The Right Prescription
Baucus Blunders
Before this is over, the mean-spirited Montana senator will be dubbed Mad Max.
(Page 3 of 3)
As the Journal concluded regarding the government's scandalous mistreatment of Humana, "This episode neatly shows how all U.S. health care will operate if Mr. Baucus's bill becomes law." But that is an overly polite understatement of the ugly reality. What the episode shows is that AMERICA IS NO LONGER A FREE COUNTRY while these left-wing extremist Democrats are in power.
Co-Op Foolishness
The Baucus bill also includes $6 billion in start-up funds "to establish health care cooperatives that would provide insurance coverage and operate as non-profit organizations," as the CBO explains. This is in service to the left-wing notion that insurance company profits are the problem in health care. But such profits are a negligible factor in health costs. As economist John Lott explains, "The Kaiser Foundation estimates that self-insured companies covered about 75 million out of 137 million workers in 2008." In the remaining market, Lott continues:
[T]he dominant players…are non-profits….In state after state, Blue Cross and Blue Shield hold the largest market share. On average, the largest non-profit holds over half of the "full" market share in…29 states. Why add another non-profit to the mix? Getting rid of profits would not make costs go down. They would go up, because without profits there would no longer be the same incentive to hold down costs. Profits are the reward firms get for figuring out what consumers want.
The other big problem in the Baucus bill is that it provides the foundation for government rationing of health care. This is done through bureaucracies granted the power to make decisions regarding "comparative effectiveness," which involves the government deciding what medical treatments work and what don't (as if faraway government bureaucrats are going to know better than your own doctor), "cost effectiveness," which involves whether particular medical treatments are worth the cost (as if the government can really make judgments about that either), and whether or when new medical technologies and breakthroughs can be adopted and implemented. When legislation talks about "quality," that is often defined to include cost control, meaning ultimately rationing.
The Baucus bill is hazardous to your health, as well as your wallet.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Senior Fellow at the Carleson Center for Public Policy, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, and General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, now available from HarperCollins.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (39) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/23/baucus-blunders
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Mission Implausible
- Strange Newt Respect
- Religion Is Not the Enemy
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Melvin| 9.23.09 @ 7:25AM
The Baucus bill is pretty much like anything else the government does, they take a pile of dog squeeze, put whipping cream and a cherry on top and tell us, "here have some desert, it won't cost a thing."
Then we ask the government, "Why does this desert taste so bad?" The response from the government is, "Here let us put a little more whipping cream on top and then it will taste much better."
Notary Sojac| 9.23.09 @ 12:17PM
Then the Republicans take out half the the dog squeeze and ask me for a contribution based on the great job they're doing.
Tim| 9.23.09 @ 4:25PM
"Reform" means changing the dog's diet.
Pingback| 9.23.09 @ 7:30AM
Baucus Blunders … or, “How to craft a healthcare bill that NOBODY could possibly supp links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
JP| 9.23.09 @ 7:50AM
Perhaps this is Mad Max's way of killing ObamaCare. Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee had to call a number of its staffers to conference to go over the byzantium complexity of how the surtax on expensive health insurance would be calculated. Not even the staffers (the very ones who wrote the bill) could give the committee a straight, articulate answer. And that was just one item.
How are the lawmakers going to amend a bill they don't fully understand? Already there are numerous contradictory statements coming out of the Senate. And key Senators like Jay Rockefeller are demanding explicit language on insitituting a public option. Otherwise, he says he will vote against it.
As many a 5 Senators may join the GOP in not allowing this monstrosity out of debate. If that's the case, ObamaCare is dead. If they can vote cloture, the bill then must go to reconcilliation, where the process will begin all over. If they can reconcile, the Senate must begin again debate over the final draft. Again, there is a very good possibility for a filibuster. Otherwise, Reid would have to use the nuclear option. I don't think that is going to happen. Reid is behind in the polls big time and forced reconcilliation would be the end of his career.
