Business History Books » Small Business Consulting » OT: Taking a Closer Look at Bush's Attacks
OT: Taking a Closer Look at Bush's Attacks
Question:
October 22, 2004 FACT CHECK Taking a Closer Look at Bush’s Attacks on Kerry’s Health Care Plan By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM In his stump speeches, his debates with Senator John Kerry and his television advertisements, President Bush has maintained that Mr. Kerry is proposing a government-run health care system. Outside experts who have studied the Kerry proposal say that is not the case. WHAT BUSH SAYS In Downingtown, Pa., yesterday, Mr. Bush said the Kerry plan "involves bigger and more intrusive government." He said it would "expand the government’s health care rolls by nearly 22 million," leading to "the largest expansion of government health care in American history." He said "8 out of 10 people" who obtained health coverage under Mr. Kerry’s plan "would be placed on a government program" and small businesses would have the incentive to drop their private insurance and throw people into government programs. He said the Kerry plan would cost $1.2 trillion. THE FACTS Mr. Kerry’s plan has three main elements: an expansion of Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, both programs for the poor, so that all children and more low-income adults would be covered; an arrangement so individuals and small businesses not now eligible for group plans could buy private insurance now available to federal employees; and government rebates to employers to cover most of the cost of catastrophic health insurance claims (over $30,000 per beneficiary in 2006). Asked whether this would amount to a governmentrun health system in the United States, John Sheils, a vice president of the Lewin Group, an independent consulting firm, said, "No, I don’t think so." Mr. Sheils said that "97 percent of the people who have insurance now would have the same coverage." The Lewin Group specializes in health issues, and its finding that the Kerry plan would put more than 20 million new people under government health coverage was mentioned by Mr. Bush in last week’s presidential debate. The vast majority of the 20 million would be children in low-income families. It would hardly be the largest expansion of government health insurance in history, much less than the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960’s and involving fewer people than even Mr. Bush’s legislation enacted last year to offer prescription drug coverage under Medicare. The Kerry plan would actually make health insurance less expensive for small businesses because they would be able to take a tax credit to offset 50 percent of the cost of offering employees coverage and because the catastrophic coverage would lower the payments for premiums. The cost of the Kerry plan is a point of dispute. The Kerry campaign puts the cost at $653 billion over 10 years. Whatever the price tag, most if not all of it would be offset by Mr. Kerry’s proposal to repeal tax cuts for the 2 percent of taxpayers with incomes over $200,000. _____ Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Response:
C’mon, Bruce. This isn’t even challenging! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> WHAT BUSH SAYS > In Downingtown, Pa., yesterday, Mr. Bush said the Kerry plan "involves > bigger and more intrusive > government." He said it would "expand the government’s health care rolls > by nearly 22 million," > leading to "the largest expansion of government health care in American > history." He said "8 out of > 10 people" who obtained health coverage under Mr. Kerry’s plan "would be > placed on a government > program" and small businesses would have the incentive to drop their > private insurance and throw > people into government programs. He said the Kerry plan would cost $1.2 > trillion. > THE FACTS > Mr. Kerry’s plan has three main elements: an expansion of Medicaid and the > State Children’s Health > Insurance Program, both programs for the poor, so that all children and > more low-income adults > would be covered; an arrangement so individuals and small businesses not > now eligible for group > plans could buy private insurance now available to federal employees; and > government rebates to > employers to cover most of the cost of catastrophic health insurance > claims (over $30,000 per > beneficiary in 2006).
That certainly describes a "bigger and more intrusive government", to me! > Asked whether this would amount to a governmentrun health system in the > United States, John Sheils, > a vice president of the Lewin Group, an independent consulting firm, said, > "No, I don’t think so." > Mr. Sheils said that "97 percent of the people who have insurance now > would have the same > coverage."
"I don’t think so", is hardly an emphatic "yes", is it, Bruce? If government is paying the premiums for all the poor people and children, and paying the medical expenses for all the Medicaid recipients, how is that not a "government run health system", Bruce? In other words, if government is paying the tab, does government not set the standards for care? They certainly do, with the current Medicare/Medicaid systems. So, 97 percent of us will realize no benefit from Kerry’s program. I wonder if that’s because we’re the ones expected to pay for it. > The Lewin Group specializes in health issues, and its finding that the > Kerry plan would put more > than 20 million new people under government health coverage was mentioned > by Mr. Bush in last > week’s presidential debate.
So, Bush was off by a couple million. That doesn’t change the facts, at all. Kerry will add ~20 million to government health coverage rolls. > The vast majority of the 20 million would be children in low-income > families. It would hardly be > the largest expansion of government health insurance in history, much less > than the introduction of > Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960’s and involving fewer people than even > Mr. Bush’s legislation > enacted last year to offer prescription drug coverage under Medicare.
