Shattering the Myth: Uninsured Not the Cause of High Premiums

A big part of the dialogue driving the debate on health care reform is the premise that the uninsured are the main cause of higher health insurance costs for all Americans. While this undoubtedly plays a factor, it's not the main reason for higher insurance premiums. Other factors are clearly at play and have more direct correlations, as this data indicates.

STATES WITH HIGHEST NUMBER OF UNINSURED

1. Texas

2. New Mexico

3. Mississippi

4. Louisiana

5. Nevada

6. Oklahoma

7. California

8. Wyoming

9. Florida

10. Georgia

STATES WITH HIGHEST AVG. PREMIUMS PER FAMILY POLICY

1. Massachusetts

2. New York

3. New Jersey

4. Rhode Island

5. Connecticut

6. Louisiana

7. North Carolina

8. New Hampshire

9. Maine

10. South Dakota

If the correlation between the number of uninsured and high premiums was a strong one, both lists should consist mostly of the same states. But as you can see, only Louisiana showed up on both lists. So what's driving up health care costs in all these other states? Most likely, it's lack of competition and government overregulation.

The more state regulators dictate what the health insurance companies can or can't offer, the less choice that is available to the consumer and the more risk the insurance companies have to assume. Greater risk, of course, does have a direct correlation to higher health insurance premiums, as anyone in the insurance industry can tell you. If this is any indication, ObamaCare will raise premiums, not lower them, by eliminating consumer choice and forcing insurance companies to add risker patients to their pool.

But just for kicks, let's look at the data in reverse.

STATES WITH FEWEST UNINSURED

1. Massachusetts

2. Vermont

3. Minnesota

4. Hawaii

5. Delaware

6. Connecticut

7. Pennsylvania

8. New Jersey

9. New York

10. Rhode Island

Oddly enough, five of these states also show up in the top ten of highest premiums. And Pennsylvania almost makes it six (Pennsylvania has the eleventh most expensive insurance policies, just missing the top ten). Meanwhile, Massachusetts and Maine both passed health care reforms with public options similar to ObamaCare, but that hasn't helped their residents save a dime.

Maybe it's a regional thing or maybe it's the propensity of these states to have highly regulated insurance markets, but it appears there's a greater chance that states with low populations of uninsured will have higher premiums than those with large uninsured populations. This debunks Obama's number one claim for why we must pass his radical health care reforms.

It seems we'd be better off saving one trillion dollars and letting 30 million people go uninsured rather than insuring them at our added expense - that includes higher premiums and higher taxes. And we haven't even examined the strain on state budgets yet, in which case you'll find Massachusetts completely overburdened by expenses as a result of their health care entitlement program.

By the way, the national average for annual premiums purchased is $5799 for family policies. Nine of the ten states on the most uninsured list were well below the national average. This seems to prove that the debate isn't about making health care affordable. It's about expanding government and increased intrusion into the lives of private citizens, a power grab to control one-sixth of the American economy.

For a chart on the percentage of uninsured per state (including illegals), click here. For the full report on insurance premiums, please go here.

It's Come to This: British Men Gain Right to 6 Month Maternity Leave

Give them an inch, and they take the whole mile. That's the thing about socialist, nanny-state, entitlement programs. Once people get used to them, not only are they impossible to stop, but they never seem to be satisfactory enough. The underachieving citizens and bureaucrats that depend on them only want more, more, more. Case in point: the UK has been extending maternity leave since the 1980s, from a few weeks to a few months to an entire year. And now, they've really outdone themselves. Starting in 2011, maternity leave will be available to men.

This is supposed to be a solution to the suddenly stagnant job market for women, given that companies that depend on profits are hardly eager to add an unsustainable number of fertile loins to the payroll. After all, why pay two employees to do the job of one, especially when one won't be making a trip to the office for the next 39 to 52 weeks. On the bright side, it probably discourages office affairs.

I suppose there's nothing like collecting a paycheck to do what you're supposed to do anyway. If we're going to have paid mums, might as well have paid dads, paid husbands, paid wives, and even paid dogs. Why just think of the havoc that could be caused by wild animals roaming the streets? Better lobby the government for a check for keeping a pet. Perhaps you'll be eligible for maternity leave when your cat has kittens.

