Category Archives: Socialism

Updated: The Nanny State, Literally

Family, Healthcare, Regulation, Socialism, Welfare

Both the soon-to-be-merged Senate and House healthcare Bills have provisions that allow “children” to stay on mommy and daddy’s plan until they are 25 and 26 respectively.

The Nanny State, Literally. Keep ’em in short pants and diapers forever.

Lacking in the literature are studies of what the welfare state does to family dynamics across generations. Why, the recent expansion by BO of the entitlement plan known as the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, gave me a renewed hatred of Our Children.

Newsweek distills some of the differences between the two Bills in a table titled, “Our Non-Wonky Guide to Merging the Senate and House Health Bills.”

THE HOUSE BILL: H. R. 3962

THE SENATE BILL: H. R. 3590

Update: Michelle Malkin beat us to it; she blogged the “Big Nanny’s slacker plan: Mandating insurance for adult ‘children'” yesterday, calling this “generational theft” “the slacker mandate.”

The Health-Care Hell Ahead

Healthcare, Individual Rights, Regulation, Socialism

Following Senate Democrats’ victorious vote to end debate on their version of the health care bill (“Cash for Cloture”), the “Senate is on track to hold a final vote on Christmas eve, but there’s still a long way to go” before Barry gets to ink The Thing.

A public option in some permutation (co-ops/exchanges) is a reality to be hammered out in conference. What this will mean to those of us who have adequate insurance is plain: With the Man and his Machine offering up coverage to whomever wants it, the market place will change. Big time.

Given the degree to which the insurance market is going to be further regulated, insurers will gradually divest of their market share, leaving so big a gap that the State will assert the need to move in by “necessity.”

CNN has the low-down on what has been decided for you so far:

“Senate Democrats claimed a major victory this weekend after voting to end debate on their version of the health care bill.

The Senate is on track to hold a final vote on Christmas eve, but there’s still a long way to go before a bill is on President Obama’s desk.

Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about what’s in the House and Senate health care bills and what’s next.

Where does the health care debate stand?

The House passed its version of health care reform last month. The Senate, which follows different procedures than the House, is slated to vote on its version of the health care bill before Christmas.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needs a simple majority of 51 votes for final passage. Assuming the bill makes it through the Senate, a conference committee will then need to iron out the differences between the House and Senate versions and merge them into one bill.

Both chambers will then need to pass the revised bill before it is sent to the president’s desk.

Read Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s take on the health care bill

Why does Obama want health care reform?

The president made health care reform his top domestic priority. He says overhauling the health care system is key to getting the economy back on track.

The president says he wants to reform health care in order to slow the growth of costs for families, businesses and the government. He also wants to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health care, regardless of their income or medical history.

Who will be covered and how much will it cost?

The House plan is projected to guarantee coverage for 96 percent of Americans at a cost of more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The Senate plan is projected to cover 94 percent of Americans with an $871 billion price over the next 10 years, according to the CBO.

How will this be paid for?

The House planimposes a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on individuals with annual incomes over $500,000, as well as families earning more than $1 million.

The Senate plan increases the Medicare payroll tax on individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 from the current 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent.

The Senate bill also imposes a new tax on insurers that provide so-called “Cadillac” health plans valued at more than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families. The 40 percent tax would be on the value of the plan. In addition, it imposes a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning salon treatments.

Both bills call for cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans say that those cuts will impair Medicare coverage, but Democrats say the savings will come from eliminating waste and fraud.

The House and Senate bills also call for fees on medical device manufacturers.

Do I have to buy health insurance?

TheHouse and Senate bills both require individuals to buy health insurance. The House bill imposes a fine of up to 2.5 percent of a person’s income for noncompliance.

The Senate plan imposes a noncompliance fine that starts at $95 in 2010 and escalates to $750 in 2016. It also requires parents to provide health coverage for children up to age 18.

What if I can’t afford coverage?

The House and Senate plans both include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

Both bills subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to roughly $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

With subsidies, premiums for a family of four at 133 percent of poverty ($29,326.50) would be a maximum of $440 under the House plan, while premiums for a family of four making the highest amount eligible would be a maximum of $10,584.

Under the Senate plan, with subsidies, premiums for a family of four at 133 percent of poverty would be a maximum of $821.14, while premiums for a family making the highest amount eligible would be a maximum of $8,643.60.

I own a business. Do I have to provide coverage for my employees?

The House plan requires companies with a payroll of more than $500,000 to provide insurance or pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll.

Under the Senate plan, starting in 2013, companies with more than 50 employees would be required to pay a fee per worker if its employees rely on government subsidies to purchase coverage.

What if I have a pre-existing condition?

Both the House plan and the Senate bill would eventually limit total out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Both plans also bar insurers from charging higher premiums based on a person’s gender or medical history. Insurers can only vary rates based on three things: age, geography and family make-up/size.

What is a health insurance exchange?

‘Health insurance exchange’ refers to the marketplace of the health insurance options. Obama has defined the exchange as a ‘one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans — including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest — and choose what’s best for your family.’

The House bill creates a national health insurance exchange designed to make it easier for small businesses, self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage.

The Senate bill creates state health insurance exchanges in all 50 states.

What is a health care co-op?

Nonprofit health cooperatives, or “co-ops,” are being proposed as an option to compete with the private sector and as an alternative to a government-sponsored public health insurance option. Co-ops are owned and governed by the same people they insure.

The House and Senate plans both establish “co-ops” and strip insurance companies of an antitrust exemption that has been in place since the end of World War II.

What happened to the public option?

The House bill creates a public option, which is a government-funded, government-run health care option, similar to Medicare. The public option would be a part of an insurance exchange available to people without coverage or unable to afford private coverage.

