HOW THE WHITE HOUSE IS LYING ABOUT HEALTH CARE

HOW THE WHITE HOUSE IS LYING ABOUT HEALTH CARE

09/07/09

By Greg Drake

The Health Care Debate of 2009 has spurred uncommon interest and passion in the American people, at a level not seen, really, since the Vietnam War. One need only attend a Town Hall meeting, or visit an alternative news outlet---the blogs, talk radio, Fox News, virtually anywhere but the so-called “MainstreamMedia”---to realize that the passions are running high, and that the debate about this topic is at heretofore unforeseen levels.

As one would expect, there is plenty of truth being slung out there. There is also a tremendous amount of what can generously be called “Bullhockey.” One expects, of course, in the course of a debate that the two sides will occasionally exaggerate their position in order to emphasize a point; that is fair in a debate, and is generally-accepted form of discourse, as such exaggerations generally are grounded in reality and facts.

It is one thing to slightly exaggerate a position. It is quite another, however, to out-and- out lie about one’s position. It is yet another level, still, to lie about a subject which has a tangible form, i.e., HR 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” To disguise what is actually stated in a Bill takes a level of gall that borders on the pathological. And it is pathology on stilts to use taxpayer dollars to spread the disinformation on behalf of a position.

Yet that is precisely what the Obama White House is doing with respect to Health Care.

I suspect a number of persons have received what Presidential Senior Advisor David Axelrod describes as “one of the longest e-mails I have ever sent.” In it, Axelrod purports to set forth the present Administration’s rationale for the government’s attempt to take over one-sixth of the nation’s economy, and to set up a government bureaucracy the likes of which the world has never seen. However, it is an e-mail so fraught with untruths, half-truths, and out-and-out lies that it virtually collapses of its own weight.

Indeed, properly vetted, the Axelrod e-mail could easily serve as the rationale for the complete defeat of the attempted government takeover of Health Care. Its premise is flimsy. Its support is faulty. And the claims upon which it is premised are so easily shown to be lies that no rational person, in my view, could possibly accept the White House as a credible source of information about government-mandated Health Care. The Axelrod e-mail is breathtaking in its audaciousness for misleading its readers about the subject.

Before delving into the specifics of the Axelrod e-mail---and yes, we will examine it point-by-point---let’s make a few general observations about the American Health Care System and how we got here. As Santyana said, “A nation that does not know its past cannot understand its present, and is not likely to have a future.” So it is with Health Care.

I would submit that the problems with Health Care stem from government intervention. So the way to fix the problem is not more government intervention, but less. If we must have the government intervene, the solution is not a Bill that is 1,017 pages long, as HR 3200 is; rather a series of simple acts should go a long way toward solving any “crisis” the Administration and the Democrats can dream up.

Look at how the free market works in other areas of life---including such basic necessities as feeding oneself. If a grocer charges prices that are too high, you shop elsewhere. If a restaurant does not cook the food you want, you go to another establishment. If a store does not carry the items you want, you have a competitor you can go to. The same applies to virtually all other aspects of life---car purchases, gasoline purchases, cell phones, computers, cable television services.

The government, however, decided that Health Care was too important to be left to the free market (unlike such unimportant things as, say, food production and selling). So we have, as a result, near-universal health coverage already created by the federal government---Medicare, Medicaid, VA hospitals, government-financed emergency rooms and hospitals. Employers get tax deductions for providing health care benefits to employees. All of these are mandated by the federal government. And you can see how well they work. Except for the items that have the hand of capitalism in them---the employer-provided employee healthcare benefits---all are broke or rapidly headed that way.

Hence, the so-called “crisis” in health care---which the Administration purposely has combined with the mess it has made in health insurance---is not really a crisis at all. If you sort out the two, you find that health care is, contrary to what you hear from the Democrat side of the aisle, quite healthy. That is why you consistently see polls whereby 75-80% of the citizenry is “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their health care. It is nonsense squared for the Administration and the Democrats in Congress to claim otherwise. As Dr. Zane F. Pollard has written, “We are being lied to about the uninsured. They are getting care. I operate on at least 2 illegal immigrants each month who pay me nothing, and the children’s hospital at which I operate charges them nothing also. This is true not only in Atlanta, but of every community in America.” (See “Obamacare and Me,” American Thinker, 8/6/09). See also the article by Republican Congressmen John Shadegg and Pete Hoekstra in the Wall Street Journal, “How to Insure Every American,” 9/5-6/09.

And let’s just use simple logic to dispel the notion that there is any health care crisis in America. While the Administration and the Democrats in Congress would make you believe that it must be passed thisfast, and while they tried to ram through a very swift bill, HR 3200 does not take effect….until 2013.

Four years down the road.

So, Mr. Axelrod, before you try to tell me there is some kind of Health Care “crisis,” please explain to me why the only bill that has made it through a Congressional Committee does not take effect until several years hence? I mean, this is a “crisis,” right? Yet it can wait, people can suffer, prices can go through the roof, for at least three more years before anything else gets done?

Crisis, my left clavicle. Even the Democrat authors of the bill, and their supporters, must not believe that rhetoric. Yet the claim that there is a health care crisis is at the very heart of their argument in favor of a government takeover of it.

Plainly, then, there is no health care “crisis.” Nor is there a crisis in health care insurance ---at least, not one that has to be solved by the draconian measure that the Democrats have cobbled together.

