Why the Fiscal Cliff Should Happen!

Over the past 12 years federal spending has skyrocketed to out of control levels. Both parties are to blame for that. The Bush administration spent billions more than it brought in on a yearly basis. The Obama administration has, and continues to spend trillions more than it brings in on a yearly basis. These are just statistics. Obama has put us in more debt than any other president. All for a 7.7% unemployment rate after 4 years, which is a horrible judge of the true unemployment rate in the first place. That is just the truth. No way around that. The American people, at least some of them, have been reaping the benefits of this out of control spending for some time now. The fiscal cliff is not something that most conservatives, at least in the form of tax hikes on everybody, would normally advocate. However, from my point of view, IT SHOULD HAPPEN. Let me explain why.

American people, the bill is due. The wars, food stamps, welfare, healthcare, social security, pet projects, etc. The politicians over promised and you let them. The bill is due, and the government is ready to collect. From a political standpoint, taxes must go up on everybody, so the electorate can see the consequences of out of control federal spending. The only way the people change their mindset, and how they vote, is to feel the pain in their wallets. This is the only way the American people will learn. I fault conservative leadership. The problem with our conservative leadership is that they implemented reckless fiscal policies. Fiscal conservatism is two pronged. First, federal taxes must be enough to fund essential, constitutional functions, no more, no less. Of course, there may be variations year to year, $50-$100 billion surpluses or deficits each year.  However, fiscal year deficits of $1+ trillion dollars have been the norm for the past 4 years. Can someone please explain this to me? The $300 billion deficits that President Bush was running were also outrageous. Second, if spending does go up for some reason, the tax code needs to adjust. Meaning that, if government wants to spend more, they have to go to the people that year, right then and there, and demand more money from them. What does this accomplish? Awareness. In a system such as this, the American people would become aware of our tax and spend situation immediately. Politicians would not be able to spend money and just pass the bill down the road to future generations. This is the greatest hope for fiscal conservatism. It would essentially be a pay as you go system. Does this mean, that Congress cannot carry out one of its constitutional functions of borrowing money on the credit of the US Government? No, but what does borrowing money come with? Interest. Somebody has to pay those interest payments. So if the federal government borrows money for funding, taxes should go up. The longer the principal is outstanding, the more interest the American people pay over time. Nobody wants to pay $5 billion for a bridge that only costed $3 billion. A system such as this would drive liberals crazy because it would hold the spendthrifts accountable, immediately. For example, we are about to pass a healthcare plan. It will cost $400 billion in additional revenue over the next five years. That means your taxes are going to go up $2,000 every year for the next 5 years. Now, American people, make a choice using the power of the ballot box.

Simply put, we have spent too much money. We have lived beyond our means. This is what you get when you put a President in office that has spent about $5.3 trillion more in four years than he has brought in over those same four years. Bush does not escape critique, however his spending was not on the same level as Obama’s. Simple math can debunk the myth that simply taxing the rich will fix the problem. Using 2010 IRS statistics proves this. Lets discuss real numbers. In 2010 the top 1% of earners paid $354 billion of the federal individual income tax. Number of federal returns filed by the top 1% of earners, 1.35 million. In 2010, the bottom 50% of income earners paid $22 billion of the federal income tax paid. There were 67.5 million returns filed which fell into the bottom 50% earner category. Now to adjusted gross income on the top 1% for 2010, which is my main point. The top 1% of income earners had AGI of $1.5 trillion. So lets tax them at 50% of adjusted gross income. We would put a $750 billion dent in the budget deficit, annually. Let’s do that for 4 years. That would equal $3 trillion dollars. It still would not equal the $5.3 trillion of spending deficits which President Obama has overseen the past four years. Still do not get it? Read that paragraph again, because it is pivotal. This gives some perspective, and hard numbers, as to why just taxing the rich will not fix the problem. The politicians count on you being uninformed about our spending situation.

To sum up my theory to conservatives. If the Democrats will not compromise on spending, let the fiscal cliff happen. Let taxes go up on the middle class, the rich, everybody. Will it hurt the economy? Maybe. However, from a political standpoint, maybe, just maybe, you will be able to show the American people that this is what you get when you have out of control spending.  The bill will eventually come due, and the American people will always be on the hook. All of them. When the Democrats start blaming the Republicans for allowing taxes to go up on the middle class. Just respond by saying, we just thought it was time to pay our past due bills, and not pass this generations’ debt burden onto the next. If you do not want it to happen again, then cut spending. If you dot not cut spending, taxes will have to be raised again, and those voting for the outrageous spending increases, will again, be to blame. The ball needs to be put back in their court, and this is something we have not tried.

