Obama's Health Care speech, Part 2

The president claims that the ”other side” hasn’t offered any plans, but this too is an untruth. There are a number of plans which have been submitted by Republican senators and at least two I am aware of from outside the government. They may not be any better than the Presidents goals, but at least they offer more detail. These plans which offer more choice and portability to the American citizens are not acceptable in the Presidents view, so I assume he does not consider them plans, even though they offer much more detail than the Presidents unpublished theoretical framework.

The President evoked America’s “self-reliance, our rugged individualism and our fierce defense of freedom”. Does he really believe this? If so, why is he trying so hard to eliminate our ability to rely on our selves and individually buy insurance? He has made the claim that we need to fix the system because “more than 50% of the population, under the age of 65 will lose their insurance at some point during the next ten years”. This is absolutely true, because more than 50% of the population of working Americans will change jobs over the next ten years and will not be able to take their insurance with them. This is because Health Insurance, unlike life and auto insurance are not portable. In fact, in more than 36 states, employers are not legally allowed to pay for employees individually owned health insurance. There is no regulation which disallows employers from paying for employee auto insurance. In fact, many employers pay the auto insurance premiums for their employees who have to drive regularly at work. Why isn’t this allowed for health insurance? One reason is that it removes a major bargaining chip from the Union’s quiver of negotiating points. Is this president going to put anything, regardless of how much common sense it makes, in a bill if it hurts unions? Not very likely, in my estimation.

The President made the claim, loudly refuted, that illegal immigrants will not be covered under his plan. This is wrong, at least from the following perspective -- if someone shows up at a hospital emergency room with a medical issue, they are treated, whether they have insurance or not. They are not asked for proof of citizenship and turned away if they can't produce it. They are admitted and treated. Once they are released, they are able to go back to their anonymous existence, no further payment collected. Think this will change under the Presidents theoretical framework? If so, can I offer you a really good deal on a bridge to Brooklyn?President Obama said that the government option, which he continues to support, “would only be available to those who don’t have insurance, which shouldn't be more than about 5%” and "will be funded 100% from the premiums of those who enroll". This statement goes beyond the bounds of credulity. In the first place, what is the group of 5% that he is speaking of? Is he referring to 5% of the population of the country? There won't be that many people to enroll if the other programs proposed are enacted. If he is speaking of 5% of the people not now covered, the number of enrollees will amount to approximately 1.5 million nationwide. There is no way that this small number of people can be covered 100% with premiums paid.