Remember, the government already interferes---sorry, regulates---the health care insurance industry to a significant extent. It mandates that insurance companies cover all sorts of medical services, both ordinary and extraordinary, elective and exotic. Ordinary expenses, like well-care visits and the like, should not be items we insure against, any more than we would insure our cars for oil changes. Let’s face it---the only reason the price of a medical checkup is high is because the government requires that a third party insurer pay for it. Demand for such services is high in large part because the everyday individual does not have to pay more than the cost of three tall Lattes at Starbucks for a clean bill of health from a doctor. More often than not, the patient does not even know what the doctor charges for such a checkup (I sure don’t; I don’t need to, because I know that my insurance will cover the cost. But, you can be sure that if I had to pay the cost out of my own pocket, I would think twice before I made what would otherwise be a routine visit, just as I would likely shop around for the best possible price).

The point, however, is that insurance should not be used for coverage of ordinary care, just as it isn’t for your car. Furthermore, the government mandates coverage for a slew of items no ordinary person would want to insure against (or for): In vitro fertilization. Psychiatric counseling. Child-development assessments. Restless leg syndrome. Viagra pills. Little wonder that a number of young, healthy persons choose to forego health insurance, so that they don’t end up paying for that when really all they want is insurance against being injured in a horrible skiing accident. Yet the Democrats count such logically-thinking persons in their totals of uninsured, in order to drum up support for the proposition that we have a health insurance emergency. It simply is not so.

Thus, the whole purpose of health insurance is not to protect against everyday bumps and bruises, just as that is not the purpose for insurance in other aspects of life. You insure your house against burglary with a $500 or $1,000 deductible, figuring that you will handle the small stuff. You insure for the loss of your home due to fire, not so that the grass will be cut every Saturday.

Think of how health care would be if we bought it ourselves without the restraints that are already placed on the industry by the government and its mandates. Think of every possible service and purchase we have in our capitalistic society. Competition is a marvelous thing in terms of controlling pricing and providing an incentive to the industry providers to give the best possible service at the lowest possible price. Why should health insurance be so heavily regulated? Because it is important? Well, food is pretty darned important, too, but you don’t hear the government officials lining up to mandate food insurance (of course, if any of them read this, I might have given them an idea, so never mind).

I work in another industry that was heavily regulated by the government over the years, telecommunications. Over the past few years, the government has taken off the restraints it placed on the industry, and the competition between the phone providers, internet providers, and cable providers has been fierce; yet consumers have benefited from advancements in technology and creative pricing. I know of no one who wants to go back to the monopolistic practices of a decade ago. Why would health insurance be any different?

The bottom line is that there is simply no need for a bill that consumes 1,017 pages, which virtually no person in Congress claims to have read (and even the President has acknowledged that he, too, has not read the Bill) (!). Yet here comes a Presidential Senior Advisor who tells us that health care/insurance (combining the two) really REALLY needs to be reformed---Big Lie #1---and proceeds to merrily inform the recipients of his e-mail that there are a lot of myths being told by the other side.

Well, now.

Let us examine The Axelrod e-mail and see which side of the debate is really telling the truth, and which side is really engaging in a disinformation campaign. I would submit to you that the Axelrod e-mail and its underpinnings are so fraught with lies and error that it virtually collapses of its own weight.

Here is the Axelrod e-mail, with my responses to the salient points noted:

“Dear Friend,

This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.

Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.

As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”

Response: Yes, Mr. President, let’s do that. Of course, I am bearing in mind that the only thing that is concrete as a proposal is HR 3200. You have not proposed any legislation---a rather significant departure from the actions of Presidents past. But I am basing my arguments here on HR 3200 and I assume that you and your Senior Advisor, Mr. Axelrod, are doing the same.

So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.

Response: And feel free to forward this as well. I am sure the Administration will want the American People to have a chance to compare the arguments of the two sides in tandem.

Thanks,
David

David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President

P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

RESPONSE: I am guessing that this is the tired saw about government intervention being the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions. That, of course, is nonsense. The only reason that most pre-existing condition s are not covered is because of current government regulation that shrinks the insurance market to almost a monopoly in most areas, which naturally leads to fewer options. You want to protect insurance consumers like you and me? Do it the same way we protect consumers of groceries, gasoline, haircuts, manicures, and a myriad of other products and services that people buy every day: Give people the power to tell insurance companies, “I don’t like your product, so I am taking my business to ABC insurer down the street. That Company will cover my pre-existing condition.”

Remember, even insurance companies have “reinsurance” policies to cover catastrophic events on the properties they insure. In California, for example, we don’t have to insure against earthquake damage. Insurance companies sell such policies, but they are expensive because most people don’t need them, so there is nowhere to “spread the cost.” If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance for pre-existing conditions before they even exist---such as, for example, insurance on unborn children, and health insurance when one does not have a job. As Ronald Reagan used to say, Government is the problem, not the solution.

2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

RESPONSE: Dr Pollard, mentioned above, points out that economics are important to doctors. He writes, “My rent goes up 2% each year, and the salaries of my employees go up 2% each year. Twenty years ago, opthalmologists were paid $1800 for cataract surgery, and today $500. This is a 73% decrease in our fees.” He goes on to point out that a doctor in Atlanta would charge $2500 for cataract surgery, and would get it because he was known as the best doctor for such surgery. However, Medicare would not pay him more than the going rate (now $500), or he would be heavily fined. It put an end to his charging $2500, but it also put an end to taking such persons “out of line.” Pollard also points out that the bill calls for all physicians to make the same amount per procedure; “I assure you,” writes Pollard, “That medical students will not go into neurosurgery and we will have a tremendous shortage of neurosurgeons. Already the top neurosurgeon at my hospital, who is in good health and only 52 years old, has just quit because he cannot stand working with the government any more.