So, the vast majority of the newly covered lives do not even earn an income. Who will pay for their coverage, Bruce? You want to argue that Bush was wrong about Kerry’s plan being the largest expansion of government health insurance, simply because the liberal socialist Democrats had enacted an even larger plan, previously? You’re serious about this? This is exactly what’s wrong with liberal socialist Democrats! And, they’re so accustomed to it, they don’t even realize when they’re doing it! > The Kerry plan would actually make health insurance less expensive for > small businesses because > they would be able to take a tax credit to offset 50 percent of the cost > of offering employees > coverage and because the catastrophic coverage would lower the payments > for premiums.
How will lowering premiums make insurance companies more viable? They’re already just barely scraping by, and cutting to the bone to lower costs. Who will administer these programs once the carriers have succumbed to insolvency? Won’t low wage employees opt for the government plan, because they can actually afford it? The businesses that don’t currently offer coverage to employees are the same small businesses (over $200,000 income) that will taxed to pay for this boondoggle! > The cost of the Kerry plan is a point of dispute. The Kerry campaign puts > the cost at $653 billion > over 10 years. Whatever the price tag, most if not all of it would be > offset by Mr. Kerry’s > proposal to repeal tax cuts for the 2 percent of taxpayers with incomes > over $200,000.
Ah, so it’s another "soak the rich" scheme, is it? Let’s call it what it really is: another liberal socialist Democrat tax increase. Let’s get this straight: no one has a right to healthcare coverage, and the federal government has no Constitutional authority to provide healthcare coverage. — Kevin -=#=- www.freerepublic.com www.glennbeck.com www.factcheck.org
Response:
>C’mon, Bruce. This isn’t even challenging!
Smackdown below, Simpleton — you’re still proving yourself unworthy of serious consideration! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> WHAT BUSH SAYS > In Downingtown, Pa., yesterday, Mr. Bush said the Kerry plan "involves > bigger and more intrusive > government." He said it would "expand the government’s health care rolls > by nearly 22 million," > leading to "the largest expansion of government health care in American > history." He said "8 out of > 10 people" who obtained health coverage under Mr. Kerry’s plan "would be > placed on a government > program" and small businesses would have the incentive to drop their > private insurance and throw > people into government programs. He said the Kerry plan would cost $1.2 > trillion. > THE FACTS > Mr. Kerry’s plan has three main elements: an expansion of Medicaid and the > State Children’s Health > Insurance Program, both programs for the poor, so that all children and > more low-income adults > would be covered; an arrangement so individuals and small businesses not > now eligible for group > plans could buy private insurance now available to federal employees; and > government rebates to > employers to cover most of the cost of catastrophic health insurance > claims (over $30,000 per > beneficiary in 2006). >That certainly describes a "bigger and more intrusive government", to me!
That because you’re an early nineteenth century type who believes conscience is a weakness and that market forces are worthy of worship alongside the wrathful God of the Hebrew Bible. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Asked whether this would amount to a governmentrun health system in the > United States, John Sheils, > a vice president of the Lewin Group, an independent consulting firm, said, > "No, I don’t think so." > Mr. Sheils said that "97 percent of the people who have insurance now > would have the same > coverage." >"I don’t think so", is hardly an emphatic "yes", is it, Bruce? If >government is paying the premiums for all the poor people and children, and >paying the medical expenses for all the Medicaid recipients, how is that not >a "government run health system", Bruce? In other words, if government is >paying the tab, does government not set the standards for care? They >certainly do, with the current Medicare/Medicaid systems. So, 97 percent of >us will realize no benefit from Kerry’s program. I wonder if that’s because >we’re the ones expected to pay for it.
Wonder away, the expenses are noted further on and covered by a return to Clinton era tax rates on the $200,000+/annum crowd. > The Lewin Group specializes in health issues, and its finding that the > Kerry plan would put more > than 20 million new people under government health coverage was mentioned > by Mr. Bush in last > week’s presidential debate. >So, Bush was off by a couple million. That doesn’t change the facts, at >all. Kerry will add ~20 million to government health coverage rolls.
You’d rather have them uninsured and taxing emergency rooms and local charities — or untreated, suffering and out spreading contagion? Let’s just spread the burden a bit and do our best to get these folks employment that includes coverage — then eveybody wins! > The vast majority of the 20 million would be children in low-income > families. It would hardly be > the largest expansion of government health insurance in history, much less > than the introduction of > Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960’s and involving fewer people than even > Mr. Bush’s legislation > enacted last year to offer prescription drug coverage under Medicare. >So, the vast majority of the newly covered lives do not even earn an income.