The Senate bill does not create a public option. Instead, it allows nonprofit private insurers to offer coverage with approval of Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the federal employees’ health plan.

What will happen to Medicaid?

The House and Senate bills would both significantly expand Medicaid, the government-run health care plan for the poor.

The House plan extends coverage to individuals earning up to 150 percent of the poverty line, or roughly $33,000 for a family of four.

The Senate plan extends coverage to those earning up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or just over $29,000 for a family of four.

Will abortion treatments be funded with federal dollars?

The House bill prohibits any health plan receiving federal subsidies from offering coverage for abortion.

The Senate plan allows states to choose whether to ban abortion coverage in health plans offered in the insurance exchanges. Individuals purchasing plans through the exchanges would have to pay for abortion coverage out of their own funds.

Will illegal immigrants be covered?

The House bill mandates insurance coverage for illegal immigrants and allows illegal immigrants to enroll in the public option and to buy private coverage in the national insurance exchange, but prohibits government subsidies for such private coverage.

The Senate plan exempts illegal immigrants from the health coverage mandate, and prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in the insurance exchanges.”

CNN’s Tom Cohen, Kristi Keck and Alan Silverleib contributed to this report.

Updated: Healthcare Conscription (PASSED)

Constitution, Democrats, Healthcare, Individual Rights, Regulation, Republicans, Socialism

What else do you need to know about the hulking Health Care Bill Senate slime balls are preparing to pass, other than that the botax is now a tax on tanning beds? It’s hard to tell. I have only just located the Bill online for the first time. H. R. 3590 is 2074 pages long.

I’d say something rude about the abortion compromise (“The legislation also includes a proposal that would limit insurance coverage of abortion,” thus protecting future Harry Reids from being aborted), about which I don’t give a tinker’s toss, but I had better not. The fealty for fetuses not their own shared by Republicans and conservative Dems touches me deeply (NOT).

For crying out loud, the entire Fannie Med bill is immoral and unconstitutional. (LEONARD PEIKOFF is still the best at arguing against the enslavement of doctors.)

NYT: “To get the 60 votes needed to pass their bill, Democrats scrapped the idea of a government-run public insurance plan, cherished by liberals, and replaced it with a proposal for nationwide health plans, which would be offered by private insurers under contract with the government.

Of particular interest for its blatant unconstitutionality is the healthcare-conscription mandate:

“Under the bill, most Americans would be required to have insurance. The penalty for violating this requirement could be as high as 2 percent of a taxpayer’s household income. Penalties would total $15 billion over 10 years, up from $8 billion under Mr. Reid’s original proposal, the Congressional Budget Office said.

In the next 10 years, the government would also collect $28 billion in penalties from employers who did not offer health benefits to employees.”

Update (Dec. 21): CASH FOR CLOTURE has passed. After all the fuss he made, Joe Lieberman joined to vote “Yes,” as did Sen. holdout Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who had “agreed to support the bill in return for compromise language on federal funding for abortion and more money for his state.” CNN: “The vote split on partisan lines in the 60 to 40 vote. With Republicans unanimously opposed.”

WHAT LIES AHEAD? The NYT: The “60 to 40 tally … is expected to be repeated four times as further procedural hurdles are cleared in the days ahead, and then once more in a dramatic, if predictable, finale tentatively scheduled for 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve.”

AP: “The House has already passed legislation, and attempts to work out a compromise are expected to begin in the days after Christmas.”

As I once noted, “The Democrat is open about his devilishness – he finds the idea of a constitutional government with narrowly delimited powers as repellent as Dracula finds garlic. Modern-day conservatives, on the other hand, are less up front about their aversion to a Jeffersonian republic. In a sense, Republicans are the drag queens of politics. Peel away the pules for family, faith and fetuses and one discovers either, what economist and political philosopher Hans-Hermann-Hoppe calls ‘neoconservative welfare-warfare statists and global social democrats.’ Or, conversely, national socialists of sorts, who fuse economic protectionism, populism and a support for the very welfare infrastructure which is at the root of social rot.”

Duly, Democrats never concealed that they reject the natural-rights foundation of the republic, discussed on BAB a few days back. “Health care in America ought to be a right, not a privilege,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut. “Since the time of Harry Truman, every Congress, Republican and Democrat, every president, Democrat and Republican, have at least thought about doing this. Some actually tried.” (Via the NYT.)

Fair enough. Democrats declared forthrightly their intentions to reshape the country (which is already disfigured by statism), and proceeded to so do.

Lacking any first principles, Republicans cried for partisanship, griped about procedural problems, length of Bill, lack of transparency and time to come to grips with this legislative monstrosity; and generally tinkered around the margins. There’s not much else a principles-bereft opposition can do, is there?!

Fed Chief Fights For Fiefdom

Debt, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation, Socialism

Single-handedly has Rep. Ron Paul familiarized Americans with the Federal Reserve’s handiwork, and the havoc its monetary policy visits on the value of their coin and worldly goods. Three hundred and thirteen congressmen now sponsor Paul’s Audit the Fed Bill!

Mitt Romney worries that auditing the Fed might impede the Counterfeiter-in-Chief’s status as an independent, private institution. I mentioned Romney in a previous post for his knack for epitomizing the oil-and-water relationship the Republican front runners have with first principles. This is an an example. Romney is against an audit, he told Larry King, as he would like the Fed to remain … private. Where does one begin…

Like any public functionary presiding over a run-away bureaucratic tier, the chairman of the Fed, Ben S. Bernanke, is fighting for his fiefdom. In an editorial in the WaPo he fretted (or, rather, dissembled), “that a number of the legislative proposals being circulated would significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions. Amen.