What federal agency is the big winner in the health care “reform” debate? The IRS:
Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an “acceptable” health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don’t have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties.
The Democrats’ plan would require all Americans to have “acceptable” insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex definitions of “acceptable”) and would designate the IRS as the agency charged with enforcing that requirement. On your yearly 1040 tax return, you would be required to attest that you have “acceptable” coverage. Of course, you might be lying, or simply confused about whether or not you are covered, so the IRS would need a way to check your claim for accuracy. Under current plans, insurers would be required to submit to the IRS something like the 1099 form in which taxpayers report outside income. The IRS would then check the information it receives from the insurers against what you have submitted on your tax form.
If it all matches up, you’re fine. If it doesn’t, you will hear from the IRS. And if you don’t have “acceptable” coverage, you will be subject to substantial fines — fines that will be administered by the IRS.
Health insurers, in fact, ranked below many other industries in profitability, including other health sectors, according to the latest Fortune magazine rankings. While pharmaceutical companies were the third-most profitable industry last year, with a 19.3 percent profit margin, health insurers ranked 35th, with a 2.2 percent profit margin. Health insurers also ranked lower in profitability than medical products and equipment makers, pharmacies and medical facilities.
Those who say the profit motive destroy health care in this country are ignorant not only of basic economics but also the health care marketplace. Many health insurers and health care providers are non-profit organizations. And even those health insurance companies that are for-profit don’t have very high profit margins. Even if the federal government confiscated every dollar in profit made by health insurance companies it would do almost nothing to reduce overall health care spending.
A New York Timesarticle on the liberal push to support President Obama’s health care “reform” mentioned this:
Other people were stoked by personal causes that seemed in some cases only peripheral to a broader societal debate.
“I’m out here if it will help one more kid get medication,” said Johari Ade-Green, 58, of Denver, who was holding a sign with a picture of her grandson, Zumante Lucero, who died in July at age 9 from complications of asthma. Her grandson had insurance under Medicaid and Social Security, she said, but through a mix-up was denied medication.
It’s undeniably tragic that this child died, especially when it sounds like his death could have been prevented. But didn’t anyone there notice that this child died while on Medicaid? That it was a mix-up on the part of government health care that killed the child? Maybe I’m biased (OK, I’m certainly biased), but it seems this child’s story is a good reason why we should oppose an expansion of government health care, especially the government option that is so near-and-dear to the hearts of the people at this rally.
In a conference call with religious leaders, President Obama said there was a lot of misinformation in the health care debate. That’s true. Of course, much of that misinformation is coming from him. As Michael Tanner points out in the Orange County Register, the claim that people will be able to keep their insurance if they like it just isn’t true:
…under Section 59(B)(a) of HR3200, the bill making its way through the House, and Section 151 of the bill that passed out of a Senate committee, every American would be required to buy health insurance.
And not just any insurance: to qualify, a plan would have to meet certain government-defined standards. For example, under Section 122(b) of the House bill, all plans must cover hospitalization; outpatient hospital and clinic services; services by physicians and other health professionals, as well as supplies and equipment incidental to their services; prescription drugs, rehabilitation services, mental health and substance-abuse treatment; preventive services (to be determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the United States Preventive Services Task Force); and maternity, well-baby, and well-child care, as well as dental, vision, and hearing services for children under age 21….
If your current health insurance doesn’t meet all those requirements, you won’t be immediately forced to drop your current insurance for a government-specified plan. But you would be required to switch if you lose your current insurance or “if significant changes are made to the existing health insurance plan.”…
Seniors, too, could lose their current coverage, at least the 10.2 million seniors currently participating in the Medicare advantage program. That program offers many seniors benefits not included in traditional Medicare, including preventive-care services, coordinated care for chronic conditions, routine physical examinations, additional hospitalization, skilled nursing facility stays, routine eye and hearing examinations, and glasses and hearing aids But the House bill cuts payments to the Medicare Advantage program by roughly $156.3 billion over 10 years.
The fight continues between public charter schools and public district schools, and it always seems to start with the unions throwing the first punch. Yesterday’s Gongwer Report provided some detailed information about the state report cards, and the teachers’ union acted as though they had body slammed their charter “opponents”. Let’s consider some facts the district schools and union cronies don’t want you to think about:
While unions tout the fact that they have fewer failing schools, they fail to mention that charter school laws are working exactly as planned – the 16 failing charter schools will close at the end of this year. Will Youngstown City Schools close as well?
Are academics the only reason parents takes their children out of district schools? No – a big reason is safety. The district schools can’t touch the charters on safety. Body slam for the charters.