Give men paid maternity leave and that should end the sexual discrimination in hiring. Or so the thinking goes. Maybe companies will just start hiring gay men or singles who don't want kids. Maybe it will come up on the job application or maybe they'll just interview those clearly past their childbearing years. At this point, it's all insanity. But what politician wants to risk suggesting an entitlement cut and being labeled anti-family? Even though such regulations are killing the economy, which is never good for the family budget.

Anyway, I present to you, in honor of the Emmys, our own season premiere of THE SOCIALIST OFFICE:

WORKER: I don't know if you remember, but I'm a dad now.

BOSS: Yeah, congratulations. How is little Brady?

WORKER: Brodie. And he's great. Almost six months old. So great in fact that my wife is talking about going back to work.

BOSS: Good for her. No need to milk that maternity leave for the full 12 months. It's excessive. It's a burden to the company. It's taking advantage of the situation. It's completely self-absorbed.

WORKER: Actually, that's what I wanted to talk to you about.

BOSS: What?

WORKER: With her going back to work, someone needs to be with the baby. So I'll be taking my maternity leave now. The full six months allowed by law.

BOSS: Six months? Are you insane? We just signed that new account.

WORKER: Yeah, I know but dividing parenting time equally is Gwyn and mine's number one priority. That and making sure Brodie's diet is completely organic.

BOSS: Is breast milk not completely organic?

WORKER: Usually. It depends on what my wife eats. Anyway, keep my office clean and my desk warm and that paycheck coming for the next 12 weeks. I'll be back to catch up in July.

BOSS: July? We could be bankrupt by then, given this recession.

WORKER: Well, you can't blame me then, can you? God save the Welfare Queen.

Sadly, there are people pining for such a progressive policy here in the U.S., like this writer at Salon. Beware those feel-good, European entitlement programs.

Choosing Friends Carefully? Obama Bans Honduras, Welcomes Ahmadinejad, Gaddafi, and Chavez

Why can't the president get Honduras right? I wrote about this a couple of days ago when the US State Department revoked the visas of the Honduran president and 14 Honduran judges. This was in reaction to their enforcement of the Honduras Constitution, which removed wannabe-dictator Jose Manuel Zelaya from power, replacing him with an interim president until elections could be held. Sounds like the rule of law prevailed, right? So why has President Obama banned the interim president of Honduras from traveling to the United States?

Meanwhile, guess who's coming to dinner? That's right, the full monty of authoritarian despots will be on hand in New York, given legitimacy by our government when President Obama addresses the United Nations next week. These dictators include Ahmadinejad of Iran, Chavez of Venezuela, Castro of Cuba, Ortega of Nicaragua, and Gaddafi of Libya, among others. But poor Honduras, a democracy with a fully-functioning government elected by the people, is being blacklisted.

Our president is siding with Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro instead of the Constitution of a democratically elected ally. Not only is this shameful, it raises a lot of questions about Obama's troubled history of flirting with Marxists. It continues a pattern that spans the president's entire life, as he wrote in his autobiography, Dreams of My Father: [emphasis mine]

To avoid being mistaken for a sell-out, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

Is President Obama still choosing his friends carefully? Or am I just a racist, hate-monger for bringing this up? I know one thing. There's more evidence that our president is a Marxist than there is to the tired narrative that Rep. Joe Wilson is a racist.

Greta has the exclusive interview with the interim president of Honduras, Roberto Micheletti. Unfortunately, other than Fox News and a few conservative publications, there has been little media coverage. Maybe David Letterman will ask him about it, if not the five TV news show anchors the president will appear before on Sunday. I won't hold my breath.




Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit

Ooooh Scary! President Tells Health Insurance Horror Stories

In President Obama's address to Congress last week, he called out all those who used scare tactics and misinformation to try and sway the debate on health care. Then he ignored his own advice and gave a speech that even the Associated Press said didn't stand up to the facts. On Saturday, in his weekly address to the nation, the president continued to try and scare up support by doing his best Freddy Krueger impression.

