Robert Reich Sounds Sci-Fi on Health Care

Opponents of Obama's health care proposal are often described as "alarmists," as they discuss rationed health care, the death of innovation, and the devastating effects it will have on the budget. However, what really angers proponents of government health care is when people discuss economic euthanasia. That is, allowing people to die or even encouraging people to die because prolonging their lives would only provide a drain on the economy. In Europe, people often hear, "I am sorry sir, but your wife is rather old and has been retired for years, it really does not make sense to spend the type of money necessary to prolong her life." My own family heard a similar tale when my grandfather passed away back in the 1970s in England. I remember hearing my family say that they had no recourse, since "we have no way to sue the government." That, too, is another problem with socialized health care.

Those who support Obama's plans say that such arguments in our health care debate are unfair. "The US would not create a sci-fi environment of people being eliminated on economic grounds," we are told. Only the most extreme personalities support such a position.

I wonder if they would consider Robert Reich such an extremist? Reich was the 22nd Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and is an adviser on economic issues for President Obama. He holds a BA from Dartmouth and a JD from Yale University.

Recently Reich spoke at the University of California and painted a picture of what an "honest" politician would say when running for President, if "that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what a candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them." An "honest" politician, that does sound scary. This is all the more so when you get Reich's perception of such in giving a hypothetical speech.

Reich, acting as the "sound" leader stated, "Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I'm so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that's true and what I'm going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people...you're going to have to pay more." This is definitely the case, especially if the government is going to be the one behind the "reorganization." This is also true if it is going to be a government run system, because the only hope for price containment is in competition and there will be none of that in a national health care program.

This model candidate goes on to say, "Thank you. And by the way, we're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die." By the way, the radical Berkeley crowd loved this remark and applauded.

Could the speech get much worse? The "candidate" goes on, "Also I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid---we already have a lot of bargaining leverage---to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents. Thank you."

It is interesting how opponents of Obamacare have made these claims about the future about such government programs for years and the media has dismissed them as being extreme in their descriptions. I have yet to read anything from anyone on the right any more frightening than the words of Obama's apologist, Robert Reich.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is also host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650). Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

The less observed consequences to government health care

Socialized medicine through out the world has the following characteristics:

• It leads to delays where, as in the case of Canada, patients wait for 17 weeks on average from the time a general practitioner says indicates that something is wrong until one visits a specialist

• It leads to rationed care, where people not only wait for years for things such as hip replacements, but often find themselves forced to pay for such out of their own pockets in foreign countries

• It has a negative effect on mortality rates, as we see those who suffer from certain diseases such as cancer, surviving half as long in countries like England compared to patients in the United States

• It has been linked to "economic euthanasia," in which individuals are allowed (or even encouraged) to die because they are no longer economically viable since they no longer pay taxes. That is exactly what happened to my own grandfather in England • It leads to no recourse, as government officials "apologize" for their negligence or horrible mistakes, but there is no viable way of pursuing damages

These are fairly obvious and well known and observed by medical and policy professionals around the world. In spite of how horrible they are, their proponents tell us that "socialized medicine is better than nothing." In fact, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer used those words recently. Our indigent population is provided for better in our current and flawed system than those under socialized medicine, so the reasoning simply does not make any sense.

To make matters worse are those effects that are less noticeable. I do not want to sound like a conspiracy therapist, but their implications are far reaching and threaten to undermine both our robust health care system and, historically, the most vibrant economy in the history of the world.

Socialized medicine is part of a "cradle to grave" approach to governing that puts enormous financial strain on individuals and undermines individual responsibility. The mega rich can be taxed to pay for the cost of such programs and still have plenty of resources to do what they want with their money. They can still start enterprises, buy additional businesses, buy new toys, and more. But for the vast majority of individuals in the upper middle class and lower, such excessive costs can literally drive people into a lower income bracket in terms of quality of life and spending power purposes. Such costs make it all the more difficult for people to invest in new tools, to transition from employee to self-employed, and to pursue the climbing of the rungs of the ladder towards economic success.

