunity in their native countries. They stayed here because the system worked for them, and because they fell in love with this country (and each other, that didn't hurt either!)
But coming from a system with such different values, they can't help but be saddened when they see people who are left behind in this country. They are frustrated with American pop culture that only seems to value personal success, rather than community. And they, and I, see many ways in which this country could do a little more to take care of the less fortunate without losing the drive and inventiveness that makes us great.
That's the problem in a nutshell Clever, socialism stiffles opportunity, opportunity only comes with risk, you can not have the reward without risk. It is inherent in a Capitalistic system which rewards initiative, education and skills that some be at the bottom. Those who refuse to compete or fail to grasp that life is not about being a lump on a log will always be at the bottom in our system. However, there are many reasons for failure, not everyone who fails to prosper does so because of their own merit or lack there of, sometimes their parents set them up for failure by the lifestyle they choose to live (single parenthood). Some people choose to live at the bottom because it is the easiest thing to do, hence the Welfare class we frequently deride. Government and those like you who feel sorry for people actually "enable" failure by creating a situation where failure is an option since someone will always bail them out. There is far too much enabling here and we refuse to be like Europe. They should move to Europe where their lack of initiative will be handsomely rewarded.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
You honestly think that if
September 25, 2007 - 19:24 ET by cleverpigYou honestly think that if we refused all help, no one would fail? Poverty, then, only exists where public assistance enables it? That's ridiculous. Your world-view conveniently leaves out those who fail because of unfortunate circumstances, because of bad luck, illness, natural disaster-- or perhaps because of disabilities that do prevent them from competing. If, in order to help those people, we occasionally also help out people who are just lazy, that's fine by me.
If, in order to help those
September 26, 2007 - 08:58 ET by dscottIf, in order to help those people, we occasionally also help out people who are just lazy, that's fine by me.
A premise that has played itself out with devastating consequences. You claim to be for the unfortunate however, I submit the lazy people you discount by enabling are far worse off by being permanently trapped in a subsistance lifestyle and the millions of kids being born out of wedlock are disadvantaged in so many cruel ways. The consequences of this largess are not benign. This is why the government should not be in the business of handouts, only volunteer groups without the lack of imagination of the bureaucracy can help the truly disadvantaged on a "short" term basis which teaches them independence and self initiative. Government has had decades to teach this and failed, in fact the only reason why the welfare roles decreased is because they were pushed out by time limits. No Clever, I must disagree with you, misplaced compassion is far crueler in it's unintended consequences than you can imagine.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
notsocleverpig
September 25, 2007 - 10:17 ET by RJ"Lay off leon?" Why? Because he agrees with you? Leon jumped onto my post to you and made a single point about time off. He tried to claim that was all he needed as "proof of a lifestyle." That, and his subsequent childish behavior is leon's way of making the argument about him and not about the subject at hand. You, on the other hand, have tried to answer my question honestly. That, of course, is the difference between a troll and a sincere (but wrong ;^> ) poster.
As for your description of all the supposed government largess provided by Socialism, I note you conveniently overlook the constant government intrusion into people's lives and decision-making for people that those nanny states impose. Truly, Socialism is about control, not about "giving" anything to people.
You point out that your parents are "entreprenurial people who felt stifled by the lack of economic opportunity in their native countries", forcing them to move. Have you considered that socialism always leads to a lessening of the best of human spirit: motivation and initative? And, so far as I can tell, Socialism also leads to farmer/livestock behavior. Not exactly the "lifestyle" I dream of.
Regarding "community", you can't dictate it, like Socialists want to do...you grow it. Sure, America isn't perfect, as you guys love to point out, but it keeps trying, and it's the best thing to come along so far.
Norway is a democratic
September 25, 2007 - 19:15 ET by cleverpigNorway is a democratic socialist contry, which means that the government is voted in by the people, regularly. There is no mysterious elite controlling things for everyone else. And while I don't know every detail of the system, I have never seen any evidence of this "farmer" government making decisions for people. No one tells my relatives where to live, or how to live, what to eat or drink, what to do with their free time, or with their work. While the government controls major industries, there are plenty of smaller scale private enterprises to work for, or start for yourself.
You are right, in my opinion, that a socialist system will always have some degree of a stifling effect on innovation, but I think maybe a certain amount of that is worth the benefits. Only if you think of the health of your community as a whole, though, which I think few Americans are really all that concerned with. That makes me sad.
And yes, you can't force community, you grow it. Socialism grew out of that community spirit, not the other way around.
