Obama's health care claims don't add up
Obama is here in Ohio today desperately trying to rally support for his crazy health care scheme. The fact that he chose an area of the state dominated by Democrats (the Cleveland area) is a sign of how desperate he is. If he had the support of Democrats he'd be in south-central Ohio trying to get independents on his side.
One of the reasons is his claims for his health care changes simply don't add up. Take, for example, the situation of Natoma Canfield, currently being used as a prop by the Obama administration:
Meanwhile, the White House tried to increase public pressure on Congress to pass the legislation. Obama planned to visit Strongsville, Ohio, home of cancer patient Natoma Canfield, who wrote the president she gave up her health insurance after it rose to $8,500 a year. Obama repeatedly has cited that letter from a self-employed cleaning worker who lives in the Cleveland suburb to illustrate the urgency of the massive overhaul.
She stopped buying health insurance because it was too expensive at $8,500 a year. So how is forcing her to buy health insurance going to change her situation except to force her back into an untenable economic scenario?
If Obama's changes will result in lower health care premiums then Canfield could choose to start buying health insurance as soon as it became affordable for her, so why force her to buy it before then?
If Obama's changes will force insurance companies to cover more people and more expensive scenarios such as pre-existing conditions how will they lower insurance premiums?
If Obama is going to use tax dollars to subsidize insurance premiums who will benefit and to what degree? In general, subsidies increase the market prices of the goods being subsidized, so again how will this lower premiums?
Democrats need to admit that their plans do not result in a free market with lower costs. Indeed their plans lead to a closed market where only the government offers "insurance", which is really just another welfare program that covers medical costs. And, like all other welfare programs it will provide "free" services for a few at the expense of the many. Politics will be used to determine who pays more and who gets free care, of course. The system that results will be a socialized nightmare of bureaucracies and special interests vying for federal tax dollars with little (if any) money left over for real patient care.
And if you think you're going to be one of the few getting "free" health care at the expense of some evil rich person I have some payroll tax rates to show you.
Update: Obama greeted by protesters lining the streets.
Update 2: Hospital says Natoma Canfield isn't going to lose her house and is in fact eligible for Medicaid and charitable coverage.
One of the reasons is his claims for his health care changes simply don't add up. Take, for example, the situation of Natoma Canfield, currently being used as a prop by the Obama administration:
Meanwhile, the White House tried to increase public pressure on Congress to pass the legislation. Obama planned to visit Strongsville, Ohio, home of cancer patient Natoma Canfield, who wrote the president she gave up her health insurance after it rose to $8,500 a year. Obama repeatedly has cited that letter from a self-employed cleaning worker who lives in the Cleveland suburb to illustrate the urgency of the massive overhaul.
She stopped buying health insurance because it was too expensive at $8,500 a year. So how is forcing her to buy health insurance going to change her situation except to force her back into an untenable economic scenario?
If Obama's changes will result in lower health care premiums then Canfield could choose to start buying health insurance as soon as it became affordable for her, so why force her to buy it before then?
If Obama's changes will force insurance companies to cover more people and more expensive scenarios such as pre-existing conditions how will they lower insurance premiums?
If Obama is going to use tax dollars to subsidize insurance premiums who will benefit and to what degree? In general, subsidies increase the market prices of the goods being subsidized, so again how will this lower premiums?
Democrats need to admit that their plans do not result in a free market with lower costs. Indeed their plans lead to a closed market where only the government offers "insurance", which is really just another welfare program that covers medical costs. And, like all other welfare programs it will provide "free" services for a few at the expense of the many. Politics will be used to determine who pays more and who gets free care, of course. The system that results will be a socialized nightmare of bureaucracies and special interests vying for federal tax dollars with little (if any) money left over for real patient care.
And if you think you're going to be one of the few getting "free" health care at the expense of some evil rich person I have some payroll tax rates to show you.
Update: Obama greeted by protesters lining the streets.
Update 2: Hospital says Natoma Canfield isn't going to lose her house and is in fact eligible for Medicaid and charitable coverage.