Well, that certainly disqualifies them for a chance to live long enough to "earn an income," doesn’t it? Why not let them die — after all, they’re not productive anyway! >Who will pay for their coverage, Bruce? You want to argue that Bush was >wrong about Kerry’s plan being the largest expansion of government health >insurance, simply because the liberal socialist Democrats had enacted an >even larger plan, previously? You’re serious about this? This is exactly >what’s wrong with liberal socialist Democrats! And, they’re so accustomed >to it, they don’t even realize when they’re doing it!
It’s covered and it’s good for the country. You righty assholes would rather stick local institutions with the bill just like you’d rather imprison people than educate them effectively. > The Kerry plan would actually make health insurance less expensive for > small businesses because > they would be able to take a tax credit to offset 50 percent of the cost > of offering employees > coverage and because the catastrophic coverage would lower the payments > for premiums. >How will lowering premiums make insurance companies more viable? They’re >already just barely scraping by, and cutting to the bone to lower costs.
The only reason they’re "barely scraping by" is that they’re bad investors — insurance companies invest premiums and whenever their investmentments tank they raise premiums. They’re investment houses masquerading as service providers! With lower premiums they can attract more business (it’s a market force, remember?) without fear that five- and six-figure claims will make them unprofitable — so they can stay away from risky investments. Everybody wins except your parents, Nathan Bedford Forrest and Ayn Rand! >Who will administer these programs once the carriers have succumbed to >insolvency?
They won’t unless they’re incompetently managed — Kerry’s plan lowers their risks, and more competent companies will gladly take up the slack! >Won’t low wage employees opt for the government plan, because >they can actually afford it? The businesses that don’t currently offer >coverage to employees are the same small businesses (over $200,000 income) >that will taxed to pay for this boondoggle!
Any viable business that big paying at the personal income tax rate needs a new accountant. > The cost of the Kerry plan is a point of dispute. The Kerry campaign puts > the cost at $653 billion > over 10 years. Whatever the price tag, most if not all of it would be > offset by Mr. Kerry’s > proposal to repeal tax cuts for the 2 percent of taxpayers with incomes > over $200,000. >Ah, so it’s another "soak the rich" scheme, is it? Let’s call it what it >really is: another liberal socialist Democrat tax increase.
Back to the sensible Clinton- era rates when everyone did better works for me! >Let’s get this straight: no one has a right to healthcare coverage, and the >federal government has no Constitutional authority to provide healthcare >coverage.
As if you would know — you’re multiple generations of SCOTUS decisions behind the eightball when it comes to constitutional jurisprudence…. Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Response:
> Smackdown below, > Simpleton — you’re still > proving yourself unworthy > of serious consideration!
You do nothing to redeem your position, below, Bruce. > That because you’re an > early nineteenth century > type who believes > conscience is a weakness > and that market forces > are worthy of worship > alongside the wrathful > God of the Hebrew Bible.
No, it’s because what Kerry proposes is "bigger and more intrusive", and it comes from "government". What does "expansion" mean? What does "more" mean? Is that not the same as "bigger"? This is not about ideology, it’s about a massive expansion of government services, and your immediately resorting to ad hominem attacks is indicative that you have no intention of defending this particular pantload. > Wonder away, the expenses > are noted further on and > covered by a return to > Clinton era tax rates on > the $200,000+/annum crowd.
So, not even an attempt to defend the truth that this is a "government run health system", or to show how this Kerry plan is any different from the current systems, which are government run health systems. > You’d rather have them > uninsured and taxing > emergency rooms and > local charities — or > untreated, suffering > and out spreading > contagion? Let’s just > spread the burden a bit > and do our best to get > these folks employment > that includes coverage > — then eveybody wins!
Yes! I’d much rather have local charities and hospitals managing this issue than the federal government! How does anything you posted (ever, for that matter!) address "get(ting) these folks employment"? Here’s a hint: It doesn’t. It’s not about employment; it’s about socialized medicine! You’re so transparent, Bruce. "Spread the burden"? How does forcing the high-producers to pay for the healthcare of the low-producers "spread the burden", Bruce? It’s just a soak-the-rich scheme! It’s nothing but class warfare! Why not let those who use government services pay for government services? They could work in the government-run emergency rooms, and the government-run STD clinics, to help defray the cost of their healthcare. You’re not interested in finding employment; you’re only interested in getting the government more deeply involved in the health care delivery system. >So, the vast majority of the newly covered lives do not even earn an >income. > Well, that certainly > disqualifies them for a > chance to live long > enough to "earn an > income," doesn’t it? > Why not let them die — > after all, they’re not > productive anyway!