The real question, then, is not only whether fees will go down (doctors seem to think they

won’t, or else you will have the situation Pollard describes with physicians quitting), but also what level of care you will receive. This, too depends, I suppose, on what the various Medical Panels proposed by the bill dream up in terms of the amount of care they allow you to have. More on that below.

3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

RESPONSE: This, of course, is the silliness of government-run health care. This is precisely the kind of thing that makes insurance more expensive than it should be: Mandated insurance for items that simply should not be insured. And when you couple this with the near-monopoly that the government has created, what with bans on buying insurance across state lines, mandated coverage for various elective surgeries, etc., no wonder insurance companies tend to be unresponsive.

Insurance companies, like any other large monopoly enterprises, are often belligerent consumer hellholes because they are a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one insurer will control 80% of the market. That being the case, what incentive does it have to behave? You don’t solve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a complete monopoly. Yet that is what the present health care bill---eventually---will do.

Oh, I know the Administration and the Democrats are trying desperately to say that all they are doing is creating a government “competitor” so that the big, bad insurance companies won’t be able to dog the poor consumer. The problem with that theory is that they expect you to believe that the government option is a fair one. But government-provided health care is not a competitor; it is a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer (or generations of taxpayers). Even HR 3200 contemplates that employers must enroll any new employees and enrollees in the government insurance program (p. 145). AND, since employers must enroll all employees and their families into insurance programs, including part-timers (p. 126), guess which “option” will soon become the dominant one? Indeed, President Obama, Sen Chuck Schumer, and others have indicated that they anticipate a 15-20 year rollup into a Single payer (read: Government ) program. And, of course, the bill also requires small business to pay taxes if they don’t have adequate insurance for their employees or to join the government option if they don’t provide health insurance (pp. 149-150, Sec. 313).

4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

RESPONSE: Want to end this little concern? You don’t need a 1,000+ page bill to do it. Just let insurance companies compete in a free market. In a free market, any insurance company that did this could not stay in business. Its competitors would be screaming from the rooftops about how unfair that business was, and customers would leave in droves. Give customers a choice about insurance, and this won’t happen.

5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

RESPONSE: I am not quite sure what he is referring to here. But Axelrod, in his e-mail, makes the point that “Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers.” (See “Eight common myths” Myth #3 below). Thus, he tacitly concedes that men and women are different, and therefore have different concerns about insurance. Women, because of biological destiny, need more health care; it only makes sense, therefore, that women pay more for health care or receive fewer benefits. After all, if I order a hamburger at a restaurant, the restaurant does not expect me to pay for a steak, nor does it expect me to subsidize those who order steaks.

Maybe the REAL problem is that the government already mandates too much be covered, so it looks as if women are victims of discrimination. I don’t blame women for not wanting to subsidize Viagara. I don’t want to subsidize breast implant coverage. Maybe if the government would stop compelling insurers to cover such procedures, the price of all insurance would go down, and there would be less worry about so-called discrimination.

6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

RESPONSE: One of the beautiful things about public disclosure is that you get to see how really ignorant elected officials are. Mr. Axelrod, let’s start with a basic understanding: An insurance contract is just that---a contract. You pay a certain price, you get certain coverage. The lifetime limits are disclosed right up front. If you don’t want the caps in there, you can eliminate them---you will just have to pay more to do so. Far from being a terrible thing, this is simple give-and-take of contract negotiation. And no bill of 1,000 pages is needed to change this.

If you really want to achieve this end, use simple logic. Have you ever noticed how many ads there are for auto, home, and life insurance? You cannot watch a sporting event without seeing one, trust me. Yet, you never see an ad for health insurance. Why? Two reasons, I would submit. First, about 60% of health insurance (unlike other types of insurance) is provided through employers. And many employers pay a vast bulk of the cost of health insurance. Second, most insurers of health are, as noted previously, monopoly providers. So health insurers have no incentive to market to consumers, just to employers. And since they have near monopoly power in terms of what they offer, there is little incentive to be creative in what they offer.

The solution, then, is not to create an artificial “competitor” in the federal government, because that is not a competitor, any more than Godzilla is a “competitor” of Bambi. BUT, if you get rid of all the constraints that have been placed on the insurance industry in the first place (by Godzilla---err, the federal government)---things like prohibiting competition across state lines, insurance mandates, and the like---you will probably see more competitive pricing even among insurance companies, much as Geico and Allstate and State Farm now compete for auto insurance dollars. And the cost of insurance and health care can be reduced even more if prices have to be posted and people quit relying so much on insurance for the small stuff.

7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

RESPONSE: Again, I fail to discern how a bill of 1,000 pages is needed for something like this. If people are too lazy to negotiate it, or are ignorant of it, why not allow insurers to offer it in a competitive market? Very simple.

8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

RESPONSE: Once again, let the free market take care of this alleged “problem” (Of course, I am unaware of any statistics that show this is a real “problem.” Furthermore, once everyone gets pushed into the government option, this becomes a non-issue; there won’t be anything but government-run programs to deny coverage---and yes, that will happen (see above and below); why else have a panel of Washington bureaucrats determine whether certain health care will be extended? If Mr. Axelrod is so committed to ensuring that insurance companies never, ever deny coverage to anyone who is sick, it obviates the need for the Bureaucracy that Sarah Palin referred to as the “Death Panel,” doesn’t it?

Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

RESPONSE: Want to really learn more? Go to http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm to get real important details about salient aspects of the Democrat’s Health Care Bill. The author is an Associate professor at Duke University, who readily concedes that he is not a doctor or a lawyer, just someone who “asked simple questions about the bill,” and who, unlike virtually everyone out there touting Health Care Reform, actually read the Bill.

Alternatively, if you have some spare time, just Google “HR 3200” and click on one of the sites that contains the text of the bill. I know it is a huge burden to read through it all, but this issue is too big to not be informed about. I commend the text of the bill to your reading. And while you are reading through it, see if the following question does not come into your mind: “Good grief, can’t they figure out a better way?” The answer is, Of course they can---IF this were really about Health Care. But it isn’t. it’s about control.

Right now, you have it. They want it. It’s that simple.

Let’s continue skewering---err, “analyzing” the Axelrod e-mail (remember this was sent with YOUR tax dollars):

8 common myths about health insurance reform

1. Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.

RESPONSE: There are lies, and there are damned lies. This one is just about the biggest damned lie the Administration and the Democrats are telling (The only bigger one is in #2, below). Even other Democrats are backing away from this one. They have to, lest they look like complete fools. A couple of weeks ago, Democrat Representative Betsy Markey (D-Colo) told a gathering of constituents in Fort Collins, Colorado that “Some people, including Medicare recipients, will have to give up some current benefits to truly reform the nation’s health care system.” Barack Obama himself has said that he would like to do away with the “Senior Advantage” portion of Medicare, which allows Medicare recipients, for an extra fee, to receive extra coverage. Dr. Pollard , in his article, points out several examples of rationing that occur now because of the government’s slow response on determining whether reimbursement will be given for certain procedures under Medicare.

The Democrats have learned that promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington Bureaucrats deny medical treatment is not a popular idea with most Americans. So now they claim they are going to insure an additional 46 million Americans and cut costs without ever denying a single medical treatment.

My father taught me that if you are uncertain about the truth of something, begin by saying it out loud, just to see if it sounds plausible. So, out loud, repeat after me: “We will insure an additional 46 million Americans and cut costs, without denying a single medical treatment.”

Yup, sounds pretty preposterous to me. And, let’s face it, the Bill---HR 3200---is chock-full of rationing.

Use common sense: if you aren’t going to ration, you don’t need end-of life counseling about options (pp.425-430 of the Bill). You don’t need the Health Panels (what, after all, will they decide if not the level and type of care?) On a common sense basis alone, the claim of “no rationing” stinks to high heaven. But the Bill is chock-full of it, too.

Put aside for the moment the fact that there is a panel of persons to determine the level of care you receive, which in and of itself is the biggest rationer of all, and everyone knows it. That is why it is so unpopular. Right now, you determine your care in consultation with your doctor, based in part on insurance coverage, on need, and on ability to pay. In other words, you “ration” your own care with your choices and your lifestyle and your income.

Under the Bill, that rationing is done for you. And for anyone to deny it simply makes them a liar or a fool, or both. To be sure, there are some rationing specifics---Section 1151 of the Bill, for example, reduces certain Hospital readmissions based on a government formula; the same section also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission. The Bill also provides for a Health Choices Commissioner; I doubt he/she is there to determine whether you will receive a down or a foam pillow during your hospital stay.

The biggest rationing, however, comes down the road. Despite the fact that the Bill is a monstrosity, there would be regulations interpreting it at some point. The Devil, of course, is in the details of any bill, and you can be sure this one will be Hellish when it comes to setting forth the parameters for care. Call me a cynic, but somehow I doubt that the Democrat sponsors of this legislation want the Health Panels empowered only to make decisions about figuring out what kind of additional experimental care you can receive above and beyond the type of care Ted Kennedy received for his brain surgery last year.

No, the regulations will be the fence around the health care farm. They will tell you how much you get, and under what conditions---and when that treatment will end. Somehow the end-of-life counseling seems a little less comforting and friendly now, doesn’t it?

The bottom line is that you don’t cut costs by insuring an additional 46 million Americans and keeping their coverage the same. Of course, given the Obama Administration’s track record on the economy so far (see below), I am not surprised that Mr. Axelrod makes such a fanciful claim. Would that it were actually possible. Alas, it is not.

2. We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.

RESPONSE: [Lengthy pause here for guffawing and chortling]

Seriously, this IS a joke, right?

This is actually being said by the same Administration that has brought you (deep breath here) the greatest budget deficits in the history of the Republic (The Obama Administration’s deficit for fiscal 2009 alone is more than the entire deficits of the 8 Bush years combined); An economy that has been shrinking since President Obama took office, and which shrunk by another 1% in the Second Quarter of this year; an economy that has shed four million jobs in eight months, and which is projected to lose an additional several million next year, including 2.3 million more than forecast; projected budget deficits of seven trillion dollars, recently revised upward to nine trillion dollars,over the next ten years, representing larger deficits that the combined budgets of the history of the nation; and a “Stimulus Package” which very few in Congress read, at a tune of 787 billion dollars, which has not created a single job (in fact, President Obama promised us that with the passage of the Stimulus, unemployment would not go above 8%; it is currently at 9.7%, and that does not count those who have gotten discouraged and quit looking for work).