In essence, these types of programs actually protect the very wealthy from aspiring entrepreneurs that are attempting to achieve economic success of their own, this is among the reasons the rich support big government programs. They might be an inconvenience to them, but are devastating for those who want to be rich. It should not be a surprise then that, in the last presidential election, the highest income group supported Obama 3 to 1 over McCain. It is not only because they can afford to support it, but because it is a small price to pay to stay "competitive."

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Massachusetts Senate Race: A Referendum on Health Care Reform

Who would have guessed that a seat held by the Kennedys since the 1950s may find itself in the Republican column? A state wide seat in which registered Democrats out number Republicans 3 to 1? The news media is attributing these amazing turn of events -- with the Republican challenger leading in some polls -- to the general discontentment towards the party in power in both the White House and the Congress. Maybe, but I do not think so. I think it is much more personal than that.

One of the main reasons why voters are entertaining turning over one of its Senate seats to a Republican is that the people of Massachusetts have seen the future of socialized medicine and they know it doesn't work. They have been under a health care bill since 2006 that mirrors, in many respects, the Obama plan navigating through the Senate.

Forbes magazine has pointed out that many of the voters of Massachusetts are unhappy with the plan and for several good reasons. In an article titled "MAss Disaster," writer Sally Pipes exposes some of the ugly truths surrounding the socialized health care bill that has plagued the state.

Pipes reminds the reader of some words that have haunted then Governor Mitt Romney. "'Will Commonwealth care cost taxpayers more? No!' So wrote Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in November 2004, the economy then still in full bloom. 'Neither the state nor the taxpayers can afford to pay more.' She goes on to point out that "It's worth pondering ex-Gov. Romney's promises just over three years after he crossed partisan lines to reform health care in the Bay State. The Obama administration and congressional Democrats are modeling reform on the Massachusetts model, promoting bureaucratic health exchanges, increased restrictions on health insurance and vastly expanded taxpayer-subsidized care. Like Romney, they promise more coverage at lower cost, even as the evidence suggests otherwise."

So what do the people of Massachusetts think about the socialized health care experiment they have been a part of? The Forbes piece notes that "Only one in four considers the reform a success. Just one in five thinks it has made health care more affordable." I'm sure that many of the one-fourth work in government or they are among those that had no health insurance before and do not know quality care when they see it. They certainly are not seeing it in their own state.

A plan that was touted as a way to increase coverage without excessive government spending has had the exact opposite effect:

• Medicaid has increased by 76,000 enrollees and the subsidized plans by 177,000.


• Forty-six percent pay no premium, and


• another 12% are highly subsidized.


• A mere 19,000 have signed up for the non-subsidized private plans offered through the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector. These were the plans that Romney and others said would help contain costs.

To make matters worse, the bill is very costly. Most citizens are looking at spending 10 percent of their incomes on premiums or face impressive fines. So high, in fact, are the premiums, 20 percent of the state's residents have become exempt from the coverage. Many of these moved to Medicaid (as seen above), but at least 3 percent of the population are still without coverage. Instead of reducing costs, like the politicians promised as the bill navigated through the legislative process, it has significantly increased costs and has the government scrambling for revenues. Recently the state has taken a page out of Obama's book and has put a hit on smokers at the tune of $1 a pack.

So how will the state fight the growth in health care costs? The same way socialist health care systems have fought such runaway costs for years; through a bureaucracy that will cut doctors' income, moving patients into manage care, and the establishment of price controls. In other words, through the development of the same type of rationed care that dominates much of the world today. These are the exact type of approaches Massachusetts is pursuing.

The people of Massachusetts already know this type of health care does not work and that is why they are so close to electing a Republican like Scott Brown to the US Senate.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Obamacare's attack on families

The news continues to be disconcerting when it comes to the impact the President's health care bill will have on average Americans and families in particular. In addition to leading to health care shortages, waiting lists, and the squeezing of individuals out of private care into the government program, this bill takes particularly harsh aim at married couples.