It's not "mysterious" individuals who control, notsocleverpig
September 25, 2007 - 19:35 ET by RJIt's the system that controls. Socialism is beaurocracy run amuck. Sure, there are many levels of Socialism, but they ALL continue to amass control of the people. Even Communism sees Socialism as only a "waypoint" to it's goals.
I don't know how long you've been here, but, clearly, you don't really understand America. Your belief that few of us are all that concerned with community proves that. And I doubt you'll ever grasp the true benefits of capitalism to the people, or why we prefer it's freedoms to Socialism.
By the way, if you love Socialism so much, why are you here?
I've been here all my
September 26, 2007 - 01:30 ET by cleverpigI've been here all my life. And I don't hate it here, I just think things could be improved. As, no doubt, do you. It doesn't mean you should leave.
I don't think Americans lack a sense of community, but we worship the wealthy in a way that I think many europeans find bizarre. That is, wealth itself is a virtue, redardless of how it was obtained or what is done with it. We slaver over celebrities, and put up with systems that benefit the already-advantaged at our own expense because we hold out hope of one day being at the top. That culture just isn't present in most socialist coutries.
Note that I specifically condemned pop culture. I know that average Americans feel a strong sense of community and value each other for charitable works. But we also watch reality TV and read celebrity news. It's a strange paradox, and I think that culture is part of what keeps the disparity in this country between the rich and the poor too large.
notsocleverpig says "Socialism grew out of that community spirit
September 26, 2007 - 10:04 ET by RJ...not the other way around."
Meaning you believe that Socialism is a natural outgrowth of "community spirit" and logically making Communism the next step in the enlightened advancement of communities. It terrifies me, notsoclever, that you are one of our "educators."
As for your rant about pop culture....are you serious? Pop culture is the cause of "disparity between rich and poor?" The more you reveal about your beliefs, notsoclever, the more you sound like you're parroting Marx.
}}---> Parroting Marx
September 26, 2007 - 10:08 ET by Cool ArrowYou mean all that "It Takes a Village" stuff isn't original?
I'm bummed, man. Like, totally bummed.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Engels Want a Cracker?
September 26, 2007 - 10:14 ET by Dr_Liberty<insert witty signature here>
I've never read Marx, so I
September 26, 2007 - 23:48 ET by cleverpigI've never read Marx, so I wouldn't know :)
I don't think that communism has to be the logical end point for someone who believes in socialism. After all, there are plenty of countries which stopped at socialism without ever giving communism a try. Socialism also often coexists happily with religion, which communism does not. For myself, I see a big difference between everyone chipping in to help raise up the most disadvantaged and the government insisting that everyone be perfectly equal. Economically they may be different points on the same scale, but politically I think they are very different in philosophy and priority.
Enabling
September 26, 2007 - 23:55 ET bynegative behaviors just isn't right cpig
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
notsocleverpig, if it's true that you've never read Marx,
September 27, 2007 - 09:51 ET by RJit's likely that you've been brainwashed (maybe 2nd or 3rd hand) by those who have, because you've been espousing his principles here at NB.
I suggest you do read him and that you begin to do some critical thinking on the subject. If you're going to help in the Communist movement, then you should at least do it with cognizance.
Otherwise, you come off as just another naif leftist, singing kumbayah.
I think my comments, while
September 28, 2007 - 01:36 ET by cleverpigI think my comments, while you obviously disagree with them, show that I have thought about this issue. I am an optimist, and proud of it. I don't think that makes me naive.
I think the fact that you can't talk about socialism without simultaneously talking about communism might be an indication that you are missing the subtler shades of this argument. They aren't the same thing. You can't scare me away from leftist leanings by waving the boogeyman of soviet communism any more than I could scare you away from your conservative opinions by shouting about Italiam fascism.
I think we should be capable of moving beyond these bully tactics and focusing on where the debate really is in this country-- on the world scale political discourse in the US ranges from slightly right of center to slightly left of center. So let's talk about what we're really talking about-- not hammers and sickles and brown shirts.
interesting, notsocleverpig
September 28, 2007 - 10:34 ET by RJYou espouse clearly Marxist values (although you admit that you don't even know what they are), but when I identify them as such, I'm accused of "bullying."
Congratulations on being an optimist. I am, too. Unlike me, though, you apparently confuse your state of mind with social policy. That's the very definition of Kumbayah, notsoclever!