The Administration concedes that this Health Care Plan will cost about a trillion dollars over ten years. The Congressional Budget Office says the cost will be much higher---by about 600 Billion dollars. And here is something sobering to consider: When has any government program come in at a price lower than projected? Not Medicare, which came in at over nine times the estimated price tag. Medicare these days is going broke. Medicaid is going broke. Social Security is going broke.

Yet, Mr. Axelrod would have you believe that we cannot afford not to pass this legislation.

You want to see health care costs go down? Create real competition by getting the government the Hell out of the way. Allow interstate purchase and provision of insurance. Quit forcing mandates on insurers. If you must regulate, require that doctors post prices for care, have hospitals indicate how much is charged for a change of sheets on a bed, have the insurance company offer a variety of options, including the ability to buy just a bare-bones catastrophic policy. I guarantee you will see prices come down. That is how the free market works. Of course, given the Obama Administration’s apparent hostility to the free market, perhaps he is not familiar with the concepts of supply and demand and competition.

As an added bonus, less regulation also means that consumers are allowed to make their own rationing choices; industry produces more products and services at cheap prices, and suddenly the need for rationing disappears.

As a final note, the items for savings that Axelrod lists at the end of his bullet point can all be done now. If they are so important, and they can achieve such savings, they can be implemented now, without any need for Health Care Reform. So lead the way, sir---unless you have merely listed a group of platitudes without meaning to achieve anything meaningful.

3. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.

RESPONSE: Analyzing this one requires us to connect the dots a bit. End of life counseling is called for in the Bill (pp.425-430). Normally this is done by a person in consultation with his or her family, doctor, loved ones, and/or clergy. Under the HR bill, however, it is done in conjunction with a panel of government appointees---appointed by the President. So the appointing party---the President---needs to be trustworthy in whom he appoints to such important posts.

Let’s look at President Obama’s Health Care Advisor. He is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethecist who has written extensively about health care and who should get it, in what amount. There is no question that he plays an important in guiding the White House health initiative. Dr Emanuel is a man who has written that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending are mere window dressing. True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors’ ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Emanuel blamed the Hippocratic Oath for the “overuse” of medical care.” Emanuel does not believe that the doctor should serve the patient; he believes the doctor should serve the patient and society; one sign of progression he sees, according to Betsy McCaughey, Chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths: “The progression in end-of-life care mentality from ‘do everything’ to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible.” (Emanuel writing in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), 6/18/08) (McGaughey, writing in the Wall Street Journal, August 27, 2009.

According to McGaughey, Dr. Emanuel (who happens to be the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) “argues that to make such decisions[about how to allocate medical resources], the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going:…’Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia,’ (Hastings Center Report, November-December 1996).” (Emphasis added)

And here I thought Dr. Mengele had died in 1979.

But it gets worse: According to McCaughey, in the Lancet, January 31, 2009, Emanuel and his co-authors proposed a “complete lives system” for the allocation of scarce resources. Essentially, it boiled down to who gets the care, and for Dr. Emanuel, the choice is clear: “Whether to save a 20 year old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three seventy year olds, who could olive for only another 10 years each, is unclear.” Dr Emanuel makes a clear choice: “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance [for health care procedures], whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated.”

Emanuel concedes that his plan discriminates against older people, but he explains, “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination….treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

Learnmore:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html

Don’t try to tell me that the Bill before Congress will not ration health care.

Don’t try to tell me that the Bill in Congress will prevent gender discrimination, when President Obama’s closest medical advisor advocates age discrimination.

Don’t try to tell me that the American people would support this Legislation if they knew that the Presidentially-appointed health care panels would likely be composed of persons who reflect the views of the President’s closest medical advisor.

Don’t try to tell me that the end-of-life counseling will not, at some point, reflect the views of the President’s chief medical advisor.

Don’t try to tell me I have to take that chance.

And above all, quit perpetuating that lie on the American people.

4. Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.

RESPONSE: Good. I am glad. But we don’t need, again, a 1000+ page bill to accomplish this. I am all for veterans receiving quality care (of course, I DO find it ironic that this support is coming from the Advisor to a President who thought that Vets were not paying enough for their medical care. Vets, do you remember last Spring being incensed at President Obama for making those comments? All I can say is watch him, and this, very very carefully. For your own sake.

5. Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.

RESPONSE: Boy, you talk about nonsense on stilts. This one is a doozy. Check pages 149-150 of the bill. Any business with a payroll of 400k and above---pretty small by many standards, given that that is roughly ten employees---that does not provide the “public option” for insurance and which does not insure its employees pays an 8% tax on all payroll. Employers with a payroll between 251k and 400k pay a sliding scale of 2-6% of payroll under similar circumstances. How does this “ease the burden” on small business? In addition, the Bill mandates that all employers provide Health Care for part-time employees and their families (p.124). And, by the way, any new enrollees would have to go into the Public Option, whatever form that may take. That is not competition; that is a forced Association, which presumably would raise issues under the First Amendment.

Are you high, Mr. Axelrod? Or did you, like many, simply not read the bill?

6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.

RESPONSE: Remember what I wrote above about lies and damned lies? Here is another, and it is an obvious sop to Senior Citizens in an attempt to placate them. It is, however, a complete lie, for the reasons noted above. Part of the “savings” that the President claims will occur comes from cuts in Medicare, some of which are in the bill, others of which have been touted, hinted at, and otherwise intimated in various speeches by various Democrats, including the president.