I’ve heard from Americans who can’t get health coverage; men and women who worry that one accident or illness could drive them into bankruptcy. And I’ve heard from Americans with insurance who thought that "the uninsured" always referred to someone else [ed. note: that's usually how it works] – but between skyrocketing costs and insurance company practices, they’re beginning to worry that they could find themselves uninsured too.

In other words, be afraid, the scary insurance companies are out to get you! Even though state regulations require unnecessary coverage, restrict competition, and prevent insurance companies from offering a wide array of plans. Adding more government involvement to the process will only add more problems to the status quo; forcing private insurance companies to raise premiums or go out of business. Less than one-half of one percent of those with health insurance ever get dropped, yet that's a fear the president continues to exploit. The two horror stories Obama cited during his speech to Congress were as exaggerated as Al Gore's claim that he was rocked to sleep by a union song that wasn't written until he was twenty-seven. This article by Scott Harrington in the Wall Street Journal has more details behind Obama's tall tales. But our Frightenener-in-Chief went on:

It’s an anxiety that’s keeping more and more Americans awake at night. Over the last twelve months, nearly six million more Americans lost their health coverage – that’s 17,000 men and women every single day. We’re not just talking about Americans in poverty, either – we’re talking about middle-class Americans. In other words, it can happen to anyone.

It used to be 14,000 a day. Guess that wasn't scary enough. Notice the loaded language. People are anxious, they can't sleep at night, it could happen to the best insured among you, aren't you afraid of those evil insurance companies yet? It's become clear the president can't sell his reforms unless he has a straw man or a bad guy. Obama wants you to trust the government that bankrupted medicare, medicaid, social security, and cash for clunkers more than you trust your neighbors, co-workers, doctors, and the businesses in your community. Even if he has to make stuff up. He doesn't want you to trust anyone that works to make a profit. This is what socialism does to societies - divides them, creates mistrust, and forces people to act in their own self-interest rather than reach out to their neighbors. The government gains an advantage by convincing us not to trust each other.

As for the 6 million Americans Obama claims lost their health insurance coverage - that's a made-up figure. It's simply the number of lost jobs over the past year, and half of those people lost their jobs after Obama passed his "stimulus bill" that was supposed to save the economy. So the president is trying to blame the insurance companies for his failed economic policies. He is inferring that these people were dropped from insurance plans for no reason or because premiums became unaffordable, outright lies. These people were laid off so they lost their insurance. But even that may not be the case, because many Americans have COBRA or purchase their insurance individually.

President Obama still wasn't done painting a bleak, apocalyptic future without his reforms:

And based on a brand-new report from the Treasury Department, we can expect that about half of all Americans under 65 will lose their health coverage at some point over the next ten years. If you’re under the age of 21 today, chances are more than half that you’ll find yourself uninsured at some point in that time. And more than one-third of Americans will go without coverage for longer than one year.

As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Here, the president manipulates the data in order to fit his agenda. Notice he uses the arbitrary time frame of ten years. Why? Because more than half of Americans change jobs at least once every ten years. What the first statistic really says is that half of all Americans, because they get health insurance through their employers, will experience temporary periods of being uninsured due to quitting jobs, being laid off, or voluntarily taking time off between jobs. These periods usually run between a few weeks to a few months. You could also say that half of all Americans will have to search for a new home during the next ten years. So what? That doesn't make them homeless.

The worst part is the president knows he's fudging the numbers, otherwise why point out the third statistic at all? If only one-third of Americans will go without coverage for more than a year, that verifies that the one-half statistic he just quoted was bogus. A good portion of the people he claimed would lose their health insurance will only be without it for a short period of time. There is no need for the government to help them, because they are helping themselves just fine under the current system, thank you.

And enough of this "roughly one-third" nonsense. Can we get an actual percentage? How many of them are illegal aliens? How many of these people found coverage after a year? The number we really need to know is how many legal citizens are permanently uninsured, not by choice, but because they can't afford it. That's a number that has been estimated between 12 million and 30 million legal residents, depending on who you ask. President Obama quoted the figure of 30 million during his last address to Congress. Let's be generous and give him that number. In a country of over 300 million people, that only adds up to 10% of the population without health insurance.

