Predictions are inherently difficult. Attempting to take today’s knowledge and apply it five, ten, or fifty years in the future can often get you into trouble. For instance, British physicist Lord Kelvin predicted that “heavier than air flying machines are impossible.” Or, the president of a Bank who advised Henry Ford’s attorney that “the horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty, a fad, a passing, fancy.” As a sports fan my personal favorite is by baseball hall of famer Tris Speaker who said of Babe Ruth, “taking the best left-handed pitcher in baseball and converting him into a right fielder is one of the dumbest things I ever heard.”

In other words, predictions, even by those who should know what they’re talking about, often fall flat. After saying all that, I’m now going to try and peer into the near future if health care reform passes.

The demand for health care reform (which has since turned into insurance reform) began because the costs of health care are skyrocketing. Barack Obama’s campaign website says ,

“Health insurance premiums have doubled in the last 8 years, rising 3.7 times faster than wages in the past 8 years, and increasing co-pays and deductibles threaten access to care. . . Over half of all personal bankruptcies today are caused by medical bills . .  . And given current trends, this problem will only get worse as health care spending is expected to double within the next decade.”

There is an undisputed need for reform. At this point, there are very few things people from across both sides of the aisle agree on, but they do agree that the current system is broken. Of course, the knives come out when you begin to discuss how to reform it.

Now, assume that Nancy Pelosi cobbles together the necessary votes to pass health care reform. Will the cost problem be fixed to the point where Americans are once again content? Will costs go down, or at least remain stagnant, so that health care fades back into the mist as a campaign issue?

Simply put. No. At least not for the people that health care reform is directed to – those in the non-group market who do not receive health care through an employer. In fact, the cost of insurance for people shopping in the individual marketplace would skyrocket faster than if nothing was done. As the CBO wrote in its assessment ,

“CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.”

In other words, the legislation as written provides very little financial incentive for people to let the issue fade. So then what happens? My guess is that people once again begin demanding reform. Democrats, assuming they are able to weather the brutal storm of November 2010, can attempt to do one of two things. First, they can preach patience. At this point, I think it is clear the public doesn’t really want to hear that. People either want this bill killed or passed. And they want it done yesterday. Second, Democrats can say that while the insurance exchanges were a fun idea, what this country really needs is what we wanted from the beginning – a public option.

Democrats will be back on the stump. Nancy Pelosi can be more forceful when she says , “If someone has a better idea for promoting competition and reducing health care costs, they should put it on the table.” Anthony Weiner can go back to saying , “any real change requires the inclusion of a strong public option to promote competition and bring down costs.” Dennis Kucinich and the rest of the Progressive Caucus can reiterate their view that we need a “robust public option…to protect consumers from these rampant premium increases.”

After years of constantly increasing premiums under the current version of health care the public may be more apt to listen to the Democrats idea.  Rather than skewer this bill for what it is – bad on cost control – Democrats can use it as an opportunity to take another step toward single payer.  Obviously, political prognostication is a tricky and often inaccurate tool (who could have predicted a year ago that we’d have a Republican Senator in Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat). Nevertheless, the fact that it is a possibly underscores the serious flaw in the current Senate bill. This is not the health care reform we, or even candidate Obama, envisioned. The very people it said it would protect, those in the individual market, it hurts the most.

I may be the next Lord Kelvin or Tris Speaker. I may be giving short shrift the next airplane, automobile, or Babe Ruth. But then again, maybe not.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

Read more: www.collegerepublicans.org

Read More →

UPDATE:  Some Twitterers are stating that this is a “shell bill” that will provide a base for actual language later.  Rep. Paul Ryan alluded to this move last week.

And Michelle Malkin weighs in, as does Philip Klein.

* * * *

The Hill is reporting tonight that the Democrats have published a copy of the bill that they plan to use to update the original Senate healthcare socialization bill that Pelosi plans to bring to the floor this week.

And it appears they’ve decided to go all-in on this one.  Included in the bill appears to be the “public option” that was removed from the Senate bill.  From page 1167 of the bill:

Subtitle B—Public Health Insurance Option

SEC. 221. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION AS AN EXCHANGE-QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—For years beginning with Y1,  the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall provide for the offering of an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (in this subdivision referred to as the ‘‘public health insurance option’’) that ensures choice, competition, and stability of affordable, high quality coverage throughout the United States in accordance with this subtitle. In designing the option, the Secretary’s primary responsibility is to create a low-cost plan without compromising quality or access to care.

I’m no legislator, but this sure sounds like a public option to me.

The logic escapes me.  If the Democrats didn’t write their own death warrant with the 12/24/09 Senate bill, this should pretty much seal it.

Let me add one other comment, based on a twitter msg from one of our colleagues:  when the Dems try to ram through legislation using an unconstitutional process like the “Slaughter Solution”, we should not trust them on anything.

So apparently GM is recalling 1.3 Million vehicles due to a problem with power steering.  When the vehicles decelerate to a certain speed, power steering stops working.  Given the difficulty to control a car without power steering, I would argue this is on par from a safety perspective with Toyota’s gas pedal/floor mat issue.  I can’t help but notice a stark difference between the Beltway reaction to the two automakers’ travails.  Perhaps it is just the cynic in me, but it seems like there was a concerted effort to play up Toyota’s problems and quickly throw together hearings to investigate.  Democrats in Congress and the White House continued the drumbeat until it reached fever-pitch, ultimately resulting in the CEO of Toyota’s trip to America to testify before Congress.  Where are the calls for all dangerous GM cars to be taken off the road?  Where is Ray LaHood to tell GM drivers their cars are unsafe, stop driving?  Perhaps the government is trying to tear Toyota down to help GM and Chrysler, once-venerable car companies reduced to wards of the state.