Furthermore, again, Mr. Axelrod, if you are so interested in “ensuring better coordination, eliminat[ing] waste and unnecessary subsidies,” and “closing the doughnut hole” in Medicare, what is preventing the Administration from doing that right now, under present laws? You don’t need health care reform to achieve those ends. Start today, without the Bill.

Unless, of course, you are feeding us a pocketful of pap.

7. You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.

RESPONSE: This statement technically is not a lie, but it is so misleading that it might as well be one. Yes, you can keep your current insurance---so long as it never changes, in terms of what it insures, its costs, its deductibles, and the myriad of other items that changes every year. Under HR 3200, once a change occurs, you are pushed into the Public Option. Every new enrollee is put into the Public Option. Employers can choose whether to continue to provide insurance that must meet standards set by the Government, or else the employees are put into---yes, that’s right---the Public Option; and the Employer must decide whether he/she/it wants to pay up to 8% of payroll in taxes, or simply make sure everyone is in the Public Option.

So, far from expanding choices, Mr. Axelrod, reform will constrict them and leave employers with no business choice, ultimately, but to place all employees in the Public Option. Don’t believe me? Listen to your boss, the president, who has said that it would be about a “fifteen to twenty year rollup” for everyone being in the government health plan. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has said much the same thing. Why, just last week, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) boasted to a group of supporters that a government-provided insurance plan would put private insurers out of business.

8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

RESPONSE: “An absurd myth”? The only thing mythical on this subject is your statement, Mr. Axelrod. Have you read the Bill? Section 431(a) provides for digital access to the individual’s bank account to ensure that payments are being made. Moreover, the IRS is being instructed to share tax return information with other federal agencies; what do you suppose is on each individual’s tax return? Why, the very bank accounts that Mr. Axelrod says are safe from government intervention.

He claims that the only purpose for mentioning bank accounts in the Bill is to “simplify Administration.” Really? Why is a bill needed for that? And why does Section 431 require that the information be provided? This is not about simplification of administration; it is about making it simpler for the Administration to seize your account for non-payment into a Public Option that a majority of Americans don’t want or need.

Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

Learn and really get more details: Read the Bill.

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

1. Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html

RESPONSE: Oh, please. Who are these people, and why have state Insurance Commissioners not been inundated with Complaints from them? See the prior arguments above; moreover, it seems to me that if this were happening, the way to solve the problem is to create more REAL competition, not the Godzilla vs. Bambi that is in HR 3200.

2. Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html

RESPONSE: And HR 3200 solves this problem….How? By adding another trillion dollars in costs over ten years (your estimate or another 1.6 trillion over ten years (CBO estimate) or likely more (as history teaches us)?

Again, if you are serious about trimming costs, there are very simple ways to control them. End the mandated coverage. Let consumers craft, with competing private insurers, the insurance plan that they need for their particular lifestyle. Eliminate the prohibition about providing insurance across state lines. Provide a tax break, in the form of a deduction, for consumers who purchase their own insurance (which, in and of itself, would reduce the real cost of insurance by, on average, about 25%). Make hospitals and doctors post prices for their services. And allow people to insure only for the big ticket items. Think about it: how many people know what the cost of a checkup is? They don’t. They only know what their co-pay might be. And they don’t think about the cost, because they don’t have to; that is a disincentive for the health care provider to trim costs. Provide some real competition, require some real disclosure, and you can be sure that you will see costs come down in a hurry.

3. Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html

RESPONSE: See the Response to #3, above. I fail to see how HR 3200 will solve this problem while cutting costs. If you mandate coverage of ordinary care, you increase the cost of coverage. Someone, somewhere, eventually has to pay. If you don’t mandate it, however, and make insurers and providers compete, costs come down.

You want an example of an industry that was deregulated and which resulted in cost savings? Check out the airline industry (which, by the way, Joe Biden has often bragged about having a hand in deregulating). Tickets are far cheaper, on a dollar-cost-averaging basis, than they were prior to deregulation. That is because, instead of having monopoly routes sanctioned by the government, the airline behemoths actually had to compete with each other. I fail to see why the same thing cannot work in the insurance industry for health insurance. Hey, it seems to work pretty well for home coverage and auto insurance. Why should health insurance be any different?

4. Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes

RESPONSE: Interesting how, when people want to claim that there is a crisis, they do anything they can, even make up statistics that are meaningless, to attempt to frighten people into action. This Administration is a master at it (How many jobs have been “saved” by the Stimulus, again?). What, exactly, are “challenges in accessing health care”? How does poverty and mortality come into play on this subject, and do they have anything to do with the need for health care reform? Somehow I doubt it. To be sure, there may be areas where access to a primary care doctor is limited, but I doubt that is true for all 50 million the Administration purports to cite.

Maybe part of the problem is that it is more lucrative for persons practicing medicine to go to cities and to the Coasts than it is to stay in the Midwest. We all tend to chase dollars in our chosen professions; medical providers are no different. And, as usual, I have heard nothing---not a peep---about any crisis down on the farm in terms of health care. I have not heard about farmers dropping like flies because the town doc is not available or charges too much. So I somehow doubt the veracity of the Administration’s fuzzy math here.