Obama’s Plan Will Cost US Economy 200,000 Jobs According To Liberal Leaning Yahoo News!

Okay so America is slowly crawling out of the recession and we have had some positive jobs numbers in the past few months, even though the government uses the U3 numbers rather than U6 numbers when calculating unemployment, which is misleading in itself. This is why the liberal media outlets were jumping for joy last week when the jobs report was released and the U3 rate was 7.7%. Oh crap, our unemployment rate is 7.7%, that is amazing. That is disgusting. It is like settling for 10th place, in a contest with 11 contestants.

(What is the U3 Unemployment Rate: U3 conveniently excludes the unemployed once they have been unemployed for one year. These very long term unemployed just magically disappear. U3 also counts those forced to settle for part time jobs as being fully employed. Estimates of “discouraged” job seekers unemployed for less than one year are also excluded from the U3 statistic. U3 is an artifically low manufactured number that tells you nothing about the true employment rate.)

(What is the U6 Unemployment Rate: Basically, U6 is a broader measure of unemployment. It includes all of the unemployed regardless of how long they have been unemployed. It includes those seeking full time positions who have had to settle for part time positions. U6 is the unemployment statistic that was cited by the US Department of Labor until about 16 years ago when U3 was quietly substituted. CURRENT U6 RATE FOR THE US IN NOV 2012 IS 14.4%.)

Now to the point of the article. It is no secret that Yahoo News is super liberal. Almost to MSNBC level liberal. Today they have an article which basically says that Obama’s proposal to tax the rich at higher rates is going to cost the US economy 200,000 jobs. This is because many businesses that are taxed at the individual income tax level, because they are not organized as corporations, LLCs, partnerships, etc. will not be hiring and may even have to let some workers go. Here is the excerpt from the article:

“The Congressional Budget Office estimated last month that Obama’s plan to increase taxes only on top earners would reduce economic growth by 0.1 percent of Gross Domestic Product next year, or about $16 billion. That translates into about 200,000 fewer jobs…’It’s a very tiny portion of the cliff impact and it very much raises revenues and it does so in a fair way,’ Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, senior Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said of Obama’s proposal. ‘It will not stifle economic growth in any significant way.’

So let me get this straight. We created 146,000 jobs last month. Over 350,000 actually dropped out the workforce which is what led to the U3 unemployment rate (the one the federal government uses) dropping to 7.7%. It was not because we added jobs that the rate dropped, people dropped out of the calculation. Now, democrats are saying that losing 200,000 jobs is no big deal. If Democrats actually cared about the middle class and the poor, they would realize that most middle class people and poor people actually work for wealthy individuals, or wealthy corporations. Increasing the rates on these wealthy individuals or corporations will only trickle down to the  middle class and poor, because they will be the ones who will not have jobs. Why? Because the rich will instead have to pay what used to be that worker’s salary in federal individual income tax to the government. But hey, maybe the democrats secretly want more middle class and poor to be unemployed so they can get on the government dole. This would effectively solidify democrat power in Congress and the White House for years to come. The best way to allow socialism to creep in is to eliminate the middle class. By eliminating the middle class you make more people dependent on the government, who are then more willing to give up their economic freedom to succeed or fail. If the government is writing your free check, you will most definitely fail.  In the good words of Rahm Emanuel “never waste a good crisis.” Meaning when the people are freaking out is when we can get more stuff done we have always wanted to get done in the false promise of government is here to take care of you. No different than the Patriot Act. Politicians jumped and in the name of national security they sacrificed our personal freedoms by passing the Patriot Act. The epitome of what never waste a good crisis means. Just now, Obama and his democrat thugs are sacrificing our economic freedoms, which I believe is much worse.

See the Yahoo News article here: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-tax-plan-no-small-deal-small-businessmen-201241565.html

So Extending Unemployment Insurance Will Really Create 300,000 Jobs?

