Herman Cain - Health Care
Summary
Despite the fact that Herman Cain has not held public office, he has a long history of public involvement in health care. This history shows the viewpoint that politicians use health care as a tool to implement government control in areas that the government should not be involved. He notes that programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are continually promised to more and more people, leading to a creep towards socialized medicine as more and more people become fully reliant on government health care. The unrealistic growth of these programs means that they cannot be funded through straight forward mechanisms. Mr. Cain supports free market principles in health care and as little government involvement as possible.
Herman Cain first participated in health care reform in the early 1990's as the head of the National Restaurants Association when he spoke out against Hillary Clinton's proposed health care reform plans. He stated that President Clinton's cost estimates were not realistic.
Mr Cain has written often about Medicare and Medicaid and noted that the systems were designed on static models of population and costs which are no longer true. He proposed changing from a system of defined benefits to a system of defined contributions with more competition in the delivery systems.
Although he supports assisting children with welfare benefits for health care, Mr Cain opposed the expansion of SCHIP. He noted that although the rhetoric stated that only poor children would be assisted, the plan denoted "poor" as people earning as much as $83,000 a year. He stated that the plan and it's expansion was simply another mechanism to pull the country toward socialized medicine.
Herman Cain opposed Obamacare and supports it's repeal. During the debate over the plan, he stated that there were five tactics used to push socialized medicine onto the country. The tactics included a government mandate, making government health insurance an option, taxing private health benefits, telling people they can receive free health care, and pushing the "it's now or never" mentality. He noted that those supporing Obamacare were using all these tactics, instead of promoting the plan on it's own merits.
As part of his 2012, campaign, Mr Cain has outlned measures that he would take to address health care concerns. These measures include:
- Change the tax code.rn
- Allow people the same tax deductibility for health insurance as employers
- Establish a tax structure that does not punish insurance purchasing, such as the Fair Tax
- Reduce costly government mandates and regulations
- Allow the purchase of insurance across state lines
- Expand Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)
- Support Retail Health Clinics
- Implement Tort Reform
- Provide Vouchers for the Working Poor and Chronically Ill
Question with President Clinton
When President Clinton attempted to reform the health care system. At an event to promote that plan, President Clinton took a question from Herman Cain, who was representing the National Restaurants Association and Godfather's Pizza. Mr. Cain question President Clinton's estimation of the costs of his plan and pointed out the mathematical nuances of his assertions.
Gross Negligence - Medicare and Medicaid
In March of 2006, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing the overall effects of government involvement in health care. He discusses the failures of Medicare an Medicaid, and the efforts to creep the systems towards socialism.
March 15, 2006
Gross Congressional NegligenceWhen corporate executives commit fraud and negligence against their customers and employees, they get fired or go to jail. Every year that members of Congress delay in restructuring the Medicare and Medicaid programs to avoid facing a coming economic disaster, they are committing gross negligence against the citizens of the United States. Unfortunately, many of them get re-elected. In 2004, 99 percent of House incumbents were reelected, as were 96 percent of their colleagues in the Senate.
For over 40 years Congress has attempted to socialize health care delivery through excessive and inefficient spending on entitlement programs, and by imposing costly regulations on health care providers. Now state legislatures want to get into the act, by requiring private employers to pay a percentage of their employees’ health care costs.
The effects of the government-imposed drift toward socialized medicine are well documented.
First, government has failed to control the costs of the Medicare and Medicaid entitlement programs, causing the programs to consume a higher percentage of required federal spending each year. Incredibly, our government is adding new costs to the programs, such as the poorly structured prescription drug plan. The plan’s original projected cost was $395 billion over the first 10 years. In less than a year, the new projected cost of the drug plan now approaches $1 trillion over the first ten years.
The Heritage Foundation projects that if Congress does not change these programs structurally, the current 2.9 percent payroll Medicare tax will have to be as high as 13.4 percent to pay promised benefits. That’s more than four times what we’re paying today! The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services project that total health care spending will reach an unsustainable 20 percent of the economy by 2015.