 I’ll take it one step further - perhaps this is a direct result of Toyota’s dominance during the ill-conceived cash-for-clunkers program.  We, like countless others across the country, used cash-for-clunkers to purchase our Toyota Yaris (thankfully we chose a model that has thus far escaped recall).  It only made sense - why would we buy a GM or Chrysler when the fate of their company is questionable at best?  So long as GM and Chrysler are dependent on the government, there will be no consumer confidence in their endeavors.  Would you want to buy a car from the people that brought you Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs or any of the other horribly mismanaged government programs we’ve suffered?  I certainly wouldn’t.  We have seen how fickle this administration and this Congress are.  Loyalty and vested interest might be there today, but that can quickly evaporate depending on the latest polls or the opinion of the most vocal leftist group.  Not exactly instilling confidence in the product or the brand - especially since everything Obama touches turns to dust (Chicago Olympics, Copenhagen, Creigh Deeds, Jon Corzine, Martha Coakley, health care, etc.).

The problem with GM vehicles covers those manufactured between 2005 and 2010 (uh-oh, I already hear ‘Bush’s fault!’).  Toyota’s recall dated back as far for one model, while most recalled were manufactured between 2008 and 2010. Legislators couldn’t get in front of the cameras fast enough to issue full-throated denunciations of the delays at Toyota in addressing the issue.   One would expect to hear the denunciations of delayed action from the Washington elites regarding the GM matter as well. So far, I have heard nothing.  I know that asking for parity in the treatment of these two issues is asking a lot, but it isn’t unreasonable.  This is why government should not involve itself in the daily affairs of business, and the perfect example of the effect a public option would have on healthcare.  Democrats disingenuously clamor for fake competition to bring costs down (while I welcome their acknowledgement of the efficacy of free market principles, I think they still have a lot to learn about business) by embracing the public option, but they fail to realize you cannot compete with the government.  It is hard to compete on a level playing field with someone who owns the bully pulpit, has the infinite resources of the American taxpayer at their disposal (at least to the point Americans have enough and revolt) and writes the rules of the game.  The disparate handling of these recalls is a perfect illustration of why we must fight the public option with every fiber of our being.

I’m currently watching the health care summit and I think one point desperately needs to be made OVER and OVER, and I have not heard it yet today or in anything any Republican has said regarding health care. And that is this:

GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE IS INEFFICIENT BECAUSE IT CAN’T FAIL

I wish Coburn had made this point when he spoke. He said that the fraud rate in Medicare is 20% while it is 1% in the private sector. He should have said that this is because the Government doesn’t have the right incentive to weed out fraud and no amount of new ‘anti-fraud’ programs will fix that. Private companies only have a 1% fraud rate because if it was any higher than that they will be driven out of business by more efficient companies.

Similarly, this is the problem with the public option. Dems are going to say they want the public option do increase competition and most Americans hear that and think that’s a good idea.

BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THE PUBLIC OPTION IS THAT GOVERNMENT DOESN’T COMPETE FAIRLY BECAUSE IT CAN’T FAIL.

This point needs to be made in the summit and if not it needs to be made by lawmakers who go on TV today and tomorrow.

First of all, I am a physician in the state of Kansas.  This whole health care debacle terrifies me on multiple levels, from the total disregard for the Constitution by our elected officials, to the devastating impact it will have on the quality of health care we receive.  Scott Brown is a glimmer of hope and I pray that he wins, but what has the Republican Party allowed itself to become if it can’t even win enough popular support to defend the once unquestionable American values of liberty, personal freedom and right to privacy.  We as a peple seem willing to give up liberty for a “right” to health care or any other of a number of government handouts.

I for one am sick of it.  Let’s hope we can change things.  I think we need to start at home with our families and communities and work our way outward in ever expanding circles to reclaim the principles our nation was founded on.

I am trying to at least have a little fun in the process.  I have recently discovered Xtranormal.com thanks to Greg Gutfeld on Fox News’ Red Eye and decided to start my own cartoon series on health care as I imagine it would be under Government control. I hope to at least make people stop and think.  Maybe some of you will enjoy them

Government Health Care #1
Government Health Care #2
Government Health Care #3

More to come as I get time.

Bill Weatherford

Tonganoxie, KS

Here we go.

The House’s third-ranking Democrat said Sunday that he can support a healthcare reform bill without a public option.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) — a proponent of a government-run public plan — said that he could back the bill as long as it creates more choice and competition in the insurance industry and reduces costs. “It’s of no consequence” whether it’s done via the public option or not.

(H/T: Hot Air Headlines) Translation: House Democrats are going to abandon the public option. Ignore the nonsense about more choice and reduced costs: that’s for the rubes and the netroots. They went with the #3 House Democrat to make the announcement because both Pelosi and Hoyer want to appear to be reluctantly going along with this, instead of enthusiastically: if the endgame ends up reminding you of their FISA ‘capitulation,’ well, there’s a reason for that.  Anyway, this is probably back on track for being settled by the State of the Union address.  In fact, they’re probably right now working out how many liberal House members can vote ‘no’ on the bill and still get it to pass.

I’d be offended at the Democratic leadership’s upcoming betrayal of their own (loudly stated) principles, if only I believed that they had them in the first place.  As I didn’t and don’t, the best that I can muster is a slightly cynical moue of distaste.  And that’s only because I’ve never gotten to use the word ‘moue’ in a post before.

Moe Lane

PS: The final language on federal funding on abortion will be at whatever point between Stupak’s and the Senate’s version that will cause the NRLC to stop threatening to score the final vote.  If that call hasn’t been made yet, it will be.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.