JODY HAMMERS BOLLING FOR OPT-OUT THREATS

Where has the Virginia media been on this issue- the Lt. Governor has a DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST in opting-out of health insurance reform- yet he is campaigning on doing so. This conflict is far worse than Phil Hamilton because it would lead to the deaths of thousands of additional Virginians every year. This is cash for blood and it is UNACCEPTABLE.

Comments

[Mr. Jefferson]

"lead to the deaths of thousands"

I suppose if you want to be all hyperbolic about it.

[Not Larry Sabato]

Mr. Jefferson- You should volunteer to be the guy who tells families with no insurance their kid can't get a life saving surgery because Bob McDonnell and Bill Bolling wanted to opt out of something THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS PAYING FOR.

[Mr. Jefferson]

You mean "we" were paying for. The government doesn't pay for anything.

But it sounds like I'd have great job security. Sign me up!

But seriously, to have these knee jerk responses "zOMG, Teh Kidz! Wut about teh kidz?!?!1?" is unhelpful. To resort to hyperbole is unbecoming. Which is the point I was originally making.

[Sue Brown]

Please provide a link showing ONE child in Virginia who could not get needed surgery because his parents had no insurance.

While you're at it, please provide a link to a death in Virginia, any death, due to lack of insurance.

[Donny Ferguson]

Medicare refuses more medical procedures than private insurance.

And it's well-documented that countries with government-run health systems have higher death rates from breast and prostate cancer.

[HisRoc]

Ben,

Mr. Jefferson has a point. One of the more hyperbolic "facts" being tossed about in the health care debate is the number of people who die because of a lack of health insurance. Most of the so-called statistics I have seen are fatally flawed (pardon the pun). They usually count anyone who dies without health insurance or who was under-insured as a casualty, regardless of the cause of death. This is intellectually dishonest and does nothing to enlighten the debate. Just because an uninsured person is killed in a car accident, for example, hardly means that they died because they didn't have health insurance.

And before other posters begin to pepper me with some of these pseudo-scientific studies, please consider the example of the Johns Hopkins study of Iraqi civilian casualties that was published in Lancet. It was later debunked as not passing peer review or even common sense.

[changer1701]

That's a ridiculous ad. Plus, having it as a cartoon just makes the point she's trying to make seem cartoonish as well.

[Sam]

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/dying-from-lack-of-insurance/

FactCheck confirms that the 45,000 deaths a year number is probably bogus, but still has the number at well over 10,000

Donny - That's simply not true, and even if it were, preventive care is more prevalent in these countries probably preventing many cases of cancer, so it wouldn't be surprising that the cancers that come are, on average, worse. These countries also almost all have higher life expectancies generally than we do.

[HisRoc]

Sam,

Thanks for the link. Please note that none of these studies examined or estimated child mortality. The lower end of the studies ranged from age 18 to 25. I suspect that is because it is difficult to equate childhood mortality with health insurance rates, esp. with SCHIP.

And even if you accept the extreme estimate of 45,000 nationwide, that does not compute to be "thousands of additional Virginians." Since about 2% of the US population lives in Virginia, it would be about 900. Again, that is only if you accept the Harvard estimate of 45,000, which most experts don't.

[change]

I suppose if anyone looked at auto deaths from cell phone use it would be huge because most people who crash have a cell phone on or near them. Silly use of statistics to take in unthinking individuals.

[James Young]

HisRoc and Mr. Jefferson seem to believe that the goal is better health care.

That is false.

The goal is GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

[Salem Republicans]

FWIW (I know, not much) I think this ad violates Virginia's stand by your ad law. When an ad addresses your opponent, you're supposed to use a "personal" disclaimer, not the "committee" disclaimer. Can be cured by the proponent appearing in the ad which is usually what is done. Obviously not a huge deal but, unless I'm missing something, this ad appears illegal.

[Mr. Jefferson]

IANAL, but is there a difference between ads that air on TV, and web ads?

[JT]

NLS,

For someone who has seemingly turned into a single-issue voter (health-care), it is embarrassing you apparently don't even know what the public option is.

You better delete your comment here before your friends at FDL see it and can your ass.

Also, might want to actually learn what the public option is.

Pathetic.

[Mike]

It's a cute ad. Setting aside partisanship for a second, it's an effective caricature (with the cigar and moneybags) for those who didn't know his day job.