The second negative effect of government intervention in health care delivery is that many consumers have little or no incentive to practice preventive health care. Until they are sick, too many people neglect their health. There is less motivation to eat healthy foods, exercise regularly and avoid drug, alcohol and tobacco abuse when the government promises to pay to cure self-induced afflictions. Couple the lessened incentive to live healthy lifestyles with the ease of filing baseless medical malpractice and product liability lawsuits, and there should be little surprise why our health care system is abused every day.
Though the job description of a member of Congress is to represent the best interests of the country and his or her constituents, the public is partly to blame for the dysfunction and escalating costs in our health care systems. Too many people fall for the political rhetoric from politicians of all ideological stripes that promises a long-term benefit for seemingly little individual cost. Too many of us continue to elect candidates who claim to be fiscal conservatives but lack the backbone to fix the problems once they arrive in Washington, D.C. Congress does not merely think we are stupid. Collectively, they know we are stupid enough to tolerate their gross negligence for so long.
The solutions to stemming the runaway costs, burdensome regulations and lack of individual choice in our health care system are also well documented.
First, we must convert from a system designed in the 1960s based on that era’s economy and demographics to a consumer driven health care, Medicare and Medicaid system that recognizes the rapidly changing dynamics and demographics of the 21st century economy.
Second, we must establish competition in the health care delivery systems, which will provide more efficient and inexpensive services for all consumers. We can achieve greater competition by removing the government and insurance companies as middlemen in health care decisions, allowing doctors and patients to make the choices best suited for the individual.
Finally, we must change from a system of defined benefits to a system of defined contributions. Corporations can no longer afford the costs associated with defined-benefit health-care plans, and the nation can no longer afford the never-ending costs associated with defined benefit entitlement programs.
The best solution is to put control of health care costs back in the hands of individual consumers and remove the barriers to greater competition. Consumers will have more incentive to control their health and health care dollars, and health care providers will have to deal with less bureaucratic paperwork.
Although I strongly believe we should scrap the entire income tax code and replace it with a national consumption tax, until that time, individuals should be allowed the same insurance premium deductions employers enjoy. Allowing individuals to deduct the cost of their insurance premiums, and contribute to their health savings account with pre-tax dollars, will expand consumer choice and stimulate competition. The result will be lower health care costs for everyone.
The health care and Social Security entitlement programs that comprise the majority of government spending are antiquated and broken, just like the static assumptions on which they were based. Worse yet, our government has created entitlement-demand in far too many citizens, and far too many politicians are willing to meet their demands in exchange for reelection.
Our nation’s economic infrastructure is being destroyed by congressional negligence. The public must not continue to be negligent in demanding change.
Piecemeal Socialism
In December of 2006, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing the Democratic plan to address health care. He states that the plan is to creep towards socialism.
December 6, 2006
Dem Health Care Plans: Piecemeal SocialismFuture House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) “Six in ‘06” policy agenda includes just one health care provision – allowing the federal government to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices. In truth, Pelosi and her big government allies are taking a piecemeal approach toward their larger socialist goal of universal health care. As some conservatives in Congress have shown, however, the only way to lower health care costs is through free market solutions.
Universal health care is as much a sacrament to liberalism as protecting abortion on demand and ensuring that no changes are ever made to the failed Social Security structure. The Executive Summary of the 1993 National Health Security Plan, better known as HillaryCare, stated “The Health Security plan guarantees comprehensive health benefits for all American citizens and legal residents, regardless of health or employment status.” Also in 1993, Hillary Clinton said at a town hall meeting in Minneapolis, “…every American should have the right to necessary health care.” The Founding Fathers were so concerned about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness they forgot to guarantee health care for all. Three out of four provided a pretty good foundation.
Since HillaryCare failed, liberal policymakers have had to be as patient as a Chicago Cubs fan on health care issues. But they now sense a public ready to accept a repackaged HillaryCare program. A November 11 Rasmussen poll found that 54 percent of respondents “might be receptive to Democratic health care proposals,” versus 35 percent who “currently trust the GOP more on the issue.” In a November 12 Gallup Poll, 71 percent said the nation’s health care system was in a “state of crisis” or faced “major problems.” In the same Gallup poll, 69 percent agreed that “It is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage.” If you tell people for 40 years that they have the right to free health care, that is the answer we should expect.
