Analysis of President Obama’s Speech to Congress on Healthcare

Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Sept. 10, 2009

Based on a compilation of independent sources, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has analyzed President Obama’s September 9th speech to a joint session of Congress outlining his new healthcare plan. That analysis is below:

The President Said: “[B]uying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer.”
The Reality Is: “Premiums for employment-based plans are expected to average about $5,000 per year for single coverage and about $13,000 per year for family coverage in 2009. Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are, on average, much lower—about one-third lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family policies.”1

The President Said: “There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get [health insurance] coverage.”
The Reality Is: As many as 75% of the uninsured could afford coverage, meaning that less than 10 million uninsured Americans may be unable to afford coverage.2

The President Said: “In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point…More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too.”
The Reality Is: This is a problem because health insurance is directly tied to employer based coverage. If Americans received the same tax benefits for obtaining individual coverage as their employers, they could take their health insurance with them when they left or lost their job. The President’s proposal not only fails to address the serious problems with employer-based coverage, it promotes it heavily.

The President Said: “We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it.”
The Reality Is: While Americans do in fact spend more on healthcare than any other nation, “[w]hen you compare the outcomes for specific diseases, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the world. Whether the disease is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, or AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far higher in the United States than in other countries.”3

The President Said: “[I]f you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”
The Reality Is: Many employers will be forced to modify their plans to meet the new government standards and still others will simply drop coverage for their employees, forcing employees to obtain their own coverage or join the government-run plan. The
Urban Institute estimates that up to 47 million Americans will lose their current coverage, while the Lewin Group estimates that as many as 114 million Americans’ coverage will be dropped.4

The President Said: “[Insurance companies] will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies…”
The Reality Is: Forcing insurance companies to eliminate caps and cover routine treatments will drastically increase health insurance costs and compel insurance companies to skimp on important and necessary treatments. Individuals can purchase coverage for the treatments mentioned, but it should be optional, not compulsory.

The President Said: “[U]nder my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance…”
The Reality Is: Despite the fact that the President pledged not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year, a senior member of his own Administration admits that a mandate “will act as a very regressive tax, penalizing uninsured people who genuinely cannot afford to buy coverage.”5

The President Said: “[A]n additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange.”
The Reality Is: Public entities never compete on a level playing field with private companies. First, public entities have an unlimited supply of investors—the American taxpayer. Second, the public entities set the rules that the private companies must abide by, giving them an unfair advantage. A public option would actually “reduce competition by driving lower-cost private health plans out of business.”6

The President Said: “I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.”
The Reality Is: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were also intended to be self-sufficient, but they have been bailed out and could eventually cost taxpayers upwards of $200 billion.7

The President Said: “I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.”
The Reality Is: Actually, the President proposes setting up a bureaucracy between patients and doctors, called the Independent Medicare Advisory Council. This new body “would enhance Medicare’s ability to deny care to the elderly and disabled based on government bureaucrats’ arbitrary valuations of those patients’ lives.”8

The President Said: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future.”
The Reality Is: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the leading current plan, H.R. 3200, will increase the deficit by $239 billion over the next ten years alone.9

The President Said: “This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies.”
The Reality Is: While geared toward “Cadillac” insurance policies, this fee will be passed on to consumers, so those forced to purchase expensive policies because they are unhealthy or need expansive treatment will be hit the hardest.

1 “Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals,” Congressional Budget Office, Dec. 2008, p. XIV.
2 M. Kate Bundorf and Mark V. Pauly, “Is health insurance affordable for the uninsured?,” National Bureau of
Economic Research, No. 9281, October 2002.
3 Michael Tanner, “The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the
World,” Cato Institute, No. 613, March 18, 2008, p. 5.
4 John Holahan and Linda J. Blumberg, “Is the Public Plan Option a Necessary Part of Health Reform?,” Urban
Institute, June 26, 2009, p. 8; “Analysis of the July 15 draft of The American Affordable Health Choices Act of
2009,” The Lewin Group, July 17, 2009.
5 Sherry A. Glied, Ph.D., “Universal Coverage One Head at a Time — The Risks and Benefits of Individual
Health Insurance Mandates.”
6 Michael F. Cannon, “Fannie Med? Why a "Public Option" Is Hazardous to Your Health,” Cato Institute, No.
642, July 27, 2009.
7 “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bailouts of $200 Billion?,” New York Times, July 23, 2009.
8 Michael F. Cannon, “Sorry folks, Sarah Palin is (partly) right,” Detroit Free Press, August 19, 2009.
9 Congressional Budget Office, (accessed September 10, 2009).