I'm no calculus major, and even I know that's way less than one-third. Talk about fuzzy math. But hey, whatever it takes to scare the American people into handing control of their health care over to supersize government, right?

Pretty soon, Obama will have to open a haunted house full of all the health care providers that are supposed to frighten us. Doctors who take out your tonsils or amputate your leg for the payola, greedy health insurance companies who dare to make a profit, and all the people who must be racist for opposing his reforms. Scary monsters, every one of them.

Sorry Honduras, Barack's Got Hugo's Back

If you're a tyrant, the US government's got your back. At least that's the message President Obama continues to send to authoritarian regimes around the world. His latest fist bump with dictators? Revoking the visas of the Honduran president and 14 supreme court justices who legally ruled to remove Jose Manuel Zelaya from power after he tried to circumvent the constitution. Zelaya, in case you missed it because the media ignores it, is the former Honduran president who tried to pass an illegal referendum to abolish term limits before his expired.

If that scenario sounds familiar, it is the same tactic that Hugo Chavez used to become lifetime presidente of Venezuela. It's the tactic that all tyrants use once they gain power. When the rules prevent you from staying in power forever, simply change the rules. Sadly, our president has sided with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro in this case, who clearly have a vested interest in adding another Marxist dictator to their barrio and want Zelaya returned to power even if the people of Honduras do not.

While the US has a precedent of cutting off ties with democratic countries that are overthrown by power-hungry generals in military coups, that's not what happened in Honduras. The current president was placed into power by Honduran law and is only holding the position temporarily until the next president can be elected. In fact, democratic elections are planned this year with candidates currently campaigning. Unfortunately, President Obama has put the United States in the unfamiliar position of not recognizing the government of Honduras as legitimate unless the wannabe-tyrant Zelaya is reinstated. And here's the kicker, that's even with democratic elections scheduled to take place.

Is this the policy of the same president who went around the world apologizing for America's past involvement in other nation's affairs? What's so different about Honduras that Obama feels the need to meddle, especially when they're planning to elect a new president democratically? Maybe Obama did read that book Chavez gave him at the Summit of the Americas after all. Heck, it might make more sense than the complete works of Van Jones.

President Obama has also cut $11 million in aid to the country, which given the billions of Obamabucks he has handed out to cronies in the stimulus, sounds like mere pesos and hardly worth fighting over. Except Chavez is funneling millions of his own to Marxist rebels and "community organizers" to gain a foothold in Central America. Withholding aid as "punishment" is a dangerous position to put one of our democratic allies in.

Meanwhile, we continue to provide aid money to Palestinian terrorists in the Middle East, and Obama refuses to get involved in Iran's stolen election, even though protesters there have been imprisoned, murdered, and raped. Of course, I wrote all about this in my previous posts, Wiener Diplomacy and I'll Take Mock Execution Any Day.

Whether it's relocating Gitmo detainees to Bermuda, planning Independence Day cookouts with Holocaust deniers, allowing the United Kingdom to release a convicted bomber to a hero's welcome, or punishing our democratic allies, Barack Obama isn't sending mixed signals to tyrants. His administration is practically advertising, "Please go about your business as normal."

Question: If President Obama is willing to side against the people of Honduras, against the rule of law, and against a democratically elected government that used the proper channels of their judicial and legislative branches to enforce their Constitution, what's to stop him from doing the same thing here? Isn't that in essence what state-controlled health care is all about, a power grab of 1/6 of the American economy from the people?

Think back to eight years ago on September 11, 2001. Did you think it was even remotely possible that we could be taking the foreign policy stances we are taking now, ignoring threats and hostilities by our enemies, going out of our way to protect the rights of terrorists and the feelings of dictators, all while chastising our allies?

What a wonderful time to be a tyrant. Hollywood directors are making movies about you and you even get the red carpet treatment at film festivals. No wonder our celebrity-worshipped president has Hugo Chavez's back. Little democratic countries like Honduras barely make the B list.