Conservative think tanks and pundits have done a great job explaining the massive threats to the economy and the quality of health care delivery posed by a universal health care system. Now is the time for conservatives to discuss their market-based health care proposals, instead of ceding the bully pulpit on the issue to liberals. The November 12 Gallup poll also found that when respondents were asked if they favor maintaining the current health care system based on private health insurance or replacing the current system with government run health care, 51 percent favored maintaining the private insurance-based system. Connect the dots, Republicans. A majority of Americans want a more efficient and affordable health care system, but they reject HillaryCare.
What the voters want is members of a political party, any of the two major parties, to fix the broken health care system. The public does not necessarily agree with liberal health care proposals, but liberals are at least talking about the issue. A majority of today’s Republican office holders lack the courage to espouse free-market, private insurance solutions, even when polls indicate that is the public’s preference.
The same dynamic occurred last year during debate over restructuring Social Security, abolishing the estate tax and making the tax rate cuts on capital gains and dividends taxes permanent. One strong gust of liberal hot air and the Republican leaders in Congress collapse like a straw house.
One conservative solution pending in Congress is the Self-Employed Health Care Affordability Act (HR 4961). The self-employed were given the ability in 2003 to deduct the cost of their health insurance premiums, but they must still pay payroll taxes on the income used to purchase health insurance. This inequity imposes a 15.3 percent tax on the self-employed’s health insurance premiums. Corporations are allowed to deduct their health insurance costs as a business expense. HR 4961 eliminates the inequity by allowing the self-employed to deduct health insurance costs when computing their self-employment taxes.
Another conservative solution introduced this year is the Health Care Choice Act (HR 2355). The HCCA would allow individuals who reside in one state to purchase an insurance plan licensed in another state and frees health insurance companies to sell their policies in all 50 states. The HCCA will increase competition among insurance companies, reduce regulations and their associated costs and increase individual choice of the competing health care plans.
Perhaps now that Republicans are the minority party in Congress they will find the intestinal fortitude to speak candidly about market-based solutions to rising health care costs. Introducing legislation alone is constructive, but not an adequate solution to combating the liberals’ populist rhetoric on the health care issue.
The 2008 presidency can go to the candidate who most effectively details a common sense approach to fixing the health care system that does not include further expansion of entitlement programs and limits on choice. Control of Congress in two years may similarly rest on Republicans’ ability to communicate their health care solutions.
The Fair Tax and Health Care
In March of 2007, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing how the Fair Tax would lead to greater choice in health care for everyone. He expresses his opposition to universal style systems.
March 26, 2007
Universal Choice Can Fix the Health Care RoofA simple change in the antiquated tax code would create an avalanche of universal choice in health care, instead of current proposals that produce universal dependence on government. Namely, the U.S. should eliminate the deductibility discrimination between employers and employees for health insurance premiums.
The ideal solution would be to replace the tax code with the Fair Tax, which essentially replaces the income tax with a consumption tax. But since few politicians with a bully pulpit have shown the moral or political courage to lead the sizeable Fair Tax movement, let’s start with the second best approach, universal deductibility.
Universal deductibility of health insurance premiums by employers, employees, the unemployed, individuals and business owners would connect the consumer to health care costs. When people spend their own money, they spend it more wisely. Most people will purchase health plans they can afford, instead of expecting more benefits from their employer or the government.
The flagrant flaw in most of the ideas proposed by the presidential candidates is that they are variations of socialized health care.
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have all offered health care plans that eliminate individual choice and increase government mandates on employers, individuals and health care providers.
RomneyCare in Massachusetts is already experiencing a cost explosion. The only Republican to propose a market-based solution is Newt Gingrich, who has not yet declared his candidacy.