It is certainly hyperbolic to say that Bolling's stance on the public option would directly lead to the deaths of thousands of Virginians, but you could argue that it is the state's responsibility to ensure the welfare of all its citizens given all reasonable measures. Consequently, even one death or bankruptcy resulting from a lack of affordable health coverage would be an abrogation of that duty.

[HisRoc]

Mike,

That is a nice theory, but it doesn't pass the "Makes Sense" Test.

If "it is the state's responsibility to ensure the welfare of all its citizens given all reasonable measures," then why not ban cigarettes and snuff? Tobacco consumption causes an estimated 440,000 deaths in the US every year. That is almost 9,000 a year in Virginia alone.

Banning tobacco consumption would save far more lives than health insurance reform and we wouldn't have to spend $850B to do it.

And, BTW, the bill that Speaker Pelosi rolled out today with much fanfare will, by Democratic estimates, reduce the uninsured in this country from 15% to about 6%, leaving almost 19 million uninsured Americans. Have you ever heard of the Law of Diminishing Returns?

[Mike]

"Dimishing returns" -- or, in concrete terms, people who are too expensive to help -- is consistent in my view with the "reasonable measures" caveat. To take another example: while it's true that a limited number of people are killed in transit bus accidents annually, it would not make practical sense to require every agency to install (and every passenger to wear) seatbelts.

However, I believe that the public option is low-hanging fruit, which is why I'm concerned about the opt-out proposal. If states deny their citizens the opportunity to access the affordable plan, are they not in some degree culpable for every death/bankruptcy related to inadequate access to coverage?

Your cigarette analogy is imperfect. Banning ciragrettes would be seen as curtailing civil liberties, whereas introducing a public option would make healthcare a public good -- like clean water or law enforcement -- in the sense that the government is stepping in where private enterprise is unavailable/unwilling to participate.

As an aside, I would be happy with banning cigarettes, but a more principled idea for me would be to charge cigarette smokers for the externalities their habit imposes: hospital fees for those who are on government-sponsored care, hospital fees for secondhand smoke-induced illness for non-smokers, paying for litter pickup of all the discarded cigarette butts, etc. In a free market with perfect information, these costs would be factored into the initial price of each pack.

[I.Publius]

Ben, are you really as stupid as you appear? For someone who holds himself out as being knowledgable about Virginia government and policies, you obviously don't know jack shit about health care in Virginia.

EVERY child in Virginia is eligible for health insurance, regardless of income. Take 5 minutes and read up on FAMIS - http://www.famis.org/.

When you say things like "You should volunteer to be the guy who tells families with no insurance their kid can't get a life saving surgery" you show how ignorant you truly are.

[Not Larry Sabato]

Not everyone's kids are under 18, I. Pubs. I was writing illustratively.

[HisRoc]

Mike,

"Banning ciragrettes would be seen as curtailing civil liberties, whereas introducing a public option would make healthcare a public good..."

Is banning recreational drugs a curtailment of civil liberties? How about seatbelt laws in cars (since your brought the subject up) or motorcycle helmet laws? How about laws that require flotation devices on boats and children's car seats? What about the laws that make it illegal to serve alcoholic beverages to minors (even your own children) in the privacy of your home? It doesn't really compute, does it?

The public option is not low hanging fruit. It is a terribly expensive, gold-plated apple that does not provide universal health insurance but only incrementally eats away at the problem at a huge cost to taxpayers. And, there is no guarantee that the cost won't spiral out of control as employers dump their workers onto the public option to save money on private health insurance. Meanwhile, health care providers will ration access for public insurance patients just as they do today for Medicaid/Medicare patients.

[kelley in virginia]

i have yet to read Mrs Pelosi's latest tome, the 1,900 HC bill. However, from snippets I have read elsewhere, the bill strips Medicare but passes more of the burden to Medicaid.

and I understand that the state pays for a big chunk of Medicaid.

so there might be something to the wish to "opt out" in order to save the state money.

let's all read the 1,900 pages & re-convene.

[JT]

NLS (Mr. Health-Care),

I'm still waiting for a response to, "opt out of something THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS PAYING FOR."

[I.Publius]

Don't hold your breath, JT. Ben enjoys making shit up and hoping nobody notices.