If you say so! I’d say that their health care is the responsibility of their parents, not the taxpayers. If you can’t afford to raise a child, and keep it healthy, why do you produce children? Why would we continually encourage that behavior, knowing that doing so only increases the frequency of the behavior? You can never, ever subsidize your way to responsible behavior. Even you know that, Bruce. > It’s covered and it’s good > for the country. You > righty assholes would > rather stick local > institutions with the bill > just like you’d rather > imprison people than > educate them effectively.
How is it covered? It’s not covered until Congress passes a new tax increase. That hasn’t happened, and it’s not likely to happen, Bruce. You’re making this up, as you go, and you can’t support even the most basic tenets of the plan you’re touting. Kerry’s health care proposal will not be funded by a tax increase, so it’ll go into the general budget, and increase the deficit. This is not a "plan", it’s a scam! > The only reason they’re > "barely scraping by" is > that they’re bad > investors — insurance > companies invest > premiums and whenever > their investmentments > tank they raise premiums. > They’re investment houses > masquerading as service > providers!
They also deliver products, and services, and they meet the ever-increasing requirements of state and federal regulators. Do you have any idea what HIPPA is costing the healthcare industry? The reason they’re tanking is because "we" require that our health insurance cover every medical issue we encounter, and the costs have skyrocketed due to frivolous lawsuits and unreasonable jury awards. If we applied the same standards to auto insurance that we do to healthcare coverage, we’d be getting reimbursed for the cost of gasoline, flat tires, and windshield washer fluid. Healthcare insurance is not insurance, at all. It’s just a medical bill paying club. For instance, why are the routine costs of pregnancy covered under most healthcare plans? Pregnancy is not an illness, and it shouldn’t be unexpected. If a couple cannot afford the routine costs of pregnancy, why do they expect that I, or you, or any other person, would want to assume those costs, for them? It’s ridiculous, and, as we’re discovering, not viable. Kerry’s plan will make the situation much, much worse, and in very rapid fashion. > With lower premiums they > can attract more business > (it’s a market force, > remember?) without fear > that five- and six-figure > claims will make them > unprofitable — so they > can stay away from risky > investments. Everybody > wins except your parents, > Nathan Bedford Forrest > and Ayn Rand!
No, with lower premiums, they will have to reduce services and products to the point where they are no longer competitive, and then they’ll file for bankruptcy, and liquidate their assets. I’ve seen it happen. It’s not pretty. Shifting the cost of catastrophic coverage to government will not reduce the frequency or the exhorbitant cost of catastrophic claims. If history is any indicator, we can expect that costs will skyrocket, and the taxpayers will have to forego their own healthcare coverage in order to afford the new taxes made necessary by socialized catastrophic coverage. You know, even though it’s fun to attack me, it shows that you have nothing with which to support your assertion. As usual. >Who will administer these programs once the carriers have succumbed to >insolvency? > They won’t unless they’re > incompetently managed — > Kerry’s plan lowers their > risks, and more competent > companies will gladly > take up the slack!
If healthcare insurers can’t offer catastrophic coverage, their revenue will drop, as well. Who will insure the government against these claims? Are you suggesting a new "trust fund" for socialized catastrophic claims, on a par with Social Security? Why will introducing the bureaucracy of the federal government lower the cost of catastrophic claims? How will government limit the cost of catastrophic claims and jury awards, and why is it better for the federal government to administer these claims than a private insurer? Kerry’s plan is riddled with inconsistencies, and you’ve done nothing to clarify any of them. >Won’t low wage employees opt for the government plan, because >they can actually afford it? The businesses that don’t currently offer >coverage to employees are the same small businesses (over $200,000 income) >that will taxed to pay for this boondoggle! > Any viable business that > big paying at the personal > income tax rate needs a > new accountant.
I’m sorry, Bruce, but that’s just a stupid statement. I wonder why you don’t address the facts, though? > Back to the sensible Clinton- > era rates when everyone did > better works for me!
It’s a tax increase. >Let’s get this straight: no one has a right to healthcare coverage, and >the >federal government has no Constitutional authority to provide healthcare >coverage. > As if you would know — > you’re multiple generations > of SCOTUS decisions behind > the eightball when it comes > to constitutional > jurisprudence….
Ok, Bruce, just for fun, why don’t you point to one Supreme Court decision that authorizes Congress to provide healthcare coverage to anyone that’s not a federal government employee? — Kevin -=#=- www.freerepublic.com www.glennbeck.com www.factcheck.org