The proponents of socialized health care do not believe individuals and doctors possess the ability to make their own health care decisions. They would rather take advantage of what Steve Forbes recently described as “the abysmal ignorance of so many – including boatloads of business executives and entrepreneurs – about what it takes to bring rationality, productivity and lower prices to the U.S. health care market.”
The greatest flaw of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and President’s Bush’s new proposal is that they are tied to the disastrously flawed tax code in the form of yet another tax deduction. These plans are improvements on the current discriminatory system, but they further complicate an already incomprehensible tax code.
The president’s proposal, which allows deductibility of health insurance premiums, has a hidden “sneak-a-tax.” Under the Bush plan, if your employer pays more than $15,000 for your annual health insurance premium, you pay tax on the excess coverage. Below that amount for a typical family, the plan provides only small, non-game-changing savings. Worse, the plan is not indexed to inflation. When inflation eventually catches up to the $15,000 deduction, families will suffer the same tax penalties posed by the Alternative Minimum Tax.
HSAs are another concept that was supposed to “move us in the right direction” of more affordability and accessibility of health insurance. HSAs have worked for many, but way too slowly as health care costs and insurance premiums have increased at annual double digit percentages.
The socialists among us object to universal choice because they fundamentally believe that government can spend people’s hard-earned money better than the person who earned it. The bureaucrats object to universal choice because it would force them to cut wasteful spending to “offset” the “lost” revenue from allowing the deduction. That’s political speak for “our job is to continue to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.”
Even with universal choice, the liberals will still scream about the 47 million people who do not have health care. They will ignore the 63 percent of the uninsured who work for small businesses that cannot afford health insurance coverage because the costs keep rising faster than their profits. Conservatives ought to counter with the 253 million people who have private health insurance that four of the presidential front runners want to take away.
As I stated on an NBC health care special in 1994, if you have a leak in the roof of a building and you know that the roof is leaking, you don’t blow up the building to fix the leak in the roof. That’s what total government control would do to our health care system. The system will work if government would get out of the way. We don’t have to blow up the system to fix a few leaks.
Universal deductibility would stimulate universal choice, which would fix the leak in our health care system’s roof while making the building stronger.
The free market system, in which the consumer has access to information, choices and his own money, has driven down the prices of all goods and services that government has not overregulated or over-controlled. With a simple change in the current tax code to eliminate discriminatory deductibility for health insurance and eventually health care costs, free market dynamics can solve another problem that Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Romney want to make worse.
Universal choice in health care is a choice the public must demand. Otherwise, they will have to live with the disease of socialized health care.
It's for the Children
In August of 2007, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing SCHIP. He stated that the program was well intentioned, but that it has grown out of control.
August 6, 2007
$60 Billion for Children’s Health Care? Democrats Say ‘So What?’If emotions were gasoline we would not have a crisis of dependency on foreign oil. Democrats use emotions to drive public opinion like people use gasoline in cars. The big difference is that people have to buy gasoline at the pump with their hard-earned money. Democrats just find more creative ways to raise taxes and take people’s money.
As Congress debated and voted on the reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Democrats and their media allies were cranking up their “it’s for the children” emotional rhetoric. This familiar tactic was intended to embarrass enough Republicans into voting with them on a huge expansion of the program, and to discourage the president from vetoing the bill.
What the Democrats do not tell people in their gasoline-fired rhetoric is that the legislation is not just about “the children” of poor people. It’s a shield for their back-door expansion of government controlled health care.
The original authorization of $25 billion was for health insurance for children whose parents made too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Some states made the program more generous by allowing coverage for the children and their parents. The qualifier for a family of three was an annual income of two times the federal poverty level (FPL) or less, which, 10 years ago, was about $34,300 when the program started.
The Democrats are now proposing a $60 billion program with a qualifier of four times the FPL for a family of three, which is about $82,000 a year in annual income. When did $82,000 a year become the definition of a poor family of three?
The Democrats will argue that the $35 billion increase (140 percent) is not that big a deal when you consider all the money we spend on other programs. When did out-of-control spending on other social programs become justification for more out-of-control spending?