Top Stories

Van Jones Comic Book volumn II

Top Stories

The Van Jones Comic Book

A Watermellon is Green on the outside and red on the inside.

Top Stories

Who is Van Jones

Isn't it interested how liberals consider it "smear tactics" when you use one of their own's own words to expose them? Arianna Huffington calls the exposé of Jones a "vile and vicious smear campaign." Keith Olberman calls Jones' critics racist. Other liberals are equally defensive of Jones and critical of his critics.

Jones has spoken openly of his becoming a communist. In speaking of the period in his life in which he moved further leftward he has stated, "By August, I was a communist." He does not view that as a mistake or something he views with regret or shame but simply states it factually. He is an unrepentant communist. He has said that he has since changed his tactics from his days as a rowdy Black nationalist radical, but not his views. He says he still considers himself a revolutionary.

Those that defend Jones do not deny that Van Jones is a communist and an anarchist and a 9-11 truther, they just think it is smear tactic to mention it. Despite history's record of the Communism experiment; despite the undeniable fact that Mao and Stalin are each responsible for many more deaths than Hitler, many American liberals still have a soft spot in their heart for communism and prefer communist to anti-communist. In their view it is cool to be a communist. The way they see it, Communist are just really committed progressives. They view being a communist as a noble thing and a mark of one's commitment to some sort of social justice. I can only assume that President Obama shares that view.

God help us.

Top Stories

How Washington Politicians see the World

by award-winning cartoonist William Warren

Top Stories

The President Addresses the Children Cartoons

Top Stories

More Last of the Town Hall 'toons

Top Stories

Last of the Town Hall Cartoons

Top Stories

Van Jones should be Front Page news!

Most Major News Outlets Largely Ignore Van Jones Controversy

FOX News.com, Monday, September 07, 2009

Most of the major news outlets, like The New York Times and The Washington Post, ignored the swelling heat surrounding former White House environmental adviser Van Jones and the videos surfacing of his controversial statements. (link)

Comment

If not for Glen Beck and bloggers, Van Jones would still be serving in the administration. It is unbelievable that most of the news media did not find this story more newsworthy. The Tennessean placed the article on the very back page of the front section of the paper. This story got downplayed by all of the major media except for Fox. I can not understand why the "mainstream" press thinks that it is not newsworthy when an self-avowed Marxist and anarchist is appointed to an important administrative position and then is forced to resign.

Not only is Jones a Marxist and anarchist, but he is "9-11 truther." a defender of a Black convicted cop killer and he recently refereed to Republicans as "assholes." I can only imagine how the press would have responded if, for example, George W. Bush or any President had appointed a self avowed admirer of Hitler who denied the Holocaust. Would the story of his appointment and subsequent resignation be buried on the back page of the paper? No! It would be covered in screaming bold headlines.

I also find it amassing that Jones passed the administrations vetting process. I can only assume that being a professed Marxist does not bother the President and is not seen as a factor that would disqualify one from serving in the administration. Given Obama's affiliation with American Communist terrorist William Ayers, and radical Black Nationalist Reverend Jeremiah Wright, I guess we should not be surprised by a Van Jones.

Mr. Jones was one of the many "czars" appointed by Obama, that unlike cabinet appointees do not have to undergo Congressional confirmation. I hope Beck or someone with the resources to do so, looks at all of the appointments of the Obama administration and finds out who else Obama has appointed.

Top Stories

How American Health Care Killed my Father

I highly recommend this article that appears in the current issue of The Atlantic: How American Health Care Killed my Father, by David Goldhill.

After what the author describes as “the needless death of his father,” he began a personal exploration of “a health-care industry that for years has delivered poor service and irregular quality at astonishingly high cost.” It is a system, he argues, “that is not worth preserving in anything like its current form.” The author argues that the health-care reform now being contemplated will not fix it and offers “a radical solution to an agonizing problem.”

This is a lengthy piece and may take up to an hour to read and absorb, but for anyone who wants a better understanding of the health care problem facing this nation, this article is well worth reading.

It is my hope that the current proposals for health care reform are defeated. Defeating what is before us however will be a hollow victory unless defeat of the current health care proposals is followed by an effort at other reform.

The current system is simply unsustainable and must change, but the system in place is complex and any meaningful change will be difficult. If some form of the proposals that are before us is passed, it will do little to fix what is wrong with the current health care system and will only be a temporary patch and cost will continue to escalate. So, whether the current proposals are defeated or pass, our health care system will still need radical reform. We will either move in the direction of nationalization and rationing or toward a more rational market-oriented system that is significantly different from the mixed system we have now. The author advocates an overall of our health care system that makes the system consumer-centered and moves away from fee-for-service pricing. He explains what is necessary in order for that to occur.