When did I ever say Communism and Socialism is the "same thing?" That you confuse what I said again shows your political naivete. I said Socialism is recognized to be on the path to Communism....by Communists. I also said you espouse Marxist ideas without even knowing that you do.
Finally, this IS the subject. You openly want Socialism, and I'm pointing out that you're not even aware of what that entails.
I have relatives as well
September 24, 2007 - 14:18 ET by dscottI have relatives as well whom I visit in Germany, if one is willing to trade opportunity for a comfy lifestyle that advances little, Socialism is all fine and well. Why else do you think Europeans packed up and left for all points of the Globe? It was no different right after WWII.
Life is about choices, if you want the State to make your decisions you're welcome to it, move to Europe, if on the other hand you feel you want to have some control over your fate, then stay in the US. I will not stand quietly by while Hillary or some other Socialist jams their choices down my throat. 10,000 people dying in public institutions in one fell swoop (France) is not my idea of a positive consequence of Socialism.
I disagree, I don't think extremes are bad, they are incentives to better oneself. Everything in this world operates on disparity, a low and high potential, as anecdotally demonstrated, it is a fundamental Law of Thermodynamics. Question, what is the point of educating yourself to be a scientist, an engineer or doctor if there is no special benefit in it more so than being a factory worker, baker or garbage man? The whole point of disparity is to motivate and reward those who have the talent and intelligence which ultimately benefits us all. If a doctor is paid $500k a year, I'm not complaining because I enjoy the benefit of his/her skill and talent, of course I must pay for it. Additionally, if there is no reward for risk, why take any? Example, what if John Glenn and other Astronauts didn't take the risk they were handsomely rewarded for and just stayed on Earth? Much of our advanced technology came from the Space program and risks they took. They don't call it Eurosclerosis for nothing. Or something less esoteric like a high rise construction worker, if they are not going to be paid/compensated for a risky job, why should they do it? So I am not tired of living in a free market Capitalist society, on the contrary it is envigorating. When one of my relatives fled from East Germany before the Berlin Wall came down, he remarked at the "energy" he felt of this country. I know all about communism and socialism, my relatives experienced your so called utopia, you can keep it.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
Great post dscott. I
September 24, 2007 - 14:31 ET by LeonGreat post dscott.
I agree with most of what you said.
I see many positives in a socialist society but unfortunately those positives are rendered useless by one glaring reality.
Socialism breeds mediocrity. The best and brightest all move away eventually so they can make money. They come to America or places like America. Creates a serious skill vacuum.
In my opinion, this the major problem with socialism. It's hard to keep important people in your country.
Socialism breeds dictators
September 24, 2007 - 14:38 ET by Airforce_5_OSocialism breeds dictators also. It takes the power from the people and puts in the hands of a “all knowing government” (which does not exist). Evening a playing field in this manner takes away the one thing we all cherish...The freedom to choose and just plain freedom.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
That's strange Airforce.
September 24, 2007 - 14:41 ET by LeonThat's strange Airforce. I can't seem to think of a single socialist country that currently has a dictator.
Russia is really close at
September 24, 2007 - 14:44 ET by bassndudeRussia is really close at the moment. Only in the last 20 years did they have elections, and those are on the way out. China is another. Call them communist or socialist, either way. Germany, France, England and most european countries are democratic. Check the countries in Africa, and some in South America. Hugo is a dictator in a once democratic country.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Would like to know what kind
September 24, 2007 - 14:58 ET by PeskyDaneWould like to know what kind of latitude you'd allow in your definition of "socialist." I will grant that countries like Norway and Sweden are not run by dictators in the classical sense, but Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast and Eastern Asia, and Latin America are rife with countries whose governements exercise control/ownership over vast portions of their economies without a way to vote their leaders out of power.
Cuba? Venezuela? North
September 24, 2007 - 15:02 ET by TruthMongerCuba? Venezuela? North Korea? China?
TM, I'll give you those
September 24, 2007 - 15:11 ET by LeonTM,
I'll give you those 4.
Keep in mind Airforce said this is the case for ALL socialist countries.
Leon...
September 25, 2007 - 10:31 ET by vrwc13Keep in mind Airforce said this is the case for ALL socialist countries.
Nope, he never said all...
btw, I normally subscribe to verse #4, but in this case #5 applies...