They will also argue that the amount is peanuts compared to what we spend on the war in Iraq. No one is denied health care in this country, so when does it make sense to compare children’s health insurance to fighting terrorists?
And when does it make sense to make the family qualifier so generous that some “middle-class” parents will drop their private health insurance for the new and improved SCHIP government giveaway?
In a July 29, 2007 editorial, Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, simply says “so what?” to providing health insurance coverage to a family that might be considered middle-class. That’s liberal thinking: Who cares how much it will cost today or in the future, because it’s for the children, the poor and hard-working families?
The Democrats will just find a future tax to pay for it after the fact, because they have wild emotions and our money to burn. And a lot of people think that’s just fine.
This is exactly how Social Security and Medicare started out. They were well-intended programs to assist people, but over time they became ill-executed entitlement programs. And we are now faced with impending financial train wrecks for both programs that the Democrats are simply denying.
SCHIP is another well-intended program that the Democrats want to accelerate down the same tracks as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Namely, unsustainable benefits which will lead to more taxes and more government control.
As Medicare and Medicaid become more restrictive because of runaway costs, and SCHIP becomes more expansive because of runaway benefits, they will eventually converge into a big bureaucratic mess called universal health care – through the back door.
When our nation’s credit card is maxed out and there is no more wild emotion to burn in order to expand government and raise taxes, we will not be able to buy more debt by the barrel from foreigners.
They will just say, so what?
Rosy Picture of Health Care
In August of 2007, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing the rosy picture that many people paint of other country's health care programs in comparison to the US. He notes that this dishonesty does not help the debate.
August 13, 2007
Rosy Picture of Canadian Health Care Obscures the Truth“For, as we all know, our neighbors to the north are facing a terrible crisis. A crisis of – gasp! – universal health care, which brings with it such horrors as a longer lifespan than Americans enjoy, and the comfort of knowing that if you are diagnosed with cancer or need emergency medical attention, you will not spend the rest of your life wading in debt. No, we must hold on tight to our American ideals, lest we experience the fate of Canadians!” (Children’s Health Insurance Bill a Far Cry from Socialist Medicine by Jessica Vozel, August 6, 2007. A fellow opinion writer with North Star Writers Group.)
Now Jessica! Since you are going to be liberal and sound liberal, at least try to avoid some of the more typically liberal tendencies. Over generalizations, inconclusiveness, factual omissions and sarcastic sincerity are all the usual suspects.
I will admit that at times we are all guilty of these opinionated infractions, but I could not resist this opportunity to highlight some basic differences of perspective between liberals and conservatives. Although I do not like either of us being labeled liberal or conservative, respectively, due to label abuse by the media and politicians, that’s a debate for another day.
First, we do not all know that our neighbors to the north are facing a terrible health care crisis, because too many liberal-minded people continue to try and paint a rosy picture of the Canadian system. The most prominent example is lead liberal Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko”, which has been busted for inaccuracies and misrepresentations by dozens of writers and reputable organizations.
The typical response by Moore and his defenders has been to just ignore the analysis and critique, such as that by David Gratzer of the National Post dated July 6, 2007. In his article, he refutes Mr. Moore’s claim that emergency rooms in Canada do not get overcrowded. Specifically, a Canadian government study determined that only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner, and Toronto patients receive care in four hours on average. Maybe it depends on one’s definition of overcrowded.
Second, there is absolutely no statistical correlation between average life span and type of health care system. All reputable economists and medical professionals will tell you that life span is determined by too many indeterminable factors. Even though many medical studies have shown that certain factors impact life span more than others – such as smoking, eating habits and exercise – the type of government-controlled health care system has never been identified as a sure bet factor.
Here again, when good liberals find something that sounds good to the uninformed they grab it and spread it like wildfire.
In Canada you may not spend the rest of your life in debt if you are diagnosed with cancer or need emergency medical care, but you might spend the rest of your life in the ER or waiting for a doctor’s appointment.