A recent CBO report estimates that extending federal unemployment benefits through 2013 at the 47 week eligibility mark would create roughly 300,000 job at a cost of $30 billion. So let me get this straight, taking money from people who work, and giving it to people who don’t work would create 300,000 jobs. Essentially the CBO is saying that paying people not to work is going to create 300,000 jobs. The funny thing about this is that no liberal leaning article mentions the fact that based on the simple calculation of dividing the additional $30 billion expenditure by the number of jobs that would be created (300,000) you get $100,000. So effectively, the government would create 300,000 jobs at a cost of $100,000 per job in exchange for paying people not to work. It is true that the unemployed receiving the extended benefits will likely spend this money on food, clothes, shelter, etc. But let’s think about this for a moment. Most of these jobs that would be created or “saved” would likely be food service, retail, etc. Unemployment is paid so people can get by, not buy new cars, and houses, or spend on professional services. None of the employees working these jobs that will be created will be making $100,000 annually. But yet it is going to cost the federal government $100,000 to create each one of the estimated 300,000 jobs by extending unemployment benefits in 2013. Just another example of how inefficient the federal government is. They are going to spend $100,000 per job, to create  what will likely be a majority of minimum wage jobs, and we all know  it will never create 300,000 jobs, and will likely cost much more than $30 billion.

This is one of my favorite parts of the article:

“Those options to extend UI benefits would have several effects on individuals and the U.S. economy in the short run. In particular, they would….Provide incentives for UI recipients to REMAIN UNEMPLOYED LONGER than they otherwise would have because UI benefits stop when recipients find a job or stop looking for work.”

At least they are honest about this one.

Read the report here: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-28-UnemploymentInsurance_0.pdf

Why the Bush Tax Cuts Are Really to Blame And Why They Have Been Good For Uncle Same Too!

Over the past few years President Obama has, almost to the point of nausea, preached that the rich need to pay more. He says that if the tax rates rise on the rich that the federal government will be able to use that money to pay down on our debt, and it will automatically mean more revenue will be coming into the federal government. So to challenge this argument I have done some research. I am not going to just use bumper sticker slogans and class warfare to get my point across, as the well versed politician Obama does. Rather I will use the facts to show:

1) THE RICH ARE ACTUALLY PAYING MORE AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE FEDERAL INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX THAN THEY DID WHEN THE BUSH TAX CUTS WERE NOT IN EFFECT, NAMELY THE CLINTON YEARS, H.W. BUSH YEARS, AND REAGAN YEARS. The point is that, yes, the Bush tax cuts are to blame for our mess. But not for putting less of the tax burden on the tope 50% of earners, but for putting more of the burden on the top 50% of earners, and furthering the cradle to grave state for the bottom 50%.

2) That the individual income tax receipts of the Bush tax cut years were significantly higher than the Clinton years, therefore giving significant weight to my argument that in order to increase tax revenues, the labor participation rate needs to be increased and the tax base needs to be broadened rather than the brunt of the burden being placed on the rich as I am about to show you.

Point 1:

Between the years of 1980 and 2001, the bottom 50% of wage earners, paid on average, 5.6% of all federal income taxes. After the implementation of the Bush tax cuts in 2001, this is what happened to the percentage for the bottom 50%. Between the years of 2002 and 2010, the bottom 50% of wage earners paid on average, only 3.38% of all federal income taxes paid to the federal government. In 2010, the bottom 50% of wage earners only paid 2.36% of all federal income taxes collected. The top 50% of wage earners share of total federal income taxes collected in 1980 was 92.95%. In 2010 that number had ballooned to 97.64%. Any individual that is arguing that the cuts actually helped the rich more than the middle class or the poor is highly mistaken. Relatively speaking the middle class and poor have benefited more from the Bush tax cuts than the rich. As a percentage of their incomes, they have more take home pay than the rich. The bottom 50% of income earners actually paid $21 billion less in 2010 than they did in 2001, while the top 50% paid $85 billion more, and the top 1% paid $61 billion more, all during the same period 2001-2010. Between the years of 2000-2007, the top 1% of earners individual income tax rate increased 23%. So liberals explain to me again how the rich are paying less today than they did pre-Bush tax cuts. Now to my point, the Bush tax cuts did nothing more than allow the poor and lower middle class to receive tremendous amounts of benefits without having skin in the game. Everybody should pay some form of individual income tax, unless you do not work at all. The fact is that many people in this bottom 50% of earners group actually pay negative net income taxes. Meaning they receive more back in refunds than they pay. The Bush tax cuts are to blame for many of the freeloaders in our system today. If we are all in this together as Obama keeps spreading that socialist jargon, then if one persons rate go up, all rates should go up.