In Joe Wilson, Left Finally Finds Their Villain

What exactly does it take to shock the Left? What type of indecent behavior causes the progressive side of the blogosphere and cable news to come alive with vitriol and outraged punditry? I mean besides town hall meetings filled with protesters not on Obama's payroll.

Could it be this man, a convicted terrorist responsible for the deaths of 240 Americans, who was granted early release from a Scottish prison and received a hero's welcome from Gaddafi's authoritarian regime?

Nope. No outrage from the Left there.

Could it be the radical ideology of this White House employee and presidential advisor, who resigned in the middle of the night on a holiday weekend after being exposed as a 9/11 "truther", a Marxist, a Communist, a former Black Panther, and supporter of cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal.

Nope. In fact, progressive blogs and MSNDNC spokesmen are defending Van Jones as the victim, even though he was brought down by his own words, which included blaming white polluters and environmentalists for intentionally poisoning black communities. Sounds like it should be the next Kanye West single.

Could it be this man, Obama's former spiritual advisor?

Nope. During the campaign, it was politically incorrect to even suggest talking about Obama's pastor for 20 years at Trinity Church. Liberals prefer to ignore his rants against America altogether. Or worse, agree with them.

Could it be this man's attack on our president, which must have been fueled by hate speech on talk radio? That is, talk radio in the Arab world.

Nope. Even though showing the bottom of your shoes in the Arab world is, in essence, the same as flipping someone the middle finger, and throwing objects at a president is clearly an act of violence, the shoe thrower was celebrated as a hero by the Left. It seems like just yesterday they were writing love letters to him over at the Huffington Post. I think my personal favorite is the giddy Save the economy: Throw shoes at Bush! Throw shoes at Bush? That doesn't sound like the proper level of decorum or respect for our president.

So where's the outrage? Hmmm. Since we know how much the Left hates guns, maybe it was this incident yesterday when a peaceful, pro-life advocate and demonstrator known as "sign guy" was gunned down for his outspoken beliefs?

theblogprof: Anti-Abortion Activist Shot, Will it Get the Air Time that Tiller Got?

Nope. The mainstream media and progressive blogs have barely mentioned it, although to be fair it was a heavy news day. So what could possibly have the Left so outraged and infuriated? Give up?

It was this comment in front of Congress, where a representative called the president a liar, something so petty, so below the standards of our nation, so partisan, that we must question whether he's even fit to hold office. Clearly we can agree that such boorish behavior is over the line. Can't we?

Oh wait. That was the wrong clip. That was Democrat Rep. Pete Stark two years ago calling President Bush a liar. And a baby killer who likes to send people to die for his own amusement. Well, that's understandable.

But this here (and listen closely), this is terrible.

Even though Joe Wilson was right. And the White House has since acknowledged that it will be necessary to add language to the bill regarding citizenship verification. Are you outraged yet? Because the Left's virgin ears have never been so shocked. Oh, the horror.

ALWAYS REMEMBER

This was an act of evil perpetrated by men who believed in killing anyone who didn't share their twisted world view. It was an assault on our freedoms that can never be justified or allowed to take place again. We must remember it as an attack on all of civilization, not just the United States, or we risk losing all that is civil. This was more than just "a heinous crime." To call it that serves a grave injustice to those who gave their lives and to those who continue to give their lives fighting terrorism and totalitarian regimes. May we all carry the hopes and dreams of the victims in our hearts; fathers, mothers, daughters, and sons, from many different nations representing many different faiths, and never forget their sacrifice during the tragic moments of September 11, 2001.

Tyrant-Lite's Temper Tantrum to the Nation

President Obama took the stage Wednesday night to address Congress without introducing any new substantial proposals to his health care reforms. In what was a highly partisan and theatrical speech, the president scowled at Republicans, quivered his lip, and unleashed verbal threats at those who dared slow down or oppose his plans. He promised to “call out those who use fear tactics or misrepresent his plan for political purposes.” It was an impressive performance, only because such self-righteousness and just under-the-surface anger are rarely displayed by an American president speaking to the entire nation.

And they said John McCain didn't have the temperament to be president?