Thirdly, we must indeed hold onto our American ideals, lest we experience the fate of Canadians. These ideals include the freedom to choose our own doctors, the incentives for doctors to choose to become doctors so we will not experience doctor shortages as in some areas of Canada, and the ideal that a bureaucrat should not decide which illnesses get treated first, second or third because of the rationing of medical resources by the government.
Yes, our health care system has a “leak in the roof”, but we do not need to blow up the building to fix it. And although I might concede that the proposed children’s health insurance bill (SCHIP) is a far cry from socialist medicine, it is on the same track as Medicare and Medicaid. When they collide, it will be a disaster.
As long as we have choices, liberals will tell us that the government can make our choices for us better than we can for ourselves – for the common good, or the good of the children.
When we have no choices left, that’s the ideal disaster for socialist medicine.
Hillary Health
In September of 2007, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing the plan put forth by Senator Clinton and the inability to determine the cost of the plan. He discusses his views that competition lowers prices.
September 17, 2007
Hillary Health Care Would Raise Costs; Even She Has No Idea How MuchAs we brace ourselves for the soon-to-be-announced Hillary Care Two, we should also prepare ourselves for factual abuse, misuse and omissions.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton has announced that she is going to announce the details of her proposed universal health care plan. She has also stated that she will raise taxes to pay for the plan, the cost of which no human being on the planet can accurately estimate. And of course, the taxes raised will only be on the rich by rolling back the Bush tax cuts that the rich did not need.
As soon as the Census Bureau released the latest numbers on how many people were uninsured in this country, Hillary, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and their big government comrades jumped on the opportunity to say that this is even more reason to create a government solution. Forty seven million people are uninsured, an increase of 2.2 million in 2006 over 2005.
They did not tell you that half of those are uninsured for only four months or less, and that there are a growing number of high-income people choosing to not buy health insurance. It’s a risky decision but it’s their choice.
They also failed to tell you about the most noticeable drop in insurance coverage overall, as noted by Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute:
“The most noticeable drop in insurance coverage overall was among those with job-based insurance, down to 59.7 percent. As we argue over and over, the policy of tying health insurance to the workplace isn’t working for millions of Americans in a mobile, 21st Century economy.”
The drop in job-based insurance is driven by the 78 percent increase in health insurance premiums since 2001, far outpacing a 19 percent increase in wages and a 17 percent jump in inflation (AP 9-11-07 by Emily Fredrix).
Tying health insurance to the workplace is not working because employees are spending the boss’s money. People spend other people’s money differently than they would spend their own.
There are two compelling reasons that government-controlled health care will not curb the cost increases. First, no government program has ever reduced the cost of operating a government solution to a problem. Name one! Second, as long as people are spending other people’s money, they will spend it with no end in sight.
As John Stossel observed in a recent ABC “20/20” special, if people were given free grocery insurance, more people would be eating steak, while bologna might become extinct.
Competition drives prices down. This is an immutable law of marketing. The tax code bias in favor of employers instead of employees is the biggest barrier to more free-market solutions to the escalating cost of health care and health care insurance.
When people are spending their own money, smarter choices drive costs down. Most people tend to buy according to their needs and capabilities.
So Hillary and the other Democratic presidential candidates will continue to promise universal health care having no idea of the costs, and using convenient statistics to help justify their proposal.
Facts would be a distraction.
War of Words with SCHIP
In September of 2007, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing the SCHIP program and the war of words being used to describe the program.
September 24, 2007
SCHIP Debate Shows Democrats Are Winning the War of WordsWith the ongoing help of the “mainstream media,” the Democrats continue to win the war of words. They stick to their talking points like glue on a rug.
The president has stated again that he will veto the Democrats’ version of the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), but the public rarely hears the reasons. Namely, the Democrats’ proposal more than doubles the cost by expanding eligibility to not just poor families, but to families making $82,000 a year. Some of us call that middle class, which is government subsidized health insurance through the back door.