Source: http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/ff343.pdf

Point 2:

The individual income tax is the largest source of revenue for the federal government. The federal individual income tax has been the largest source of revenue for the federal government since 1950. Based on 2010 numbers, the federal government generated 42% of its revenue from the individual income tax. Now to the Clinton years. During the Clinton administration, the highest amount of federal individual income taxes collected by the IRS was $981 billion dollars. Now to the Bush years and the Bush tax cuts which should have effectively made government revenues decrease tremendously, right? Wrong! In fact, the federal government brought in over $1 trillion dollars in individual federal income tax revenue for the first time in our history. Not only did the federal government bring in $1 trillion dollars in federal individual income tax revenue, but they did it 3 years in a row (2006-$1.02 trillion, 2007-$1.112 trillion, and 2008-1.029 trillion). So when the Bush tax cuts were in full force, the revenue to the federal government (reminding you in good economic times, anything after 2008 will be affected by the great recession) was the highest it had been in the history of our country. I thought higher rates always meant higher revenues to the federal government. Seems not to be the case. Keeping tax rates where they are for everybody, or as a matter of fact lowering them for everybody would free up capital for job creators, and those that want to start a businesses. This would therefore increase the labor force participation rate back up into the 65%-66% range, rather than the abysmal 63% we are at now. More people working, means more people paying taxes and therefore more money to the federal government. Obama’s actions of providing more federal benefits is not doing anything to bring the job market back. It is doing nothing more than trapping lazy and once hard working people that would rather just get free food, healthcare, and livelihood, than go get a job. Putting more people on government benefits is not going to increase revenue to the government, therefore helping pay down our national debt, because less people are paying taxes.

With all that being said, the left wing and right wing media outlets are fooling you. They feed us these quick snippets of information because they (and the politicians) think we are too dumb to do our research and find out what is really going on. American voters have effectively become bumper sticker voters, that will faint because a man, such as President Obama utters the word “change.” Most are unfortunately, low information voters. The federal government does not need more money. The record high revenues during the Bush years show that SPENDING is the problem. The federal government was bringing in record setting revenue numbers and it could not even pay its bills then. We were still running fiscal year deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars during our record setting revenue Bush years. If you do not think that spending is the problem just look to page 411 on the this link. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ERP_2012_Complete.pdf.

This is President Obama’s Economic Report. Look at total federal outlays in column 2. Total federal spending under Bush went from an average of $2.7 trillion per FY between the years of 2006-2008, with an average FY deficit of $288 billion. Under Obama total federal spending skyrocketed to an average of $3.6 trillion per FY between 2009-2012, with an average of, get this $1.3 trillion FY deficits. If you do not think that our federal spending is the problem you are an idiot. Also, don’t blame it on the wars, we have been fighting them for quite a while now and have not even ran anything close to the deficits this incompetent President is running. The fact of the matter is that we have reached a threshold, where those receiving but not giving, have grown to a number exceeding the threshold of which the producers can live the American dream and support the takers at the same time. I don’t know about you, but I’ll take my American dream any day in that contest.

I do not like this trend because I expect and aspire to be in that top 50% one day. I still think that America is a land of opportunity. A place where you can be born nothing, and become a great success. Unfortunately, I do not think many of the bottom 50% of wage earners believe in that anymore. Otherwise, why would they be advocating tax plans which could possibly negatively effect them if they were to become part of the top 50% of wage earners?  Either they believe they do not have what it takes to become great, or they believe that America is not that land of opportunity our fathers and grandfathers conquered. Many of them believe that the government can take care of them better than they can take care of themselves.  Honestly, many of them are still children, and never grew up.

A Constitutional Lesson on the Debt Limit Negotiations for President Obama, Congress, and the Low Information Liberal Voters.

This article is mainly for low information liberals who have a hard time understanding the US Constitution’s role in the debt ceiling negotiations. As many may have heard this week, the looming fiscal cliff is approaching. A series of automatic spending cuts and tax increases that will supposedly lead us into economic armageddon. A little known part of the President’s proposal is that he has proposed to be given, via legislation written by Congress, the sole power to raise or lower the federal debt ceiling whenever he wants. Now before I get into the constitutional aspect of this, let me from a common sense standpoint inform people how this is a threat to democracy and the American republic.