In fact, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that "Some married couples would pay thousands of dollars more for the same health insurance coverage as unmarried people living together, under the health insurance overhaul plan pending in Congress"

In light of the bigger issues surrounding the bill -- quality of care, concern for shortages, disruption of the patient and doctor relationship, abortion funding -- many are not noticing the economic discrimination that is taking place against people based on their marital status.

The "marriage penalty" that is being "built in" to both the House and Senate health care bills has largely gone under the radar screen, but many low-income and middle-income couples could find themselves with an increase of $2,000 or more in annual insurance premiums the moment they tie the knot.

How will this discrepancy be demonstrated between the married and singles? The Wall Street Journal article points out that "because subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the plan from congressional Democrats are pegged to federal poverty guidelines. That has the effect of limiting subsidies for married couples with a combined income, compared to if the individuals are single. People who get their health insurance through an employer wouldn't be affected.
Only people that buy subsidized insurance through new exchanges set up by the legislation stand to be impacted."

Here are the facts surrounding the House and Senate measures, according to the Journal:

• About 17 million people would receive such subsidies in 2016 under the House plan


• The bills limits the annual amount people making less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level must pay for health insurance premiums, ranging from 1.5 percent of income for the poorest to 11 percent at the top end
  
• Under the House plan: For an unmarried couple with income of $25,000 each, combined premiums would be capped at $3,076 per year. If the couple gets married, with a combined income of $50,000, their annual premium cap jumps to $5,160 -- a "penalty" of $2,084. The "crime" that generates this penalty is simply being married


• The difference is less in the Senate version of health care legislation, chiefly because premium subsidies in the House bill are more targeted towards low-wage earners


• Under the Senate bill, a couple with $50,000 in combined income would pay $3,450 in annual premiums if unmarried, and $5,100 if married. This difference of $1,650 is again due to the marital status.
  
  

Critics of the plan say that married couples whose combined income makes them ineligible for subsidies is even greater -- possibly as high as $5,000 or more -- depending on the price of the insurance policy.

The obvious concerns surrounding this bill are getting a significant amount of attention. There are many less obvious stories that surround this bill that should be of equal concern to the American people.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Ben Nelson can Feel the Heat

The Wall Street Journal reports these headlines: "Heat Rises on Nebraska's Nelson...Senator Launches Ad Campaign at Home to Defend Key Vote on Health Bill." On the surface, this seems like odd headlines for a person who just figured out how to permanently provide "free health insurance" for his constituents.

The article points out that "Mr. Nelson, who faces re-election in 2012, backed the Senate health-care bill only after lengthy talks in which he won agreement that the federal government would permanently cover the full cost in Nebraska of expanding Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor." His vote was crucial in getting the controversial bill through the US Senate. Nelson's vote has drawn criticism from around the country and close to home. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a moderate Republican noted for his tolerance of liberal actions called Nelson's vote "sleazy." The Senator's own governor, Dave Heineman, has been critical of the circumstance behind the bill's passage, stating on Fox News that "The responsibility for this special deal lies solely on the shoulders of Senator Ben Nelson." He is now said to be considering running against Nelson in 2012.

The damage for the bill has been significant. In Nebraska, a Dec. 28 Rasmussen poll showed Heineman, who opposes the bill, soundly beating Mr. Nelson in a theoretical 2012 match-up, 61% to 30%. This is devastating to Nelson, who is 68 years old and was last re-elected in 2006 with 64% of the vote.

The Democrats are in trouble when it comes to the health care bill in general and that legislation will likely serve as a referendum in the 2012 elections. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in December found that 44% to 41% of Americans prefer the health system as it is to the Democrats' health overhaul. The bill is so bad that they cannot even give it away for free in Nebraska.There will be much debate over the sudden decline in Nelson's popularity. It could be because the people of Nebraska are like the rest of the nation who are opposed to rationed or socialized care. Some of them may understand the Constitutional obligations of a US Senator and believe he violated his legal mandate by supporting this bill that is without legitimacy. I believe that Nelson should have learned a lesson from George McGovern, the candidate who lost the 1972 race for the Presidency by a landslide. In the early part of 1972 McGovern was doing very well in his race against Richard Nixon, until he placed on his platform the redistribution of $1,000 to individuals who made less than $5,000 a year. $5,000 does not seem like much now, but at the time it was a huge sum of money. In fact, that described a majority of Americans at the time. But the vast majority of them believed they would make more than that some day. Furthermore, in spite of the weak morals of our elected officials and deep seated cynicism in the way they judge their constituents, I believe most Americans are not mere free loaders eager to get on the welfare dole. The people of Nebraska are hard working and do not want to be seen as dependents on the rest of the country. Nelson's dim view of his voters will likely provide grim results for him in 2012.


Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Federal Government will Pressure States in Health Care Revenue Collecting

As the states desperately try to pass legislation to protect itself from the many potentially adverse effects of the President's health care proposal, the federal government is working all the harder to make sure state governments do the heavy lifting for the bill's funding.

According to a recent article by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, the amount of spending required for the new Medicaid package is so staggering, it requires state as well as federal funding. Southern states have tended to try to contain costs by keeping Medicare spending in check. The Obama administration is planning on forcing states to bring more dollars to the table.

The authors cite the following examples:

• My home state of Texas will be hit the hardest ($2.8 billion in additional state spending), Pennsylvania will be second ($1.5 billion), followed by California ($1.4 billion), and finally Florida ($909 million).


• The amount is so high, financially strapped Florida may believe it has no choice but to impose an income tax. This is a practice the state has long tried to avoid.


• The impact may include political tones, since for many of the states represented by swing senators in the health care debate, the required increases in state spending are likely to be quite high, say Morris and McGann:


• In the state of Arkansas, where swing Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln live, the increased spending required under the Obamacare bill would come to over $400 million (not counting the federal share). This adds up to a 10 percent increase in state spending. Lincoln is considered one of the most vulnerable Senators in 2010, so this debate has particular meaning to her.


• In Louisiana, Senator Mary Landrieu is literally being accused of selling her vote in return for more Medicaid funding, the increase would come to $432 million (a 5 percent hike in state spending), more than wiping out the extra funds she got in return for her vote. What is so myopic about this is that, not only will the amount of dollars she got be offset due to the costs on the state from day one, the "pay off" will only benefit for a limited period of time. The new cost on the state will be annual and without an expiration date.


• In Indiana, where the more moderate (by Democrat standards) Evan Bayh is senator, spending would go up by $586 million. This is a significant increase of 4 percent.
  Ben Nelson of Nebraska has been one of the health care bill's stronger Democrat critics. His state will require an additional spending under the bill of $81 million, a 2 percent increase.


• The pain continues to other states, as North Dakota, home of Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, will face a spending increase of $14 million, and in South Dakota, represented by moderate Democrat Tim Johnson, Medicaid spending would have to rise by $33 million.

These increases in spending do not include the direct cost that will have to be carried by Americans in federal tax. This bill remains complicated and the extent of the financial injury it provides only grows daily.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Canadians Die Waiting for Health Care

The Canadian health care system, which is often touted as the future of medicine, has been the subject of controversy for years. So much so, in fact, that the Canadian government is seriously entertaining privatizing major elements of the system.


The surface of the program should discourage most. It is touted as free, but is funded through taxpayer dollars. We are told it is universal, but the country's own Supreme Court says that is only in its lines. In fact, two Canadian justices wrote three years ago that "access to a waiting list is not access to health care."



The system is overused, there is virtually no consumer incentive to act responsibly regarding it, and the results are huge lines, delayed treatments, and even death.

In spite the government's best efforts of controlling every aspect of Canada's health care system, the market has risen to address the needs of a public that has grown discontent of having to wait on a list. Seventeen weeks from the time a general practitioner says one needs a specialist and one actually sees one, is too long for most Canadians. Responding to the need, the British Columbia Automobile Association recently began offering "waiting-list insurance" to some of its members as part of a pilot program.

Those who buy the coverage receive treatment in a private clinic in British Columbia or the United States if they were placed on a government care waiting list longer than 45 days. 45 days is still too long for most, but it was an improvment. The kind of improvement the government could not handle as it shut it down to investigate if the program was legal.