[kelley in virginia]

there was a big bru-ha-ha about the so-called "death panels" in HR 3200 this summer at the townhalls. The Dems said there were no "death panels". I read the bill & thought, though ambigious, the language was written so it could mean anything.

ok, the country goes ballistic about these clauses. Guess what? I hear & read (though I am yet to get to that section myself) that these sections remain.

Do these people in Washington even listen?

[Stonewall Brigade]

All I can say is desperation on the Dems part is fun to watch. Can the GOP get to 62 House seats? Lol.

[Mr. Jefferson]

Relish in overconfidence at your own peril, SB.

[change]

Kelly,
I believe they changed it to an “option” as opposed to a mandate which, once it is in the bill, is easily changed to another “shall”. Typical bait and switch move for liberals

[Greg]

By the way, has anyone mentioned that Bolling's company is a Property and Casualty Company, not a health insurance company?

[dr_cathy]

To use factcheck.org as a credible source is laughable. Big clue: Annenberg Political Fact Check is an arm of the Annenberg Foundation who employed Obama for five years as CEO of the failed Annenberg Challenge project in Chicago.

In its current form the public option is designed to eventually remove all competition in the market place. That's why anyone to the left of Pelosi loves it and anyone to the right hates it.

ObamaCare's New Taxes

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) has reviewed H.R. 3962, the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" that has been introduced by Nancy Pelosi --all 1990 pages of it. ATR points out that this gargantuan beast contains thirteen new tax hikes. Here they all are, with description and page number:

• Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

• Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.

• Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.

• Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).

• Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)

• Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.

• Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.

• Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.

• Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.

• Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act

• Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.

• Codification of the "Economic Substance Doctrine" (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.

• Application of "More Likely Than Not" Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability. ObamaCare
10/30/09
It Took Just Minutes

Cornell Law School professor, William A. Jacobson, says he's had only a few minutes to look at the bill, but one fundamental and profound stupidity jumped out at him.

The bill defines which businesses are subject to the health care tax based upon the dollar amount of employee payroll. There even is a sliding scale right in the bill (section 501, at page 276) which tops out at 8% for businesses with $750,000 of annual payroll. Annual payroll is defined as the "aggregate wages" paid by the employer.

This provision creates incentives for businesses to keep down payroll. One way would be not to hire anyone whose compensation would fall under the definition of payroll under the bill.

In other words, outsource whatever you can. Hire a software engineer in India, or ship manufacturing to China, or structure your business in such a way that you send 1099s not W-2s to the people who work for you (and hire an accountant and tax lawyer to navigate IRS rules on independent contractors).

The message of the bill is that whatever you do, if you want to grow your business without paying the health care tax, do not add employees.

Obama does not understand these provisions. Obama gave a speech this morning in which he stated that these provisions are directed at small businesses operating on thin margins. But these provisions have nothing to do with profit margins. This is a wage-based tax.

Obama does not understand the difference between profit margins and wages. This is exactly what you would expect from someone who always has been on the receiving end of wages, and never had to meet a payroll. Wages are not profits and have nothing to do with the success of a business. Just ask the auto companies.

Jacobson doesn't think Obama and the other Democrats are lying about this aspect of the health care tax. They truly do not understand how the private economy works. In their blissful ignorance they are designing job-killings provisions which they do not understand.

Jacobson says that it is not an overstatement to say "be afraid, be very afraid" of this monstrosity.

[a true Jeffersonian, unlike Mr. Jefferson]

Another reason Wagner isn't fit to be Lt. Governor -- her pathetic attack video has a sign on the wall with the word "Insurrance" on it.

Jody, please spare us lectures about insurance if you can't even spell the damn word.

[Mr. Jefferson]

If you mean "true Jeffersonian" as in "owns slaves", then yes, I'm not a true Jeffersonian. ;-)

[Charles]

NLS:

You know that Bolling isn't a health insurance executive, and isn't even licensed to sell health insurance.

So are suggesting that he somehow would make money selling life insurance by supporting what you claim would kill more people? Because you know life insurance salespeople make money off the living, not the dead.

Still in the end the trap is to even talk about opting in OR out of the "public option", because there will be no opting anything -- we'll all pay the same taxes regardless, and end up with the same crappy insurance unless we are employed by unions or the federal government.