But, Mr. Axelrod, even assuming that you can prove your claims, how does HR 3200 solve this problem? There is nothing in there that requires any medical providers to go anywhere. Indeed, given how you are going to be stifling competition, I would submit that many doctors will simply leave the profession. Don’t believe me? Fine. Listen to Dr. Pollard: “One last thing: with this new healthcare plan, there will be a tremendous shortage of physicians. It has been estimated that approximately 5% of the current physician workforce will quit under this new system. Also it is estimated that another 5% shortage will occur because of the decreased number of men and women wanting to go into medicine.” Pollard, supra.

As usual, having the hand of government try to solve a problem generally only exacerbates it. Mr. Axelrod, if there is a problem in rural America---and I submit it is not what you say it is---this Bill will only make it worse.

5. Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline

RESPONSE: And yet the response to this argument by the House Democrats and, by extension, the Administration is to---make small businesses pay more in taxes if they don’t provide health care not only to their employees, but also to their part-time employees and to the families of the employees (See pp. 129 and 145 of HR 3200). Depending on the size of the “small” business, the small business could be paying up to 8% of payroll costs in taxes to ensure that the Democrat Plan is put into effect. And that 8% tax is on businesses with payrolls of 400k or more----about a dozen employees

I fail to see how this bill “helps” small business to provide health insurance to employees. Perhaps someone smarter than me can figure that out and explain it to me. Better for small businesses, it seems to me, to be provided with tax breaks and incentives to offer health insurance to their employees. THAT would be helpful.

6. The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction

RESPONSE: I suspect about 80% of all bankruptcies are at least partly the result of high grocery bills. Or the cost of gasoline. Or high taxes. When a party starts throwing around vague and utterly meaningless statistics like “are at least partly the result of,” you can be sure there is no direct correlation between the supposed cause and the alleged harm. Note that Mr. Axelrod does not say that X number of bankruptcies are actually caused by health care costs. That is because there are no such statistics, or if there are, they don’t support his point.

7. Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html

RESPONSE: Again, utterly meaningless statistics. Perhaps the reason the percentage of persons not covered under employer-based health insurance is due to people not being in the work force any longer, either through attrition or retirement. And again, maybe if some of the restrictions were taken off insurance companies and mandates ended, it would be easier for people to find cheap health insurance options other than those provided by employers.

8. The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

RESPONSE: We have seen already a good way to reduce the costs of health care via less draconian means than put forth by the Democrats under HR 3200---ideas that might actually work, certainly better than this monstrosity. And while the “46 million uninsured” number has been called into question by numerous other writers, including me, it bears repeating why this statistic is inaccurate and meaningless.

Someone in the Nineties, during the “Hillarycare” debacle, came up with a figure that 15% of Americans were without Health Insurance (again, not health CARE---health INSURANCE). At the time, the US population was about 280 million, so you heard a lot about “32 million uninsured” as the justification for Health Care overhaul. It failed then, and guess what? Again, in the intervening decade and a half, you did not hear about people not getting care, or folks dying in the streets, or any of that nonsense. Yet, here we are again, in 2009, having a President who talks about the 46 million uninsured as creating a Health Care “crisis.” It is utter pap.

Moreover, the figure does not reflect reality. Of that 47million---a bogus figure, but let us examine it anyway---12 million are the illegals that inhabit this country which Senator Spector says he does not want to cover (and we should not, if we truly want to cut down on Health Care costs). So we are down to 35 million.

Subtract another 18 million in the 18-34 age group which historically does not want (and often does not need) Health care. Let’s call it somewhere in the middle---ten million. So we are down to 25 Million.

Subtract another 17 million who choose not to have it because they live in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 per year, and could presumably purchase their own health insurance, but for whatever reason choose not to.

So let’s face it---a more accurate figure of the uninsured US population is somewhere between 10 and 15 million people---about 3-5% of the US population. And remember, this is lack of INSURANCE, not lack of CARE, we are talking about.

So this so-called problem is one of insurance, not care, and impacts realistically about 3-5% of the US population. And to fix this “problem,” the Democrats want the federal government---which they now control---to take over one-sixth of the US economy, and provide health care to all---and to ration it, to boot.

So, Mr. Axelrod, please spare me with your attempts at a statistical justification for your President’s efforts to take over a great portion of the economy.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

Naturally the Democrats are playing their typical game of “You haven’t proposed anything better.” That, of course, is untrue; there are Republican proposals out there, and quite frankly they are a far sight better than anything the Dems have thrown up. One could make a very good case, of course, that doing utterly nothing would be preferable to the Democratic Plan. After all, as noted above, Hillarycare failed, and no one died in the streets or was left wanting for health care.

However, there is a clamoring for some action. Let me suggest a few steps, then, and we can see how these work. Since Mr. Axelrod seems enamored of setting forth eight items at a time in his e-mail, I will set forth eight suggestions, small changes all, that can achieve as much, if not more, that what HR 3200 will achieve, without anywhere near the invasiveness of the Bill. Let’s try some of the following, or all of them; I think you will agree that we can achieve what Mr. Axelrod claims are his ends by doing something far less draconian than HR 3200:

1) Allow people and insurers to compete across state lines. The next thing you know, maybe we will begin to see some real competition.

2) Compel health care providers to supply patients with pricing up front. We do that with restaurants, repair shops, salons, gas stations, fast food joints, just about any retail location you can name. Why should health insurance and the health care industry be any different?