What do you say to a political figure who speaks half-truths and then says if you question him you're using scare tactics? Even the Associated Press was correcting his "facts" just hours after the speech.

FACT CHECKING THE PRES: MATH DOESN'T BACK UP OBAMA'S FIGURES

President Obama had a whole month to listen to the nation at town hall meetings, to view signed petitions and gauge the mood of the country, to meet with leaders in the House and Senate who held opposing views, whether Republican or Democrat, and to find places of agreement and pass legislation that would increase competition and cut health care costs immediately. Oddly enough, he hasn't met with Republicans since April, instead preferring to demonize them.

Second Verse, Same as the First!

This president has an agenda and if he can't persuade America to support it, he will simply find a way to force it down our throats. There is no middle ground. Contrast this with President Bush, who came together with Ted Kennedy to pass education reform in his first year of office. Those weren’t two moderates meeting over some meaningless exercise in political posturing. They were a staunch conservative and liberal Democrat working together to see reform all the way through the legislative process.

President Obama, meanwhile, who advertised himself as post-partisan during the campaign, can't even find room to compromise with the most moderate Republicans, and many conservative Democrats have also balked at his costly overhauls.

The same president who sent his own paid community organizers and protesters out into the street to get in the faces of ordinary Americans protesting for the first time, the same president who has used the bully pulpit to make ad hominem attacks against his political opponents, the same president who encourages his surrogates to attack private citizens for speaking their minds, and who's closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, praised Keith Olbermann for doing the dirty work of this administration, this man is going to lecture us on the proper level of discourse? Give me a break.

Have you realized, Mr. President, how much your strong-arm tactics have divided this nation? You have made the presidency not about the honor of the highest office in the land in the freest nation on earth, not about democracy or free enterprise, not about the great history of this country, but instead about you. You have spent more time in your speeches lauding your own achievements and personal biography than you have the story of America.

How about we stop talking about you, and start talking about ways to fix this economy? If you haven’t noticed, times are tough. Americans are being laid off in record numbers. Businesses are closing that have been in families for generations.

I know you claim to be bipartisan, but I have yet to see you accept an idea or consider a proposal by anyone not on the far Left. With all due respect, you seem all too often to pay lip service to unifying the country, but then turn around and play partisan idealogue the minute the teleprompter shuts down and the cameras turn off. Instead of finding common ground, respecting the Constitution, and listening to the American people, you keep trying to persuade us that your way is the right way. If we disagree, we are called racist, hateful, unpatriotic, and unproductive liars. That’s not pragmatism. That’s demagoguery.

It’s not our fault that the health care bill is 1016 pages and hasn't been read by some members of Congress. It’s not our fault that the language it’s written in is confusing, that representatives who support it have to call a hotline to get answers about how it works, and that it brings up more questions than it answers. It’s not our fault that sections of it raise alarms about our Constitutionally protected liberties and rights to privacy, or that many experts have fears it could, in the wrong hands, be used for malicious purposes. It’s not our fault that you have not been specific and that you have waivered about what you want in the reforms from one day to the next.

Fortunately, despite the messiness of the process, we are engaged as citizens. That is good for democracy, not bad. There’s no reason reform of this magnitude, reform that affects almost one-fifth of the American economy, reform that involves the way the sick and the disabled receive care, and reform that affects end-of-life decisions for the weakest among us needs to be passed quickly in the middle of the night. You know, the way your Communist green jobs "czar" left office.

The last time you asked us to act quickly and limit debate, you signed into law the American Recovery Act, a bill that spent almost a trillion dollars to save jobs and revitalize the economy. Six months later, that bill is a failure based on the criteria it was set out to correct. Unemployment is nearly 10%, our deficit is the worst in American history, we are still mired in a painful recession, and the economy has not been stimulated.

The health care reforms you are proposing cost at least twice as much as the stimulus bill and are predicted to increase according to the nonpartisan CBO. They will add substantially to our deficit. They will change the relationship between government and the individual and the way patients are treated for generations. We can’t afford to make the same mistakes we made on the stimulus bill. There is too much at stake. Slow down, fire your partisan advisors, and start listening to the people.

Believe it or not, it's not about you. It's about the American people.