"This is an example of a company that's actively soliciting for clients that have the ability to pay for the privilege of queue-jumping," said Adrian Dix, a member of B.C.'s Legislative Assembly. "In my view, and in the view of the legal opinion that we obtained, it is illegal, and it violated both provincial and national health legislation." This is one of the many dark sides of socialized health care. Not do its proponents want to put everyone in a collective system, they do not want anyone who can afford to do more (like insurance for waiting lists) to have that opportunity. The idea of any elected official -- or any responsible individual -- being opposed to such a program is beyond comprehesion. What is "fair" and "equal" in the Canadian system is the misery.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

"Choice" Under Obama's Health Care

There is a huge amount of angry rhetoric surrounding Barack Obama's health care policy agenda. On the left we hear about the untold numbers of people dying on the streets without health insurance and on the right we hear about "death panels" that will determine who gets to live and who has to die. The President has asked that the America people take the rhetoric down a little bit and have a thoughtful discussion. He tells us that "choice" won't be affected. You will "always have private options," Obama has told us. This is, of course, a little different from what he said on the campaign trail, in which he discussed a single payer system like Canada's which prohibits private practice, but is more in line with the political realities he faces today.

It is this issue of choice that I want to focus on. Advocates of government health care are telling us that under a new system you will be free to keep your private option, but you are going to have to pay for the health care of everyone on the government system. Candidate Obama said that only those who make $250,000 or more a year will be subject to new taxes to pay for his expansive government. In the last few weeks that number has been adjusted to those making around $100,000. The reality is that spending is so out of control and unemployment is so high, having a job at all will be considered affluent under this Administration.

The funding model of government health care will be similar to that of public schools. Everyone pays for the school, even if they don't use the school. Millions of Americans can simply go to their schools of choice and not be subject to the under performing public schools that we have become famous for on the international scene, but approximately 90 percent of all children come from families that choose not to go private, according to the Department of Education. This happens because parents are "crowded out" of the private options due to how expensive they are and the lack of dollars available to spend on them because they have to pay for public schools no matter where their children attend. In England, approximately 90 percent are on socialized medicine and only 10 percent have private insurance.

Ironically, most of the same politicians who argue that our public schools are not performing at the level they should are also arguing for national health care. Since government has done so well in public education, let us allow it to have a shot at our nation's health. That is a scary thought.

So will you feel forced to be under socialized medicine? Do you feel forced to have your children in private schools, but would prefer a private option? If the answer is "yes" to that question there is a high liklihood you will be under government health care program. However, if you are part of that minority that have children in private schools, you know how great that additional burden can be. It will likely be very similar under socialized medicine, far more of a burden than private health insurance is currently.

According to Freedom Works only around 15 milllion (out of 300 million) of the population are uninsured withough choice (not including illegals who should clearly be treated differently from the rest of the country, in my opinion). The US is toying with the idea of destroying a system that gives us huge choices and the most advanced health care in the world in order to accomodate approximately 5 percent of the population. The way we will help them is by destroying their health care too, because they are still being treated in our system, even without contributing. There certainly has to be a "better way."

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Horror Stories are the Tip of the Rationed Care Iceberg

Americans have been discussing concerns about rationed (or government driven) health care for years. In the early 1990s, when Bill Clinton pursued such a program, we heard daily about the problems of long lines and lack of doctors that were common in government programs. Now we are hearing stories about the much lower success rates in countries with government care when it comes to combating major diseases. This goes against one of the fundamental reasons people argue for government care -- without fear of cost, people will go to the doctor quicker, get diagnosed earlier (or better still do the things that will prevent disease), and live longer and healthier lives. The facts are not supporting this hypothesis:

• The average time frame between a general practitioner and treatment in Canada's socialized health care program is more than 4 months (17.3 weeks) according to the Frazier Institute.


• 20% of curable lung cancer patients in the UK die due to long waiting lists, according to the Manhattan Institute. This is also the case in other conditions as I can speak from my own personal circumstances in which I lost my grandfather and an aunt due to Britain's famous lines.