The power to borrow on behalf of others is quite a power. The power to make others indebted to you or another entity is corruptible, and absolute. That is effectively what our government does for its citizens. It borrows money everyday, based on the promise that you, taxpayers will be able to repay that money to the United States. So it can in turn repay its creditors. President Obama wants for himself, and every other President after him, the sole arbitrary power to raise the amount that he can borrow on your, the taxpayer’s credit card. Meaning there is no vote on the matter, no deliberation amongst hundreds of elected leaders in an entity such as the House of Representative, just a single decision, by a single man or woman. Congress was meant to be a deliberate legislative body. Our system of checks and balances, was meant to be deliberate and not to flow with the prevailing political winds. Our political system is actually doing its job on the fiscal cliff negotiations. If you believe that Congress should be quick about everything, or maybe the President should just decide himself, go back to the history books. The President’s proposal based on a common sense democratic analysis, is by its very nature un-American. In fact, it sounds more like a monarchy, or totalitarian form of government rather than the American republic.

Now to the US Constitution. What I like to refer to as America’s operating system. First let me remind everybody that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you do not think so, go read Marbury v. Madison. Need more evidence, go read Article VI, Section II of the US Constitution. Now with that being said the relevant portions of the Constitution for this discussion are Articles I and II. Article I governs the legislative power (Congress). Article II governs the executive power (the President). If you have ever read the Constitution, notice how it is a power granting document to the Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court. Of course the Amendments are prohibitive in nature. But I am referring to Articles I-III. Meaning that if Article I does not say Congress can do a specific thing, it cannot. There is no ambiguity in that. If there was, the Tenth Amendment comes in and clarifies it for us. The Tenth Amendment States “The powers not delegated to the United Stated by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This is a very important sentence to understand the context of the Constitution as a power granting, rather than prohibitive document.

First, Article I, Section I states that “All legislative Powers herein shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…” This effectively means that all laws shall be made in Congress. Now to the topic of the debt ceiling and the specific congressional powers associated with it. Article I, Section 8 states “Congress shall have power….To borrow money on the credit of the United States.” This puts substance to my sentence in the second paragraph. The Congress has the sole power to borrow money. Therefore, don’t they have the implied power to control how much money can be borrowed on the credit of the federal government?   This power is used in conjunction with the so called tax and spend power. See Article I, Section 8 phrase I, “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes,…to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United State.” Therefore Congress, has the ability to make laws which deal with borrowing money, collecting taxes, and spending the borrowed money or direct tax revenues to pay for things such as Defense spending. Then use the tax revenues to pay back the debt liability. When Congress chooses to borrow money for programs, your tax dollars and property are essentially the collateral. So that should be enough to explain that the Congress has the sole power to raise or lower the debt ceiling.

But I will keep going, just in case you need more. Now this part takes even more critical thinking. Buckle up, I know the super liberal universities don’t teach that anymore. The last phrase in Article I, Section 8 states “The Congress shall have power…To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department of Officer thereof.” In one of the most important cases Maryland v. McCullough which dealt with the constitutionality of the chartering of the Second Bank of the United States, when discussing whether Congress had the power to do so, Chief Justice Marshall said “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited (by the Constitution), but consist (sic) with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” This effectively means that so long as what Congress is attempting to do is constitutional (the end), the means Congress uses, so long as related to that end, and not prohibited by the Constitution, are constitutional. Basically, Congress may choose any means, not prohibited by the Constitution, to carry out it express authority, so long as the means it uses are necessary and proper for carrying out its express authority specifically enumerated in other sections of Article I. So in the debt ceiling example, Congress passes a law which requires borrowing, so by fact of necessity they have the power to raise or lower the debt ceiling in order to borrow the required amount of money the federal government needs.

Now to Article II, which governs what the President can do. I just read Article II in its entirety for like the 500th time. Of course it mentions the almighty “Commander in Chief” power, the power to make Treaties with consent of Senate, the power to nominate Supreme Court justices, the power to nominate Ambassadors, the power to grant pardons, etc. Surprisingly, nowhere in Article II did I see the word tax, revenue, debt, money, or spend. None of these words appear in the document that grant the President of the United States his powers. The President has no power when it comes to borrowing money, and therefore no power to raise or lower the debt ceiling.  Enough said.

Now some may argue that via the power to make laws, that Congress may legislate the power to raise or lower the debt ceiling away to the President. There is some debate on this issue, mostly in the area of the delegation doctrine, or congressional delegation of legislating, or lawmaking power. Now, as I said, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It states that the Congress has the power to borrow, tax, and spend. There is no gray area here. The only way to change who handles raising or lowering the debt ceiling is to amend the Constitution, not simply to make a law giving the President that power. Of course it is much harder to amend the Constitution than pass a law. I would love to discuss the delegation of legislative power by Congress, but this post would be much longer than it already is. For a discussion of the delegation of legislative powers by Congress see J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States, a Supreme Court case in I believe, the 1920s.