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes. Proverbs 26
Look what Hitler did to
September 24, 2007 - 15:01 ET by Airforce_5_OLook what Hitler did to Germen. Chavez to Venezuela. Putan is doing it to Russian…AGAIN! The more power you give Government the less your freedoms. No where else in the world do people enjoy the freedoms we do in speech, religion, and the press. Not even Britain or Canada have all we have.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
Leon, that's a naive thing to say.
September 24, 2007 - 15:03 ET by RJ"President for life" Hugo Chavez.
"President for life" Fidel Castro
I could go on...
RJ, By all means, go
September 24, 2007 - 15:09 ET by LeonRJ,
By all means, go on...
1) Venezuala is socialist but much of their economy is privately owned.
2) Cuba...you are correct.
So continue the list.
No point, leon, the case has been made.
September 24, 2007 - 15:30 ET by RJ"That's strange Airforce. I can't seem to think of a single socialist country that currently has a dictator."
My examples and others on the thread prove your statement was silly....no need to keep proving it over and over.....
Airforce said socialism
September 24, 2007 - 15:39 ET by LeonAirforce said socialism breeds dictators.
If this is the case across the board, how come only 4 out of 16 socialist countries have dictators?
You won't go on with your list because you can't.
No, leon
September 24, 2007 - 15:55 ET by RJYou said you couldn't think of a single one. You've been given several. Don't you think you're being childish with this refusal to let go?
You really know how to step
September 24, 2007 - 17:54 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou really know how to step in it, Hater. What a dumbass.
You seem to think that
September 25, 2007 - 03:04 ET by cleverpigYou seem to think that factory workers and doctors are all paid the same in a socialist system. That is absolutely not true. It may be true in a communist system, I wouldn't know. And I don't think Glenn went to space for the dough! A socialist system simply has less disparity, not no disparity at all.
It's not just Ohio.
September 20, 2007 - 22:23 ET by ckc1227It's not just Ohio. Wisconsin projects their new "free health care" program will cost $15 billion a year... $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes. At $15 billion per state, that costs $750 billion per year for the whole country, which is just a tad more than Hilary's estimate of $100 or so billion.
"The ultimate Democrat constituent would be a public schoolteacher on welfare who needed an abortion and was suing her doctor."
Ann Coulter
Ha! a hundred billion here
September 24, 2007 - 15:47 ET by MightyMouthHa! a hundred billion here a hundred billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money. Haven't you heard? US taxpayers will pay regardless of the amount!
Hell, there's probably already a tax on takin a dump somewhere in the US. If not, get Hitlery in and there will be!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Backdoor Politics Again
September 20, 2007 - 23:42 ET by stratmanThank you for another excellent article Tom.
Ohio HB 186, the Ohio Health Care Plan which calls for a single payer universal health care plan for all Ohioans, has had a deliberate low key introduction. Media coverage has been scant and non-investigatory. The entire profile of this bill has been essentially via grassroots promotion though at a statewide level.
Out of approximately 150 google hits I can not find a single sceptical or even questioning website. Every website is either governmental (detailing the plan or discussing it's flow through the halls of government) or is very supportive (plenty using the word "Progressive" in their title or descriptions). But there are several sites that mention health insurance companies and Right Wingers as the big bad wolves, though without any specifics.
There was a link to SPAN's (Single Payer Action Network) website concerning myths against HB 186 but it was "404" not available. (Would you call that the myth of the myths?) The thrust of SPAN is to create a single payer insurance network which would obviate the need for multiple private insurer forms and, ultimately, the private insurers themselves.
So how would this plan be funded? On the backs of businesses and people earning greater than $97K. It is not explained why someone making $98K has to pay extra, though I would imagine one might save money by asking for a pay cut. (Thank you Communists) Here's the skinny on the proposed funding sources:
Gov. Strickland's plan merely shifts the costs from multiple private entities to the beauracracy of the State. In fact, Medicare and Medicaid are administered by (middlemen) private insurance companies because the federal government figured out the public sector sucked when it came to keeping costs down. (The government's proclamation that they have very low adminstration costs for CMMS is due to the fact they don't include the cost paid to private insurers to handle the lion's share of work) Now Ohio politicians, primarily those "progressive" ones, think they can do a better job. Usually I would say "Go get 'em tiger," but this will be my and my family's money they want to experiment on.
Maybe it could work. Maybe not. I want a LOT of sunshine and debate on this plan prior to any vote.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Yes I saw this and linked to it
September 21, 2007 - 00:38 ET by Tom BlumerThanks for commenting it in so my post didn't have to be a book.
