4 reasons why Obama's health plan is no bargain

[dgriffin]

4 reasons why Obama's health plan is no bargain


Analysis: While a goal of reform is to cut costs, the emerging package may do just the opposite.


NEW YORK (Fortune) -- America is finally getting a detailed look at the sweeping, long-awaited health-care reform platform championed by President Obama. This week the Democrats have unveiled their two primary proposals -- a 700-plus page bill in the Senate and the outline of the forthcoming version in the House that presents essentially the same blueprint for change.

The crucial question about Obama's agenda has always been whether it really will slow the disastrous rise in health-care spending, or actually increase it while hiding the real costs of the new system. On analyzing the bills, the conclusion is inescapable: Obama promises Americans what appears to be a bargain by heavily subsidizing their premiums. But the only way to pay for what's really outrageously expensive coverage will be huge tax increases, especially on the same middle class that's being wooed as the chief beneficiary of reform.

Continued at:

money.cnn.com/2009/06/11/news/economy/obama_health_plan_no_bargain.fortune/?postversion=2009061104


Now, admit it, aren't you hugely surprised?

[Clipper]

NOTHING that Obama has proposed thus far has spared the pocket of the average American taxpayer. It will be a horrible defeat for democracy and our democratic way of life, if socialist programs such as that are implemented in America.

When his swing to socialism is complete, he might move the national capital to Chicago, and revive his former Illinois regime. Burris for his vice "premier" and the former thieving governor of Illinois, might be appointed finance minister. Hang on folks ( to your ankles that is).

[gski]

It's unbelievable. From one, " we gotta do it now, it's imperative that we do this now", "we have a crisis", to another. Only Obama can solve....with our money.
Folks I just have one question. Can someone name me one government program that's run well?

He says we government intervention to save health care. I'm all for it. As soon as they can show me they've fixed the mess with Medicare and Medicaid. They've admitted to Billions of fraud and waist in the programs, so I guess it boils down to simply this. They've screwed up these two programs the best they can, so now onto something else to wreck.

We do have a crisis, it's called Obama.

[dgriffin]

Jun 11, 2009 18:33:22 GMT -5 gski said:

It's unbelievable. From one, " we gotta do it now, it's imperative that we do this now", "we have a crisis", to another. Only Obama can solve....with our money.
Folks I just have one question. Can someone name me one government program that's run well?

He says we government intervention to save health care. I'm all for it. As soon as they can show me they've fixed the mess with Medicare and Medicaid. They've admitted to Billions of fraud and waist in the programs, so I guess it boils down to simply this. They've screwed up these two programs the best they can, so now onto something else to wreck.

We do have a crisis, it's called Obama.

Actually, my experience has been pretty good with Social Security, motor vehicle (except for standing in line), the weather bureau, and a few others.

We often don't like WHAT the bureaus to, but I think they're pretty much run well.

The problem is what the government is intending to do, not so much how they will accomplish it. Many of the government managers are quite professional and the workers quite serious about their tasks. You can't blame them for what Congress has stipulated in the law and what their budgets allow for administration.

Oh, I forgot, I don't like the Bureau of the Mint ... they didn't make enough money for me.

[gski]

Dave,
Some folks may have had good luck with SS however this is what's being said about them:
According to the Times: "The quality of service provided to the public by the Social Security Administration has deteriorated in recent years, and the problems are likely to grow as millions of baby boomers retire, a federal advisory panel has told the Bush administration."

In its report, the Times says, the advisory panel made these points:

Telephone service is inadequate. The Social Security Administration received 76 million calls on its toll-free telephone number last year, but one-third of callers got busy signals or hung up while waiting for assistance. Statistics show that the problems have increased in the last few years.
People who visit Social Security field offices often find overcrowded waiting rooms. "Waits of two, three or four hours are not uncommon."
With field office workers continually pressed to increase productivity, the quality of decisions suffers. As a result, some claimants are improperly denied benefits and must pursue their claims through a "slow and overloaded appeals process."
Social Security employees are having less "face-to-face contact with claimants." This has increased the likelihood of errors and fraud. Social Security numbers have become "a prime tool for illegal activity," in part because the government issues Social Security numbers without rigorously examining the documents offered as proof of identity.
While the advisory board found management problems throughout Social Security, conditions were particularly bad regarding disability. "Social Security's disability programs, which provide assistance to 10 million people at a cost of $90 billion a year, are in chaos, swamped with a backlog of claims and litigation, the panel said. Eligibility decisions are not made in a uniform or consistent manner, the panel said." For instance, it is much easier to obtain benefits in some states than in. In New Hampshire 65 percent of disability applications are approved, versus just 31 percent in Texas. The national average is 45 percent. Moreover, "two-thirds of the people who challenge the denial of disability benefits prevail on appeal, overturning the initial decisions of the Social Security Administration."

The chairman of the advisory board, Stanford G. Ross, SSA commissioner during the Carter Administration, said: "Unless there's fundamental change, we will soon see disruptions of service. The Social Security agency lacks the ability to handle existing workloads, and those workloads are bound to increase in the next decade. Everybody knows there is a long-term deficit in the financing of Social Security. But there's also a deficit in the agency's ability to provide good service, and that should be equally alarming to Congress and the public."

DMV - loaded with bureaucrats, way too much red tape.
The weather bureau, you might have me there, aside from the fact they can't predict squat, but who can.

You do make a good point about some of the managers and many of the workers, that can't be taken away from them.

These programs keep growing, expanding into different, sometimes non-intended areas, more hands get involves and the fraud and waste begin.

We've heard for years about the mismanagement and fraud of Medicare/Medicaid, however it's seemingly shrugged off. Now they want to manage an even larger portion of health care?
No thanks!

[dgriffin]

Yes, I'm aware of the problems with government services, and yes, I've experienced them myself.

Here's a thought. When I went with my wife to Social Security to apply for SS at 62 (she asked me to come along with her), we sat with a middle aged man who had worked for SS many years, was quite experienced and took a mature approach and attitude to his work. He was able to answer the many questions posed by my spouse. Yes, the man costs taxpayers more than an inexperienced young person, but I thought he was worth it.

When I had problem some weeks ago with a payment from an insurance company, I wasn't even able to get anyone on the phone for a week, and then had to deal with a high school girl (seemingly) who at first I thought had a speech impediment (I had to ask her to speak slowly and take a breath between sentences) and who knew jack-shit about her business. Yes, she doesn't cost the insurance company hardly anything. Yes, the insurance still costs a lot because of how much her bosses are making.

So, while I agree with you that government bureaus are loaded with bureaucrats and red tape, and all the other points you bring up above, I do have to say I'd rather deal with someone who is making a career out of what they do, rather than with some kid who is more interested in her hair or an outsourced part time mullah who has just crawled out of his wadi.

Anyway ... all that being said, and you have some very good points, I'm not looking forward to Obama's Brave New World where the gummamint does all these things for us so that ... uh ... they want to help us because ... uh ... what was the reason again why the Democrats want to be so helpful ?