• According to Investors Business Daily: "In France, the supply of doctors is so limited that during an August 2003 heat wave — when many doctors were on vacation and hospitals were stretched beyond capacity — 15,000 elderly citizens died."


• According to Forbes Magazine, the prostate cancer survival rate in the US is 80 percent, in the UK it is 44 percent.

These areas are huge in and of themselves, but the bigger issue is the impact rationed care will have on the development of new drugs, technology, and other innovations in health care. The poor quality of service seen in socialized systems cited above are largely would be even worse if not for the innovations created by the US system. Imagine how much more difficult quality care will be to achieve when all but the most altruistic incentives for improvements disappear. The profit driven health care system of the US drives innovation.

The Federal Reserve Bank did an evaluation of the ten leading innovations of 2001. These included improvements and discoveries in several areas, such as changess in MRIs, development of drugs for high blood pressure and heart disease, cholesterol reducing drugs, innovations in breast cancer diagnosis, surgery for heart failure, eye surgery, and more. In the ten different major areas of discovery, the United States dominated the list with its involvement in eight. The only other countries that played a role were the United Kingdom and Japan, each having only two innovations each.

Self interest has always driven innovation. The US has stood alone as a country that has made such a primary driver in changes in health care. It makes sense to wonder what the effects of worldwide health care socialism has already had on health care. Imagine what it will be like when the last bastion of innovation, the United States, loses the profit motive that has made this country the leader in health care discoveries for decades.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Chuck Grassley Provides Signs of Life for GOP

For months, and maybe years, Republican rank and file have been seeking signs of life from a party that has been limping along for ages. The GOP has become the "me too" party, or "the light" version of the Democrats, or many other cliches that can be used for a party that has become dysfunctional.

Every once in a while, we see signs of hope. Many were excited when John McCain chose Gov. Sarah Palin as a running mate. Gimmick or not, it was nice for the dominant moderate force of the party to recognize that conservatives still matter. The latest cause for excitement has come from an unlikely source, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

I've known Grassley for decades and almost worked for him back in the 1980s (instead I worked for Sen. Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire). He was then, and still today, anything but an "activist" Senator. He is very soft spoken and not particularly sharp witted or sharp tongued. He is a fairly typical "middle America" personality. Subdued, soft spoken, and matter of fact. He is one of only 28 Senators in history to have made more than 10,000 votes, something he wears as a badge of honor (something that I deem a little suspicious). The 75 year old has been in the Senate since 1981 and in the US House for six years before that. In other words, he has almost 35 years of working in DC behind him.

This unlikely hero for Conservatives is getting attention for taking President Obama on in a way that we are not use to seeing these days. Politics is too genteel for my liking and the US Senate even more so. This very elite club is known for treating its colleagues and the President with "kid gloves." Meanwhile, millions of Americans are looking for someone to speak up. Enter Chuck Grassley.

The Senator, in his 70s, has used an unlikely vehicle for getting the message out as well. Pulling a chapter out of Barack Obama's book, his platform, of all things, is Twitter. Today, the Senator gave the following status report, ignore the grammar, the Senator is taking typical Twitter liberties:

"Pres Obama you got nerve while u sightseeing in Paris to tell us 'time to deliver' on health care. We still on skedul/even workinWKEND."

This 140 characters (give or take a few) has started a social networking revolution and has gotten conservative Republicans excited again. It is time for the GOP to start drawing lines in the sand and holding this Administration and its minions accountable for its arrogance. That is the kind of thing that could revive the dying Republican brand.

This particular issue, the rationing of health care, is absolutely crucial in fighting to defend the greatest health care system in the world (warts and all). If Republicans want to be relevant again, they will speak with force and passion, use Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, YouTube and every other tool they can think of to win back the hearts and minds of the American people. Our freedoms and future hang in the balance.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

So What Could we Lose in Health Care Savings?

The Los Angeles Times reported today that "President Obama, joined by an array of groups pledging to cut the cost of health care, said today the commitment that insurers, hospitals, doctors and others have made to saving money will help him achieve the health care reform he is pursuing on Capitol Hill."