What's interesting in the laundry list of taxes:
- Receipts from taxes levied on employers' payrolls, paid by the employers -- note the lack of specificity. That's the monster number. Betch it's about 10% of payroll.
- Receipts from additional income taxes, equal to 6.2% of an individual's compensation in excess of the amount subject to the Social Security payroll tax -- This is a bunch of libs angry that people don't pay the feds 6.2% into Social Security on every dollar they earn. So since the feds won't do it, the State of Ohio will. Bye-Bye all upper-middle and upper-class earners.
- Oh, and that 6.2% is on top of a 5% surcharge on incomes over $200,000. "The rich" will be socked with an increase in their tax rate of 11.2%! Indian Hill (rich suburb east of Cincinnati) will have to be auctioned, because everybody who can will leave the state.
It is a recipe for
September 21, 2007 - 01:03 ET by stratmanIt is a recipe for businesses and upper income earners (the people who actually make jobs for Ohioans in the first place!) to begin to leave the state. Loss of these business and citizen tax bases will severely impact the state's health as well as the state insured health of it's citizens.
Then there all the vague yet onerous methods of keeping costs down. The only things you can be sure about is that the State will amend the 5% operating budget post haste after this is intituted (gotta feed the partisan lackeys), additional "creative" funding sources will be added to satisfy the "cost overruns" (which are really all the hidden costs or things the Brain Trust didn't figure out beforehand), and the patient and physician will have to make due with less and less.
Like I said, this potential Mother Of All Bombs needs plenty of sunshine disinfectanct and debate before a vote occurs.
Please keep us in the loop Tom!
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Here is a nice website
September 20, 2007 - 23:59 ET by stratmanHere is a nice website which quickly details medical spending per person for each state and region. Ohio is 13th highest amount in the nation. Interestingly, the bastions of Liberal governance, the Northeast, are the least frugal. Washington, D.C. is the largest of all the spenders - hypochondriacs or more sick people?
I love (sarcasm) how the Associated Press postulates that higher consumer spending is due to higher concentrations of physicians in that area. Laughable propaganda. You could put 100 more car dealers in my town and I will not buy more cars or buy them at shorter intervals. Same applies to more doctors per unit area. Agitprops.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
This phrase, "Receipts from
September 21, 2007 - 04:10 ET by jdhawkThis phrase, "Receipts from taxes levied on employers' payrolls, paid by the employers," has always just pissed me off. Employers don't pay payroll taxes, employees do. If you are not employed, your employer has no reason to pay any payroll taxes. From the employers point of view, any costs associated with an employee becomes part of the total compensation package. Most employers figure that "benefits" cost them a third more than direct compensation.
So, what does this mean to you, the employee?
Any increase in the total compensation, no matter from what source, is going to cause the employer to look for ways to scale down his total work force, cease hiring new employees, or simply fire enough employees to bring costs in line with revenue in the industry that the company operates in.
This is no different than the government setting and then periodically raise the minimum wage. That is a sure way to cause unemployement in the list skilled.
Given the dynamic nature of employement - that's double speak for if you, the employee, cost too much your company will just hire someone from India or move their operations to China. Either way, you lose.
Think about how much healthe care you can afford when your unemployed?
Anyone for voting the conservatives back in next year, yet?
The biggest problem that I
September 21, 2007 - 10:37 ET by BruzillaThe biggest problem that I saw with the plan was that there are no copays or coinsurance, which means the Ohio plan (the taxpayers) are going to have sole responsibility for all costs. Of all the wrong things you can have in a plan, this is it. With the plan paying 100%, there is no incentive for members to restrict their costs.
Medicare Part D has seen cost decreases every year that it's been in effect. This has been because you only get covereage for your first $2,400 in drug costs. After that, you have to keep paying the premiums but get no benefits until you reach an out-of-pocket limit. So if you want only the best, newest, most-hyped drugs, you're going to fall into the coverage gap quickly. If you elect to use generic or lower-cost drugs that work just as well, you might never fall into the gap. This is why Med D has been so effective.
With this Ohio plan, there's no incentive for anyone to demand anything less than the best, and most expensive, services. So any spending projections that are based on current care, which is based on people moderating their healthcare services to save money, are going to be out the window the minute you turn on the state's money pumps.
delete.
September 24, 2007 - 08:27 ET by dscottdelete.
All one needs to know about HillaryCare.
September 24, 2007 - 15:12 ET by Dave RTake a good look, folks, cause here's what's coming.
h/t: thepeoplescube.com
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.