Tag Archives: healthcare costs

Complaining About A Problem You Created!

Posted on by
Reply

On Friday, AMAC posted an article about former President Obama’s complaints about the cost of health insurance premiums. Obamacare is responsible for those increases!

The article reports:

Perhaps the 44th president needs to be reminded that his signature legislative achievement (the one that literally bears his name) was sold to the American public as a cure-all to lower health insurance premiums. Or, perhaps he simply can’t cope with the fact that Obamacare is just as much of an ugly, dismal failure as his grotesque presidential library – a monstrosity that has turned the American healthcare system into a nightmare for virtually everyone.

Either way, voters should feel insulted at how stupid Obama apparently thinks they are. How many times do Democrats expect the public to buy the same lie?

The article includes the following:

The article concludes:

Obamacare was never supposed to “fix” the healthcare system or the health insurance industry. It was supposed to break both beyond repair so that Democrats could sell full-scale socialized medicine as the “solution.” Obama lit a fire that the Democrat Party is now promising to put out with more of the same fuel that started it in the first place.

What Democrats realized is that the American healthcare system pre-Obamacare wasn’t perfect, but it was working too well to create the conditions for a full-scale overhaul. So, Obama and his cronies devised a scheme to give a few people cheap healthcare while driving prices for everyone else into the stratosphere. Eventually, they reasoned, everyone would be clamoring for the subsidized plans until the country had a de facto single-payer system.

That plan came into full focus when Republicans repealed the “temporary” COVID-era expanded Obamacare subsidies last year. Democrats have made restoring those subsidies – estimated to cost $383 billion over ten years – their top priority if they retake Congress in the midterms.

So, the next time Obama bemoans the crushing cost of health insurance, voters should remember who sent those costs soaring in the first place. More importantly, they should realize that doubling down on a disastrous policy won’t solve anything.

Self-awareness is not a major trait of the Democrat Party.

Cutting Spending Is Hard

Posted on by

On Thursday, Fox News reported that seventeen Republicans voted to extend the ‘temporary’ Obamacare subsidies for another three years. These are the ‘temporary’ subsides put in place during Covid. The only justification for the Republicans who voted for this is that they are in liberal districts and fear that they will lose in the mid-terms if they end the subsidies. This illustrates how citizens can raid the treasury and how that impacts elections. Hopefully the bill will not pass in the Senate. Premiums for Obamacare are increasing, but the solution is not to pay the insurance companies–it’s to fix the problems with Obamacare.

The article reports:

The vast majority of Republicans believe the subsidies are a COVID-era relic of a long-broken federal healthcare system. Conservatives argued that the relatively small percentage of Americans who rely on Obamacare meant that an extension would do little to ease rising health costs that people across the country are experiencing.

But a core group of moderates has been arguing that a failure to extend a reformed version of them would force millions of Americans to grapple with skyrocketing healthcare costs this year.

Those moderates were also frustrated with Jeffries for not working with Republicans on a bipartisan solution to the subsidies but felt they were left with little choice but to support Democrats’ bid in the end.

Unless someone stands their ground, the subsidies will continue forever, and Americans will wonder why the government keeps taking more of their money and insurance companies get richer.

The article concludes:

House Republicans passed a healthcare bill in mid-December aimed at lowering those costs for a broader swath of Americans, but that legislation has not been taken up in the Senate.

There’s also little chance the three-year extension will pass the upper chamber, however. Similar legislation led by Senate Democrats failed to reach the necessary 60-vote threshold to advance in December.

Protecting The Pocketbooks Of Taxpayers

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart reported that President Trump signed a presidential proclamation on Friday that will prevent American taxpayers from being forced to subsidize the healthcare costs of legal immigrants wanting to permanently resettle in the United States. Keep in mind that the government in itself has no money and no income–any money it has it has taken from the people who earned it.

The article reports:

In a new rule, beginning November 3, foreign nationals applying for visas — not including refugees, asylees, or those on nonimmigrant visas — will have to prove that they will have either employer-based health insurance before arriving in the U.S. or a non-subsidized private health insurance plan.

The proclamation reads:

While our healthcare system grapples with the challenges caused by uncompensated care, the United States Government is making the problem worse by admitting thousands of aliens who have not demonstrated any ability to pay for their healthcare costs. Notably, data show that lawful immigrants are about three times more likely than United States citizens to lack health insurance. Immigrants who enter this country should not further saddle our healthcare system, and subsequently American taxpayers, with higher costs.

