Showing posts with label unemployment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unemployment. Show all posts

Thursday, March 18, 2010

The Extended Case Against the Healthcare Bill

The Heritage Foundation notes: "there is no bill but the Senate bill" and that "a review of just how terrible it really is, is in order".

Their case against:


New Middle-Class Taxes: Throughout his campaign, President Barack Obama promised he would not raise taxes on American households making less than $250,000. The Senate bill shatters that promise. For starters, just look at the reason Trumka went to the White House yesterday: the excise tax on high-cost health insurance plans. This tax would overwhelmingly hit middle-class taxpayers. Taxes on prescription drugs, wheel chairs and other medical devices would also be passed on to all consumers, hitting the lower- and middle- classes the hardest.

Increased Health Care Costs: The Senate bill manifestly does nothing to bend the health care cost curve downward. According to the latest CBO report, the Senate bill would actually increase health care spending by $210 billion over the next 10 years. This follows a previous report from the President’s own Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) showing the Senate bill would result in $234 billion in additional health care spending over 10 years.

Increased Health Insurance Premiums: The President initially promised that Americans would see a $2,500 annual reduction in their family health care costs. But under the Senate bill, premiums would go up for millions of Americans. In fact, according to the CBO, estimated premiums in the individual market would be 10–13 percent higher by 2016 than they would be under current law.

Increased Deficits: Despite claiming to be comprehensive health care reform, the Senate bill does not address the fact that Medicare’s current price-fixing doctor reimbursement scheme is set to reduce doctor payments by 21% this year. That simply is not going to happen. Congress will pass that fix separately. If that cost were included, Obamacare is already $200 billion in the red. Now throw in the fact that the Senate bill is paid for with another $463 billion in Medicare cuts to health care providers. CMS says if these cuts occur, one-fifth of all health care providers will face bankruptcy. That simply is not going to happen. Just like the doctor reimbursement cuts have never happened, the Obamacare Medicare cuts will never happen. So in reality, Obamacare will add almost $700 billion to our national deficit in the next ten years alone.

Increases Unemployment and Puts Millions of Americans on Welfare: According to The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA), a dynamic analysis of the tax hikes and deficits created by the Senate bill shows that an average 690,000 jobs per year would be lost if it became law. In addition, over half of all Americans who would gain health insurance through the bill (18 million out of 33 million) would do so by being placed on Medicaid, which is a welfare program.


Higher taxes, higher health care costs, higher health insurance premiums, higher deficits, more unemployment and more Americans on welfare. That is America’s future should the Senate Obamacare bill become law.

Quick Hits:

  • According to the Treasury Department, the National Debt has increased over $2 trillion over the 421 days since President Obama took office.

  • If the House does pass the Senate bill, dozens of conservative lawmakers and candidates have signed a pledge to back an effort to repeal the measure.

  • Yesterday Mark Levin posted the complaint his Landmark Legal Foundation will file in federal court if the House uses the Slaughter Rule to pass the Senate bill.

  • Over half of the Americans who gain health insurance through the Senate bill will not be able to get their drugs from Washington state Walgreens, since they announced yesterday that as of April 16th they will not accept any new Medicaid patients.

  • According to Gallup, Americans firmly prioritize the economy over the environment and fewer than half of Democrats now believe environmental protection is the more important goal.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Government Intervention Atheist

Mark Shields, last week on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer


And, you know, Jeffrey Frankel of Harvard put it, I thought, perfectly well. He said, "Just as there are no foxholes -- there are no atheists in a foxhole, there are no libertarians in a financial crisis."

I mean, all of the good folks who've told us "hands off, laissez-faire, no government," I don't know where they are. They've suddenly become Marcel Marceau . They've gone mute on us. You know, everybody wants Sam in there, and you can feel the irresistible wave for regulation.


Oh, hi there. I'm a libertarian ... despite this financial crisis.

And I'm a rather concerned libertarian because Shields is right. Most fiscal conservatives have shut up and the climate is ripe for new regulatory legislation. In particular, the so called "fiscal conservatives" - the ones the left paints as being fiscally conservative, like Bush and McCain, when their record proves otherwise - seem to be especially pro-new-government-intervention.

But government intervention is not the cure all for economic woes.

In the early 80s, under the Reagan administration, taxes were lowered and regulation frozen. Although not immediate, the recession that began under Carter came to a close under Reagan.

In the early 20s, another (serious but lesser known because of the 30's depression) recession came and went without Big Government intervention.

And the economic conditions of those two recessions were dramatically worse that today.

At 6.1%, unemployment is lower today than during any year in the entire twelve year range of 1975 to 1987 with the one exception of 1979 where it was only two tenths of a percent lower than today. And 1979, 1980, and 1981 all saw double-digit inflation.

Between 1919 and 1921, unemployment climbed to 11% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell losing nearly half it's value.


Now, new regulations would not necessarily be a bad thing. I would welcome laws requiring more transparency assuming that said laws don't add major imediments to business (like say, Sarbanes-Oxley has done). And, if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are regrettably here to stay, something needs to be done to change them away from a model of private profits and socialized losses.

But, it's clear that history teaches markets can correct themselves without dramatic government involvement. And it's unlikely that giving in to the temptation to try to have government rescue us from this will be in our interest in the long run.

I join the plea: Kill the Bailout.