The President taught constitutional law. He is not an idiot when it comes to this issue. He thought the Fourteenth Amendment would apparently give him the authority to raise or lower the debt ceiling arbitrarily. Not even close. He knows what he is proposing is patently unconstitutional. It is nothing more than a power grab by the most un-American President in the history of our nation. Not because he is biracial, not because he lived in Indonesia, or was born in Hawaii, but because his ideology is simply the antithesis of our founding principles of a limited federal government, federalism, and the rule of law (i.e., following the constitution). The President and his good liberal friends in Congress all take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The President, by proposing this preposterous plan to have sole power to raise the debt ceiling, and Congress favoring this power the President seeks are acting in a manner absolutely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. They have essentially failed on their oaths to uphold the United States Constitution. Every American should be outraged by the President’s proposal, but then as evidenced by the most recent election, most are low information liberal voters, the audience of this post, who love their Obama phones, welfare, and cannot wait to get home and watch American Idol, or Jersey Shore. They wil likely not care until the lights go off, and then they will blame the Republicans.

The City Of Detroit Deserves To Fail

Via American Glob. At least she says what all liberals think secretly.

American Glob

The City of Detroit is a cesspool of decay created by decades of liberal governance.

This once great city now lies in ruins with beautiful homes falling apart, vacant, burned out and overgrown with weeds. Entire city blocks have been plowed down and replaced with fields of grass where wild animals are now free to graze and hunt among the city’s residents. Municipal services like the police and fire departments are completely bankrupt and the city can’t even afford electricity for street lights.

That this pit of liberal fiscal mismanagement now expects to be bailed out as payback for helping to reelect Obama is insulting to all Americans on a level that’s difficult to describe in words.

Sorry folks. Obama may be the president but contrary to what you’ve heard, that does not authorize him to pay for your gas and your mortgage.

Like the country of Greece, you can…

View original post 25 more words

Three Major Problems with our Healthcare System

There are three major problems with our healthcare system. All deal with market competition. One is the failure of our government and healthcare providers to bring cash back to the market. Second, is the failure of the government to allow the interstate purchase of health insurance (buying healthcare in other states). Third, is the failure of the healthcare providers to provide a readily accesible and understandable fee schedule.

As to the first point, I just received my benefits summary from my health insurance company today. A typical physical was billed at $744 to United Healthcare. This is for just a physical, my lab work was completed by a third party, Lab Corp. Some of the blame is on the medical provider, some is on the insurance companies. However, I blame most of it on the government. Why? Because the government has yet again, with the passage of Obamacare, failed to provide a real competition based cost cutting system. They failed to bring cash back into the healthcare market on a b/w patient and doctor basis. Bringing cash back into the market b/w doctor’s and patients would increase price competition among doctors, and therefore prices would go down. Why? Because if I am a doctor, and I have a cash paying customer, I charge them less than the insurance company. I have seen it happen many times before. The doctor sees the big insurance company and automatically overcharges. This system is siphoning wealth from patients to doctor’s at an alarming rate. Citizens pay premiums, insurance companies profit, medical providers overcharge, and then often individuals still have to pay co-pays and deductibles. Granted, many medical plans give discounts for using in-network doctors, such as mine. But still $744, and that is just for the doctor. I have not even received my Lab Corp bill yet.

Second, opening up the health insurance purchasing market on an interstate basis would foster competition also. Allowing potential policyholders to shop nationwide, rather than just in their state would allow purchasers a bigger market, with more providers. That is the essence of competition. More products choices, allowing potential policyholders to search, complete benefit comparisons, and cost comparisons on a nationwide basis rather than only for the healthcare insurance providers in their state. Of course that would give up most of the regulating power of the healthcare insurance industry back to the states, which is never gonna happen with this federal government.

Third, other professionals in highly regulated markets, such as lawyers, are required to provide up front, clients with, for example, costs per hour. Prices for simple procedures, such as blood draws, typical physicals, etc. should be readily available via websites, on view in the waiting areas of doctor’s offices, etc. This would only help competition and drive prices down because individuals would be able to make informed cost decisions about their healthcare provider. Many may go to providers who offer services cheaper than other doctors, and hopefully those other doctors charging higher rates would eventually lower their prices starting a process of continually decreasing prices for these simple procedures.