The Washington Times has taken a rather dismissive tone to the actions, stating "The pledge provided few specifics on how the costs savings would be achieved or monitored. And many industry groups remain fiercely opposed to a central plank of the Obama health reform plan — the creation of a publicly funded health insurance plan to compete with private insurers and ensure universal health coverage."

Many will argue, including this writer, that any such pledges by the health care industry will likely be more verbal than monetary. This is all the more the case when you factor in the huge amounts of money the industry will have to spend to fight the Administration's socialized medicine program.

This government-private "collaboration" has problems on several levels:

• Where does an administration that has spent more in 100 days than any Administration up to Ronald Reagan spent in their entire terms, have the right to lecture anyone on fiscal responsibility?


• These dollars are being spent on something and there are always trade offs. Will the proposed $2 trillion come from cutting waste and bureaucracy? Or will it come from innovation, salaries, patient care, and other legitimate functions of health care.


• The fundamental question of the "role of government" is again, completely ignored in this "agreement."

Right now this agreement is little more than another example of Obama attempting to do "something," even if it results in little or nothing. It is an example of rhetoric without substance. The solution to America's health care problems will be found in the market place. At some point, that is where Obama needs to seriously search. What works in our economy are things like competition, reasonable risk, innovation, and economies of scale. These are found in the market, not in the government.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Socialized Medicine on Strategy Room

My second appearance on Strategy Room (FoxNews.com) this past week moved to a topic that hits close to home to me -- socialized medicine. Eric Bolling had already navigated the panel through his 3 PM hour through a plethora of topics and they were primed by the time I got on the show.

My mother came right off the boat from England. She was a war bride who left her family to join her spouse in the United States. She was young when she did this, a mere 18 years old. Maybe, as a result, she was one of the biggest fan of England you would ever find. She would go on and on about the "virtues" of British socialism and how "terrible" it was that people in this country were responsible for their own health insurance. Having had visited with members of my family in "the old country" many times over the years, my instincts tell me that my mother would have likely had a very different view of British socialism if she lived under it.

My aunt (her sister) use to tell me how such a huge portion of every paycheck was devoured by the socialized health care system, she was amazed by the large number of people who were subsidized to not work, and was disgusted by how it became almost impossible for the average Brit to buy their own home. Regarding health insurance, she said national health care is "great until you need it." It provides "enormous peace of mind" until you actually get sick. Ironically, this aunt eventually died in the British health care system. She was diagnosed with cancer and could not believe how slowly the government dragged its feet in her treatment. Things were even worse when it came to my grandfather when he became ill. Doctors informed my family that treatment options were "limited" because he no longer paid taxes. My aunt was convinced my grandfather died because of the rationing of health care (a common problem when the government controls or owns anything).

This anecdote hits close to home, but the facts support her argument that socialized medicine does not work:

• According to England's own National Institute of Health, eleven percent of the population of England has very expensive private health insurance. This allows them to get treated as a person, rather than a crowd, and to be able to hold their doctor accountable in a way you can't have when the government is your vendor.


• In countries such as Canada it is common for people to head to the US for much of their health care (particularly urgent). Many individuals will go to a veterinarian to get tests, like MRIs, because the waiting lists are too long with government doctors.


• In Australia's socialized health care state, more than half of the population has private insurance.


• More than 60 percent of innovations in health care are from the United States with a much smaller part being carried by the rest of the world. If the US chooses a socialized system, innovation will be severely damaged because it is the incentives in our system that promotes changes and improvements.

One of the best discussions I have had on the subject was with David Asman of Fox Business when he was a guest on my show (then called the Houston Business Show). While visiting in England his wife had a stroke and barely survived. Because of his resources he was able to get her the best care possible in that country, but concluded that an indigent person in the United States has a better opportunity for recovery than the best insured in England. The harsh reality is very simple, why would we believe that a government that can do so few things effectively, could handle the huge task of providing for all our health care needs?