3) Allow insurers to offer, and consumers to select, insurance in “cafeteria-style” fashion. Many people don’t need to have insurance for routine checkups, and the cost of them does not need to be hidden. We don’t insure our cars for oil changes, we don’t insure our homes for the costs of a gardener, and we don’t insure our valuables for a no-cost deductible (and if we do, we certainly expect to pay more for it). And guess what? We know what the cost of all these items is up front. Why in the world should health insurance be any different? And I guarantee the prices would come down when there is real competition. Just ask anyone in the airline or cable industries, two industries whose government shackles were loosened.

4) Stop mandating coverage of non-essential care. In fact, take it a step further and don’t compel any mandated coverage except for that which is agreed upon between insurer and insured. Insurance is, and should be, a contract. Apply those principles and everyone will know what they are getting and what they are not. And it will also end the purported “problem”---suspect as it is---that insurers are dropping the very sick from coverage in the middle of an illness.

5) Have states set up a catastrophe fund. If we must, then have the states provide for insurance for catastrophic occurrences for the “truly needy.” Again, people are not denied emergency health care now. This will ensure that such care continues.

6) Stop insuring illegals or those who don’t have a right to be in the country. Several states have had courts rule that health care benefits must be available to illegal aliens. If we really want to start to get a grip on costs (and help with the immigration issue to boot), it is time to stop giving people incentives to illegally come across our borders.

7) Provide a tax incentive for persons to obtain medical insurance. Make the cost of health insurance premiums deductible for whoever pays for it, be it the employer or the individual (or both). Everyone knows that the Tax Code, as cumbersome as it is, is an agent for engineering social policy. If we want to encourage a behavior, we provide tax breaks and incentives for doing so---solar power, drilling for oil, contributing to charity. If we want to encourage people to obtain health insurance, why not use this instrument of social engineering to see what we can accomplish along those lines?

8) Legislation covers everyone, or it covers no one. As you can see, what I have proposed is largely a freeing up of the industry. HR 3200 proposes mandates on human behavior, employer behavior, and the behavior of various government agencies. However, what HR 3200 does not do is require members of Congress or the Administration to enroll in the Public Option or to be covered by the Legislation.

That is wrong, both legally and morally. We are hearing all over the airwaves that the Public Option for government health care is a moral imperative, and that it is good for America. Really? Then why has Congress not sought to include itself in its coverage? If the coverage, the legislation, the idea, the program, is so good, I would think the Congress would be salivating to be included.

The unwillingness of the Congress to be covered by its own program for millions of Americans speaks volumes about whether it is good for America. It simply is not, and the Democrats in Congress know it. On that basis alone, it should be soundly defeated and roundly cast aside on the ash heap of other failed legislation.

I suspect there are numbers of you who, having supported the president’s election in 2008 and having voted Democrat all your lives, are still not convinced that HR 3200 is not the way to go in the health care debate. Before you agree to be bound by it, however---before you swallow the pablum that Mr. Axelrod is attempting to spoon-feed you--- I think you would do well to ask the following questions:

1) If HR 3200 is so good for America and its citizens, why has the Congress and the Administration not signed onto coverage under it?

2) Are you comfortable taking various health care decisions, not only for yourself, but also for those you love, out of your hands, and their hands, and placing them in the hands of appointees of the president of the United States? That is, after all, the purpose of the Medical panels provided for in the Bill (otherwise, why else have them in there?) And, if I may ask a follow-up question, if you trust this President to appoint persons to such posts, will you trust the next President, who will have the same power, to appoint persons you trust?

3) Many persons who have supported HR 3200, including Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid, are avowed proponents of abortion. Presumably they are proponents of abortion because they believe it is the right of the woman and her doctor to determine just what actions can and should be done with her body. If that is the case, then how do Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid justify taking routine medical decisions out of the hands of individuals and their doctors, and placing them in the hands of the aforementioned medical panels?

4) While we are on the subject, does HR 3200 mandate insurance coverage of abortions? No matter what side of the issue you are on, Americans have the right to know just what the Bill provides and what it does not, because (presumably) a few people, at least, will be interested to know and may support or withdraw support for HR 3200 based on the answer. Abortion coverage is not mentioned in the bill, but it is noteworthy that the Democrats voted down an amendment to specifically exclude abortions from coverage in the Public Option. It seems to me that an Administration that said it wanted to have openness in Legislation should be able to provide to the citizens of this country an honest and open answer about such important legislation and about an issue that has been at the forefront of debate in this nation for more than 35 years.

5) And while we are on the subject of specific items in the bill, is the Public Option intended to cover illegal aliens? Again, Americans have the right to know. Arlen Spector says he does not want them covered. The President has said he does not want them covered; yet the Democrats, again, voted against an amendment to specifically exclude illegal aliens from coverage.

6) If there is to be no rationing of health care under HR 3200, just what is the purpose of the medical panels that are provided for in the Bill?

Support for HR 3200 has been eroding by the week as more information about the bill trickles out and is debated throughout the country, both over the airwaves and in town halls. Debate is healthy and good for our nation. It is also instructive. What is NOT instructive is the propaganda coming out of the White House in the form of e-mails, written and delivered at taxpayer expense, in support of a measure that a majority of Americans don’t want, to combat a “crisis” that does not exist, in furtherance of an agenda that is not overtly revealed.

So my closing message to you, Mr. Axelrod, and therefore to you, President Obama, is quite simple:

Quit lying to the American People.

And quit using our tax dollars to do so.