Below is a summary of some of the points discussed in this article and some selected excerpts. Please share your thoughts on the article.

• We spend about 18% of our GNP on health care and it is growing and crowding out almost everything else.

"In 1966, Medicare and Medicaid made up 1 percent of total government spending; now that figure is 20 percent, and quickly rising. Already, the federal government spends eight times as much on health care as it does on education, 12 times what it spends on food aid to children and families, 30 times what it spends on law enforcement, 78 times what it spends on land management and conservation, 87 times the spending on water supply, and 830 times the spending on energy conservation."

• Health insurance is not health care.

"Health insurance is different from every other type of insurance. Health insurance is the primary payment mechanism not just for expenses that are unexpected and large, but for nearly all health-care expenses. We’ve become so used to health insurance that we don’t realize how absurd that is. "

• "Cost control is a feature of decentralized, competitive markets, not of centralized bureaucracy—a matter of incentives, not mandates. "

• Medicare is a Ponzi scheme

"The Medicare tax rate has been raised seven times since its enactment, and almost certainly will need to be raised again in the next decade. The Medicare tax contributions and premiums that today’s beneficiaries have paid into the system don’t come close to fully funding their care, which today’s workers subsidize. "

• The market does not work.

"In competitive markets, high profits serve an important social purpose: encouraging capital to flow to the production of a service not adequately supplied. But as long as our government shovels ever-greater resources into health care with one hand, while with the other restricting competition that would ensure those resources are used efficiently, sustained high profits will be the rule."

• You are not the customer.

"But my father was not the customer; Medicare was. And although Medicare has experimented with new reimbursement approaches to drive better results, no centralized reimbursement system can be supple enough to address the many variables affecting the patient experience. "

• "It is difficult for consumers to find any health-care information that would enable them to make informed choices.

• Technology is driving up the cost of health care when technology should drive down the cost of health care.
  

Top Stories

Creepy 'I Pledge to be a servant' video

As I stated in a post a couple days ago, I think those parents who are going to keep their kids out of school because President Obama is going to make a speech encouraging kids to study hard and do well in school are overreacting. We don’t have royalty in this country and certain ceremonial and motivational functions accompany the office of the President. I view Obama making a motivational talk to young kids at the start of the school year in that light.

I am however pleased that the administration’s manipulative lesson plans that were to accompany the speech have been withdrawn and rewritten to be less objectionable. I am pleased that this event was scrutinized. Many left-leaning teachers will probably be more constrained in what they say to the children in their care because of the attention that has been focused on this event.

As I said in my previous post, we are wise to be vigilant and concerned about things like this but we should not overreact. Allow the President to speak to the children of America, but keep him on a short leach and watch him like a hawk. Frankly, I would be less concerned if it was any of our previous presidents giving the exact same speech. I would be less concerned it a President Bill Clinton had given this speech. If Hilary Clinton would have been elected and given this speech I would not be so concerned. Why the difference? It is because of the cult of personality that surrounds Obama. Bill Clinton was popular and likable, but not treated with the same adoration that we see of Barack Obama.

During the campaign when I saw the massive crowds in near ecstasy at his events I found it frightening. On the part of many of his supporters, there seems to be a suspension of reasoning that has been replaced by near worship. The way many view Obama, it is not as if he is an American president who’s policies they support, but it is as if he were the messiah. The loyal support he generates is like that that we have seen is totalitarian countries.

I have often been amazed at the public support and adoration shown by the public to some of the world’s most undesirability leaders such as Hitler, Mao, Castro, and Peron. These leaders were loved. At the height of their popularity, there is no doubt they would have overwhelmingly won fair elections.

Please do not misunderstand me; I am not comparing President Obama to a Hitler, Mao or Castro. I am concerned however that the devotion of some is followers is in the same mode as the devotion shown these men.

The above video was created back in January by Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher to celebrate Obama's inauguration and features over 50 of the biggest stars in Hollywood revealing how they plan to personally participate in keeping America strong, proud and green. Much of is admirable such as supporting local food banks, smiling more, and caring for the elderly. It reminds me of a group of people making New Years resolutions. There is nothing creepy about that. The creepy part is the pledge to be a servant of Obama.

Americans are not the servants of the President. We may be supporters, but not servants. We are not subjects. Throughout our history that has been a foreign concept. I fear there are many in America who would gladly suspend the Constitution and put all power in the hands of this president. The power grabs we are witnessing does not concern them; they would give him this power and more. When American’s pledge to be servants of the President we need to be concerned. With this kind of climate existing in America, we need to be on guard and cautious and protect our children from being infected and swept up in this cult of personality.

Top Stories