Pingback| 9.23.09 @ 8:03AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Baucus Blunders [spectator.org] on T links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
2Anglico| 9.23.09 @ 8:58AM
This whole health care frenzy has been a beautiful thing. Max Baucus, ultra-liberal/leftist, has come out from under his sheep's clothing. A rabid wolf has been exposed. The ball is in your court, Montana voters.
owyheewine| 9.23.09 @ 10:51AM
The Baucus bill may be a blessing in disguise, because with all of the warts, it shows, by supposedly paying for all of the folly, how expensive these universal insurance bills are. As more people figure out that free insurance is not free, support has got to plummet.
kurt| 9.23.09 @ 9:39PM
This assumes that human nature is not human, and that the next vote will not help the human deliver himself from human nature.
Kurt| 9.23.09 @ 9:42PM
I meant to write 'the next vote will help the human deliver himself from human nature. Scratch the not.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 9.23.09 @ 2:12PM
Notary Sojac, your 12:17PM post should have made me laugh, but instead it brought a tear to my eye. I fear that yet once again, next year, I will have to choose from the least of offered evils. I firmly believe that we must rid ourselves of all the kommies serving in government positions, this includes every elected dumbocrat as well as all their RINO psychophants. But what will I do if, like in last year’s presidential contest, my choice is between only such vermin? Well, like not enough of us, I fell for the argument that if I didn’t vote for john-boy, we’d get a Beavis buddy who would make us remember peanut vendor’s glorious reign fondly. So I voted for john-boy and the nightmare continues. I’m not sure, but I think the golden calf just surrendered to the Aborigines at the UN. It’s so hard for this stroke victim to separate the wheat from the chaff of his words. Maybe there is no wheat.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Don’t Tread on Me!!
Kurt| 9.23.09 @ 9:44PM
Indeed, the lesser of two evils is still evil!
Hardius| 9.23.09 @ 3:40PM
Am I the only one who thinks that the lobbyist are the problem that needs to be addressed first. They outnumber our elected officials in Congress 6 to 1. With that kind of pressure, bribes, graft, and kickbacks how can we even pretend that there is a chance for a wholesome outcome. If we do not force Congress to ban lobbyist from Washington D.C., the corruption that overwhelms our nation will never abate no matter which party is in control.
c. j. acworth| 9.23.09 @ 5:41PM
Hardius;
I doubt it is possible to get rid of lobbyists. As long as congress insists on trying to tax and regulate every aspect of the economy, those affected will do all in thier power to influence the ones doing the regulating.
Kurt| 9.23.09 @ 9:30PM
No Hardius, the problem is not lobbyists; rather it is people who either believe they can get something for nothing-and tempararily do-and the people that want to believe their time will come and they too will get something for nothing. They then keep voting the incumbents in, the incumbents then do what the financiers of their election campaign ask. It ain't the lobbyist, nor the politician, rather it is the voter or the non voter. In other words: It's you and me and our company.
Michael L. Hauschild| 9.23.09 @ 4:57PM
This is the Presidents bill; Baucus is just the stealth vehicle. By the time it gets out of the Senate under nuclear propulsion it will go to the joint committee and there become a rubberstamp of exactly what the extreme liberal left wants.
The House version will be “moderate” (after all they must have some semblance of bi-partisanship and give cover to the Blue Dogs) but it will be totally striped in the joint committee. The joint committee version will be sent to the House and Senate and voted on. They have the votes; elections have consequences. The only consolation is that the next election will produce majorities to enable impeachment.
Don’t believe the fix is in? They just voted in Baucus’s committee not to let the public view the final markup. They will vote on this and we will not be able to see what is in it.
You are supping on cake
The arrogance of these buffoons is all encompassing.
Kurt| 9.23.09 @ 9:35PM
Arrogance indeed! It leads to hubris and ensuing folly.
Klabautermann| 9.23.09 @ 7:29PM
The despot is not a man. It is the . . . correct, realistic, exact plan . . . that will provide your solution once the problem has been posed clearly. . . . This plan has been drawn up well away from . . . the cries of the electorate or the laments of society’s victims. It has been drawn up by serene and lucid minds." - Le Corbusier
We are nearing the final stages of the health care debate in congress. Still nothing can be said about "the plan" with any certainty. At the time that the president delivered his message to congress there were five congressional committees developing health plans. One committee had produced a bill over one thousand pages long. Assuming the president has his own version, what he calls "my plan," that makes six separate plans. Yet the president said, "If you misrepresent what’s in this plan, we will call you out." Perhaps this statement was more appropriate to a barroom than the halls of congress.