The article further reports:

Research by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has found that immigrant households, currently, are 44 percent more likely to be on Medicaid than households headed by native-born Americans. While about 23 percent of native-born American households are on Medicaid, about 50 percent of immigrant households consume Medicaid.

The article concludes:

Currently, there is an estimated record high of 44.5 million foreign-born residents living in the U.S. This is nearly quadruple the immigrant population in 2000. The vast majority of those arriving in the country every year are low-skilled legal immigrants who compete against working and middle-class Americans for jobs.

We need to revisit our immigration policies. For those who claim that America has always welcomed immigrants, that is true. However, we welcomed immigrants who came to this country to prosper and support themselves. We never supported the idea of Americans paying the expenses of an unlimited number of immigrants. That is national suicide.

One Way To Keep Medical Costs Down

Posted on by

The News & Observer, a newspaper located in Raleigh, North Carolina, posted an editorial yesterday about one rather obvious way to lower medical costs in North Carolina. It is an easy solution–except for the fact that there are corporate interests who do not like this solution.

The editorial explains:

One important element of the budget recently passed by the N.C. Senate would lower health care costs by reforming North Carolina’s Certificate of Need law and increasing the number of same-day surgery centers across the state.

Currently, North Carolina has one of the most restrictive CON laws in the nation. The Senate proposal would save patients about 40 percent in costs when centers are allowed to be built.

Certificate of Need laws started in the 1970s with the goal of keeping hospitals from overbuilding facilities and acquiring unnecessary hospital equipment – both actions thought to increase costs for consumers. Unfortunately, these CON laws ended up essentially increasing costs because competition was eliminated. In 1987, the Reagan administration recognized that CON laws were a bad idea and spoke out against the federal mandate for CON. States began to repeal CON restrictions.

Today, 71 percent of all surgeries are outpatient or same-day surgery. Of those surgeries, too many – 72 percent – are performed at the highest-cost hospital system facilities.

One very basic example of an outpatient clinic that saves time and money and improves the quality of medical care is in the area of cataract surgery. As our population ages, many Americans face cataract surgery. With today’s medical practices, this is generally very simple and uncomplicated surgery. It is very easily done at an off-site medical facility. In Massachusetts, Surgisite Boston is a facility used by 70 ophthalmologists from throughout the region. The center aims to best serve both patients and physicians by acting quickly to adopt new technologies and create a comfortable, accessible environment for treatment. Having the center outside of the hospital cuts the costs for patients, and because of the specialized nature of the center, allows for the newest technologies. It also allows the surgeons to share the cost of the latest equipment and to offset that cost by having the equipment used every day.

The editorial explains other aspects of the debate:

The Federal Trade Commission staff supports CON reform in North Carolina that allows the freedom to build independent, nonhospital surgery centers that lower costs. The FTC states that “CON laws raise considerable competitive concerns and generally do not appear to achieve their alleged benefits for health care consumers” and that “CON laws can restrict entry and expansion, limit consumer choice, and stifle innovation.”

Cost analysis by Blue Cross Blue Shield NC shows patients across the state are paying way too much – sometimes more than double what others are paying – for many surgical procedures:

▪ An ACL repair by arthroscopic surgery in the Charlotte area cost $9,710 at a nonhospital ambulatory surgery center in Concord while the same procedure cost $29,565 at a hospital-run outpatient facility in Charlotte.

So what isn’t the introduction of surgical centers in North Carolina an easy solution to rising health care costs? Unfortunately hospitals like having a monopoly on surgical procedures. Hospitals are telling their employees that if surgical centers are built, the employees will lose their jobs. This is not true, but unless an employee actually takes the time to investigate what surgical centers will do, they will oppose the centers in order to keep their jobs. During a recent visit to Raleigh, one of our state legislators showed me the pile of mail he had received opposing changes to the “CON” law. Oddly enough, much of the mail opposing the changes came in business envelopes with hospital return addresses printed on them. There were two significant piles of mail from people who worked for hospitals who feared losing their jobs.

Changing the “CON” law should be an obvious thing to do. However, when hospitals have a monopoly on surgical procedures both simple and complex, they are reluctant to give up that monopoly. Unless the healthcare consumer becomes more aware of why healthcare costs are rising, things like the “CON” laws will continue to stifle competition in medicine. It is up to the consumer to help fight the monopoly that prevents North Carolina from having the surgical centers it needs.