The liberal Democrats see nothing wrong with subsidizing health insurance for the middle class, just as they see nothing wrong with the Social Security system, Medicare, Medicaid or out-of-control government spending in general. That’s because they see nothing wrong with eventually taxing every dime we earn, or leaving an impossible debt load to our grandchildren.
The Democrats will once again get away with saying the president is against health insurance for poor children, which will be the headline before the veto ink dries on the legislation.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not miss the opportunity to fire some rhetorical grenades at President Bush in a press release immediately after a new Census Bureau report indicated that the number of uninsured children had increased in 2006 from 2005. The total number of uninsured people increased in 2006, so it stands to reason that more children would be uninsured.
Pelosi: “Census Report Illustrates Need to Strengthen SCHIP” (August 28, 2007).
There is a big difference between strengthening the program to make it accessible to more poor children by eliminating some of the inconsistencies in SCHIP, and giving birth to another massive entitlement program.
According an a September 11 report from the Associated Press, health care costs and health insurance costs have increased every year for the last six years, which screams for some badly needed market and regulatory reforms to help accessibility and affordability for children and all families. But Speaker Pelosi failed to mention the need for reforms such as those identified in a recent article by Karl Rove (Wall Street Journal, September 18). As per the Democrats’ solution to everything, let’s just throw more money at the problem since it’s for the children, rather than fix the real problems.
Speaker Pelosi used that same press release to take the usual double barrel shots at the president’s economic policies:
“This new report also provides ample evidence that President Bush’s economic policies of enormous tax cuts for the wealthy and massive budget deficits have failed the vast majority of the American people.
“Since President Bush took office, key economic indicators confirm that the economic security of Americans is moving in the wrong direction.”
With all due respect, Madam Speaker, the new report does not provide ample evidence, because it did not try to measure economic indicators. Those enormous tax cuts were not so enormous, but big enough to propel a healthy economy for the last four years. The massive budget deficits were caused by massive increases in government spending, because businesses and the sweat equity of working people generated massive increases in tax revenues.
And as far as the economic security of Americans moving in the wrong direction, you are right. But it is not because of the economy. It is because of irresponsible government spending, and a Democrat-controlled Congress that’s more focused on increasing its control than on the economic security of Americans.
If a growing economy, low unemployment rate, low interest rates and high tax revenues are in the wrong direction, then I can’t imagine what the right direction would be. Maybe the Democrats can’t find the right words yet to describe the right direction.
In fairness, Speaker Pelosi did acknowledge in the aforementioned press release that “the poverty rate is down slightly”. But she probably sees that as the wrong direction also.
Health Care Ignorance
In April of 2009, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing health care reform. He writes about health care ignorance, and talks about examples from his talk show.
April 6, 2009
Health Care IgnoranceEach night last week on my three-hour radio talk show I featured a discussion on “Unraveling the Lies about Health Care”. Much of the material was based on a recently published book by CEO Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute. She was my guest one of the nights to give a first-hand perspective on The Top Ten Myths about American Health Care, which is the title of her book.
Sally is much more politically correct than I am, so she calls them myths. I have no political correctness, so after reading her book I called them what they are – lies!
Such as, “Government health care is more efficient”. People who believe that myth have obviously never heard of Medicare or Medicaid.
The night before Pipes was on the show, Dr. Todd Williamson, president of the Medical Association of Georgia (MAG) was my guest. He explained with compelling clarity why “a single-payer health care system limits choices and ultimately leads to rationing”. He also pointed out that a socialized health care system like those in Canada or England would further damage the eroding patient-doctor relationship.
Dr. Williamson had just testified before Congress that same week. Let’s see how many of them were really listening when they start voting on health care legislation.
The night following Pipes, my special guest was Dr. David Satcher, the 16th U.S. Surgeon General. One of his main points was that access to health care is only about a 15 percent determinant of health, whereas human behavior determines 40 to 50 percent of a person’s health.
Throughout the week many callers underscored the insight of these three outstanding professionals with their own personal, family and professional experiences.
Then on Friday night, Norman was the first caller at 35 minutes into the show. I was not planning to take calls yet, because I had promised the listeners that I would talk about solutions to how we could fix some of the “leaks” in our health care system without blowing up the building to fix the leaks in the roof.