The president pointed out that, "the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that “we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens." He asserted that, "It is a lie, plain and simple." The president was correct. This is a lie, "plain and simple." Yet who were the talk show hosts and prominent politicians who said there would be, "panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens." There are none. Governor Sarah Palin did mention "death panels." Will there be "death panels?" We only have to point to Barbara Wagner, a beneficiary of Oregon’s "Death with Dignity Law." When faced with a $4,000 per month cancer treatment expenditure as opposed to a one time $50 expenditure, the state of Oregon chose the latter, sending her an unsigned letter. The state, of necessity, must make these decisions.
The president claimed that, "No one would be forced to choose" his plan, yet he asserted that, "Individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance." You will not be forced to enroll in his plan but you will be required to participate.
The president said, "we’ve seen scare tactics." Perhaps he was referring to his mention of "the man from Illinois who lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy . . .and died because of it." Or his statement that without his plan, "More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. And more will die as a result."
The president promised that, "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits," and again, "The plan will not add to our deficit." This might sound very convincing to a class of college freshmen, especially to that large percentage of them who do not even know who the first president of the United States was. However, for those of us who are familiar with how government works, this is laughable. The president admits that the plan will cost $900 billion over 10 years. Much of the savings is to be recouped from the existing health care system which is "full of waste and abuse." Since he was elected, how much money has been saved by the elimination of waste and abuse. The president announced, with much fanfare, a project to eliminate $100 million from the federal budget.
Why to desire for bipartisanship? If this is such a good bill why not exclude the Republicans and take all the credit.
Kurt| 9.23.09 @ 9:52PM
Because why take all of the credit if somewhere, someone can or will accuse you of not 'playing fair.' For in the Obama world, it matters not that you F someone, as long as you talk nice and people believe that you are playing fair. bi-partisan is the golden rule of the 'global elite.' "Look at them, falling into our hands." OK Rockefeller. deny this! They love our bickering.
NJCat| 9.23.09 @ 9:49PM
Not surprised that Humana put an ad at the topo of this article. The blather coming out of the far right is nothing but a cleaver ruse by the insurance companies to protect what they got. If we can just eliminate the insurers and malpractice lawyers from the health insurance economy - we would reduce costs by at least 30%. (eg. each and every OBGYN in the northeast pays over $200K per year for malpractice insurance.) If we're serious about getting health care under 10% of GDP, thats where we start!
Kurt| 9.23.09 @ 10:11PM
No NJCat, truth be known we can't fix this until a majority understand that the only fix is no fix. In other words, numbers and statistics and brand new plans with the latest regulations mean nothing as long as the lemmings believe their GO(d)vernment can help them, and that their representative will help them to get ahead of their peers. God helps those who help themselves, government helps themselves. Is everything perfectly crystal clear?
Yosemeti Sam| 9.23.09 @ 10:58PM
LOL.
What we've got here is a - failure to land
a Moby Dick of health care reform.
Proceed, captain BHO - to your whaling
destiny; joining captains Clintons; not
to mention the aiding and abetting crew. LOL
DaveinPhoenix| 9.24.09 @ 12:20AM
So much for moving to Montana
Robert Rosencrans| 9.24.09 @ 5:52AM
Senator Baucus is like Dr. Frankenstein, bringing up the dead, then letting it loose upon a population to wreak havoc. Soon there will be pitchforks in the hands of the angry rabble as they storm the castle.
Richard Baker| 9.24.09 @ 4:14PM
Has this puke forgotten that a private company is allowed to speak? Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Brian K| 9.30.09 @ 6:17AM
Excellent article. It deals with many of the issues raised in the HCR reform debate. We have some of these issues in greater depth at takebackmedicine.org
On the issue of Baucus gag order of Humana see http://www.takebackmedicine.or.....26bb31d586
Brian K| 9.30.09 @ 6:17AM
See also
With regard to the AMT like aspect of taxes on "cadillac plans" see http://www.takebackmedicine.org/?p=756
and regarding violation of the no tax under $250K see also http://www.takebackmedicine.org/?p=1520
Please feel free t leave comments and links to additional information
lay123| 4.3.10 @ 11:39PM
They are really popular among teenagers or outdoor enthusiasts, famous by 'hip-hop' style in rap and hip-hop videos and also well-known for their strong and enduring work boots varieties www.timberland-outlets.com