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am), AOL Radio, and CBS Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Barack Obama: More Pork than Promise

Recently, AOL did a survey of the 10 people that are admired most. The list wasn't limited to modern times or the United States. In fact, Jesus Christ himself made the list and he was second only to Barack Obama. With those kind of ratings, expectations are very high.

So, tonight, when "the Messiah" entered the Halls of Congress, the American people were expected to get "wowed!" What that got was a lengthy list of promises that stand contrary to his commitment to cut the deficit in half in four years (one of his more recent commitments). The following are some "highlights" of what the President intends to do in order to not only "improve the economy," but to also fundamentally change the way we are governed.

The following are two examples in the Obama agenda of why only 13 cents of every dollar actually goes to job creation and raises concerns that the American people have bought into a questionable bill of goods.

Education

"Because of this (recovery) plan, families who are struggling to pay tuition costs will receive a $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college. And Americans who have lost their jobs in this recession will be able to receive extended unemployment benefits and continued health care coverage to help them weather this storm. "

This is the kind of aggressive spending program that will do little to add to jobs, but will do a great deal to add to the deficit. Getting a college education in this country is already more achievable than many other parts of the world, which is why we have so many people from around this planet in our universities. Some financial burden in pursuing a degree will heighten the "ownership" attitude of those who are pursuing it. Don't get me wrong, I can tell one first hand that this has been a challenge for my family (my wife and I have eight children). Some times they start at community college, they have to take a little longer to finish, but all of these things lead to better students and, I believe, a better education system. Besides being costly, adding tax credits like this will also cheapen the educational system.

Health Care

"This budget builds on these reforms. It includes an historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform - a down-payment on the principle that we must have quality, affordable health care for every American. It’s a commitment that’s paid for in part by efficiencies in our system that are long overdue. And it’s a step we must take if we hope to bring down our deficit in the years to come... I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process. It will be hard. But I also know that nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year."

His vision of Health Care Reform is socialized medicine. Besides being terribly inefficient (I have an aunt and grandfather who died as a direct result of the British health care system, these programs are expensive. The Health Systems Innovations Network (HSI) "estimates the Obama plan would cost $452 billion per year, or more than $6 trillion over a 10-year period. The dramatic difference between this estimate and others is largely a result of HSI's assumption that under Obama's mandate to cover children, the federal government would subsidize virtually the full cost of coverage. Also, HSI finds that the employer mandate would add sizable costs to the federal government."

Obama has been saying that we have reached "the beginning of the end" of government as we knew it and he is right. Instead of a country that gave some regard to economic freedom and individual responsibility, we are becoming wards of a nanny state that plans on taking care of us through systems that are too costly, inefficient, and fundamentally opposed to the values that made us great.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

The Key to Affordable Health Care?

Steve Forbes recently wrote in his Fact and Fiction Column (Open-Heart Surgery -- 90% Off!, August 13, 2007) that certain countries are developing a flourishing medical tourism that is resulting in substantial savings to customers. Check out some of the recent numbers (US on the left, India on the right):

Bone Marrow Transplant $400,000 vs. $30,000

Liver Transplant $500,000 vs. $40,000

Open-heart Surgery $50,000 vs. $4,000

Neurosurgery $29,000 vs. $8,000

Knee Surgery $16,000 vs. $4,500

These procedures are being delivered with the same high standards expected in the United States. The Joint Commission International (the accrediting organization for foreign hospitals) was established by the Joint Commission, which accredits US hospitals. What is important is that they have the same standards.

So how do Indian hospitals do it at such a low price? Steve Forbes offers the following: Excellent hospitals can be built overseas without the bureaucratic red tape found in the US, thereby saving construction time. Construction costs are lower, as are nursing, physician and administrative expenses. Expert doctors who have trained here and in Europe are returning home, where money goes considerably further than in, say, New York or California. More and more these foreign hospitals -- currently numbering about 120, and growing -- are not just mirring the best US practices but are emerging as innovators."

Most "solutions" to our health care crises are government driven in this country, but the real solution in other countries are coming from the market and not bureaucracy. We need market solutions, not government failures.