More Evidence For Small Government

Just a quick post today as I ponder the bloated mass that is our health care economy....

Got an email at work about my HRA (not FSA or HSA or...you get my point here, right? TOO MANY TYPES OF ACCOUNTS) and in trying to figure out what the "HRA Wellness Credit" was as opposed to the HRA itself, I poked around to determine what I can use the money on.

There is, of course, a site to help you know what is eligible and what is not. It's a very detailed, user-friendly site, in fact, I give it high marks for interface and use. The only reason that such a site is necessary, of course, is because of the aforementioned bloated mass that is American Health Insurance and Care, Inc. That's right, folks, because the US Gov't has a hand in all of this, there are strings attached to the $$ that your company GIVES YOU or that you have WITHHELD FROM YOUR PAY expressly for the purpose of offsetting uncovered medical costs.

Chard Snyder has a handy site to help you spend your FSA (and HRA?) dollars, in fact. Of course they do, why in the world would they miss out on this opportunity to keep the dollars that they manage for you? Seriously, they would be stupid not to!

I am trying to point out that all of this economic activity (building websites to help wade through the ridiculous restrictions on what you can spend health care dollars on, companies existing to manage your HRAs, FSAs, etc.) is only necessary because the Federal Gov't is so thoroughly enmeshed into what should be an independent sector of the economy. Ridiculous.

I tell you, this thought has roots in an old realization when working for a small family business that they had to waste money employing an accountant and payroll service because of the morass of taxes imposed by the federal government and the requirement to withhold payroll taxes rather than a much simpler (for the business) idea that I, the earner, am responsible for paying my quarterly income taxes and must therefore save a portion of my income and write that painful check a few times a year. These businesses are essentially forced to do the work (and pay for the privilege) of the IRS. Ridiculous.

Imagine the tax revolt we would have if there was no such thing as withholding?

What Did They Know, and When Did They Know It?

So, according to this NYT article, about 15% of the population (roughly 48 million people) is without health insurance (which, of course, is not to say that they do not receive health care), yet according to this Forbes article, the Administration knew that about 93 million people would lose their existing coverage under ACA.

It's just they were different people, I guess, which made it all OK.

NYT: "In 2012, the bureau said, 15.4 percent of people were uninsured, down from 15.7 percent in 2011. The number of uninsured people, 48 million, was not statistically different from the estimate of 48.6 million in 2011. David S. Johnson, the chief of social and economic statistics at the bureau, said that much of the increase in coverage last year was attributable to government programs. Medicare covered 15.7 percent of the population, compared with 15.2 percent the previous year.

Census Bureau data showed significant changes in coverage over the last 13 years.

From 1999 to 2012, the bureau said, the proportion of people with private health insurance declined to 63.9 percent, from 73 percent, while the proportion with government coverage rose to 32.6 percent, from 24.2 percent."

Forbes: "How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans."

Weep, founders, weep.

I (heart) funny

I wish I could do this full time, so i could find little bits of awesomeness and funniness like this from D r u d g e: That's comedy, right there.

'END' OF THE 'END GAME' OR 'THE END'?

TODAY: Obama pushing on health care end game (AP)

Last year:

July 28: Healthcare endgame on Capitol Hill (Reuters)

August 21: Analysis: Health care endgame near but uncertain (AP)

October 14: Senate, administration begin healthcare endgame as Dem leaders express unity (Hill)

October 25: Senators say health care bill endgame is in sight (Politico)

October 27: End Game: So When Will Health Care Really Happen? (TPM)

October 30: Health reform inches closer to endgame (WaPo)

November 23: The Health Care Endgame (NPR)

health care dog and pony show Part II, the Sequel

Michelle Malkin is all over this, so I don't have to be: consider this a non-twitter ReTweet.

Here's and excerpt, it's the roundup of Sen. Obama's quotes about the so-called nuclear option when the R's were in charge:

"CBS Interview 11/2/04

My understanding of the Senate is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen, which means that Democrats and Republicans have to ask the question, do we have the will to move an American agenda forward, not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?

Change to Win Convention 9/25/07

The bottom line is that our healthcare plans are similar, the question once again is, who can get it done? Who can build a movement for change? This is an area where we’re going to have to have a 60% majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We’re going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk. That is not just a fifty plus one majority.

Obama Interview with the Concord Monitor 10/9/07

You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of fifty plus one pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of fifty plus one. Then you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One, there are a lot of nice perks, but you can’t deliver on healthcare. We are not going to pass universal health care with a fifty plus one strategy.

Center for American Progress Conference 7/12/06

Those big-ticket items: fixing our health care system. You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with my fellow progressives, and some of these have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion, is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove where we identify our core base, we throw ’em red meat, we get a fifty plus one victory. See, Karl Rove doesn’t need a broad consensus because he doesn’t believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizeable majority."

Nationalized Health Care

Apparently, the Brits are aware of problems our President and his health care cronies aren't. I ask: do we want the people running Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security/IRS/ in charge of your doctor?