Former State Board of Education member Colleen Grady believes the new Value Added measurement is skewed to make district schools look better. Many charter schools use a better method – scan tron. Why don’t district schools use it? Because it measures teacher quality, and unions will have none of that.
Contrary to the myths being perpetrated by teacher unions, charter schools do not get the best students – they get the students who are failing in district schools or are being bullied, many of them special needs students. So those whose parents don’t care or who are succeeding stay in the districts. In spite of that, the overwhelming majority of charter students, new and old, are making substantive learning gains.
Who is really benefitting from public charter schools? Parents and students! Students have safer environments with schools that are more accountable because parents can take their students out and charter schools can be closed. Who’s keeping the district schools accountable – surely not the teachers’ unions. I’d give the win to parents, students, charters and taxpayers.
This month’s Atlantic has an excellent article about the problems facing our health care system. The author’s suggestions on how to fix our system are far better than anything currently being discussed in DC or at town halls. If you read this article and truly understand it, you’ll be better informed on health care than probably 95% of your fellow Americans.
Some excerpts:
I’m a Democrat, and have long been concerned about America’s lack of a health safety net. But based on my own work experience, I also believe that unless we fix the problems at the foundation of our health system—largely problems of incentives—our reforms won’t do much good, and may do harm. To achieve maximum coverage at acceptable cost with acceptable quality, health care will need to become subject to the same forces that have boosted efficiency and value throughout the economy. We will need to reduce, rather than expand, the role of insurance; focus the government’s role exclusively on things that only government can do (protect the poor, cover us against true catastrophe, enforce safety standards, and ensure provider competition); overcome our addiction to Ponzi-scheme financing, hidden subsidies, manipulated prices, and undisclosed results; and rely more on ourselves, the consumers, as the ultimate guarantors of good service, reasonable prices, and sensible trade-offs between health-care spending and spending on all the other good things money can buy.
Gongwer News Service($) reports that Ohio’s passenger rail plans are already costing more than anticipated. In a split vote, the Controlling Board approved a $200,000 increase in the amount being paid to a California consulting firm to analyze the feasibility of passenger rail service. The Controlling Board approved $450,000 in March to pay for this contract.
The amount approved for this contract is the first in many expenditures by the state on passenger rail service. It’s a pretty bad sign for taxpayers when this first expenditure has to be increased by 44% in only five months. It is a good example of exactly how this passenger rail push will work, though. As various parts of the plan unfold, the government will say each costs a certain amount and then that amount will be revised upwards later. It’s pretty clear this project will require far more from state taxpayers than the current estimates of $10 million in yearly subsidies.
Harvard economics professor Edward Glaeser has a series of posts on the New York Times Economix blog taking apart the case for high-speed rail. This series should be required reading for all Ohio policymakers, especially those like Governor Strickland who are so enamored with high-speed rail.
Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson has some wise words on high-speed rail:
President Obama’s network may never be built. It’s doubtful private investors will advance the money, and once government officials acknowledge the full costs, they’ll retreat. In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office cited a range of construction costs, from $22 million a mile to $132 million a mile. Harvard economist Edward Glaeser figures $50 million a mile might be a plausible average. A 250-mile system would cost $12.5 billion and 10 systems, $125 billion….
What works in Europe and Asia won’t in the United States. Even abroad, passenger trains are subsidized. But the subsidies are more justifiable because geography and energy policies differ.
Densities are much higher, and high densities favor rail with direct connections between heavily populated city centers and business districts. In Japan, density is 880 people per square mile; it’s 653 in Britain, 611 in Germany and 259 in France. By contrast, plentiful land in the United States has led to suburbanized homes, offices and factories. Density is 86 people per square mile. Trains can’t pick up most people where they live and work and take them to where they want to go. Cars can.
Distances also matter. America is big; trips are longer. Beyond 400 to 500 miles, fast trains can’t compete with planes. Finally, Europe and Japan tax car transportation more heavily, pushing people to trains. In August 2008, notes the GAO, gasoline in Japan was $6.50 a gallon. Americans regard $4 a gallon as an outrage. Proposals for stiff gasoline taxes (advocated by many, including me) go nowhere.
Maurice Thompson, director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, was a guest on the Matt Patrick show on August 5. Thompson and Patrick discussed the 1851 Center’s amicus brief in LetOhioVote.org v. Brunner. The brief argues that the general assembly acted hastily in adapting video slots gaming at Ohio race tracks as a way to balance the budget and also deprived citizens of their constitutional right to keep the state government in check via a referendum vote.
The fight continues between public charter schools and public district schools, and it always seems to start with the unions throwing the first punch. Yesterday’s 