I decided to take Norman’s call because the comment on the call screen said “he disagreed with me and everything we had discussed all week.”
When I took Norman’s call, I asked if he had heard any of the shows from the previous four nights. He said no. I then asked if he had read any of the articles about socialized medicine I had posted as links on my WSB Radio Show web page. He said no again. I asked if he had read anybody’s articles about government-controlled health care. He said no again.
Click! I cut him off. This call was a non-starter, which promised absolutely no value at all. Norman wanted to argue with no facts, no logic and no common sense.
Norman made me realize the extent to which a lot of people are and want to remain ignorant about socialized medicine. No matter how many studies are published, articles written, comparisons made about the fallacies of government controlled health care, Democrats in Congress and too many people choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that total government control of health care is a mistake.
Ignorance will destroy the best health care in the world if we let it happen. We can fix the leaks in the “roof” about how we pay for health care without blowing up the building, but the proponents of socialized health care don’t want to know how.
Maybe ignorance really is bliss!
Seven Ways to Make Health Care Better
In April of 2009, Herman Cain wrote an article listing seven changes that could be made to the health care system to make health care better.
April 13, 2009
Seven Ways to Make Health Care in America BetterMy most recent column highlighted the massive ignorance about the U.S. health care system. Too many people want to fix the leaks in our health care roof by blowing up the building. Here’s a novel idea, let’s just fix the leaks in the roof, and here are seven solutions by Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute.
Pipes explains each solution in more detail in her book, The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care, but these brief explanations will make you more knowledgeable about solutions to our health care system than 90 percent of the voting public. Taken together, there would be no involuntary leaks in the roof.
Change the tax code. Level the playing field by allowing employees to have the same tax deductibility rules as employers, which would make it possible for the employees to buy employee-owned health insurance accounts. People would then make more prudent choices, because it would be their money and not their employer’s money.
Reduce costly government mandates and regulations. Just look at Medicare and Medicaid. The more the government tries to control costs with mandates and regulations, the more costs go up and the quality of care goes down.
Allow the purchase of insurance across state lines. This one is more controversial, because the states are vastly different concerning mandated coverage and insurance regulations. But it is worth exploring for the sake of enhanced competition.
Expand Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). These accounts are available at most banks and allow you to save money tax-free for current and future health care expenses. But as usual, the government has set stupid limitations and regulations that discourage their use. One of the best features of the HSA is that money not spent from the account in a given year can be carried over to accumulate an emergency health care fund that you control. Imagine that. You control the money and not the government!
Support Retail Health Clinics. Wal-Mart and Target are opening health clinics in many of their stores. They are doing it despite some opposition from state bureaucrats and objections from some health professionals. These clinics are not hospitals, but they provide convenient and affordable basic services to millions of people. The clinics are staffed with medical professionals, and of course these retailers know that most people will fill their prescriptions in their stores and pick up some other items before they leave. So what?
Implement Tort Reform. When it costs doctors an average of $250,000 for malpractice insurance, something is wrong. This is driving a lot of doctors away from medicine and out of small towns that cannot generate this kind of medical ante. People's legal rights need to be protected, but not to the extent that it eliminates health care in some areas altogether.
Provide Vouchers for the Working Poor and Chronically Ill. Brilliant! It is the same principle as providing food stamps for the people who need help buying food. Just like we would not ration food to make sure we feed the poor, we should not ration health care to take care of those who do not have it. Fix the "leaks” in the roof.
Every nation that has gone the route of socialized medicine has made access, cost and quality of care worse. We have an opportunity to get it right. Then why are the Democrats in Congress and the Obama Administration determined to take the U.S. in the same direction?
It’s not about health care, it’s about control.
Rhetoric vs Fact
In June of 2009, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing some common health care rhetoric.
June 1, 2009
Health Care Rhetoric vs. FactsPresident Obama is pushing Congress to deliver health care legislation by the end of the year. A big problem with that is simply, what is it?
It was “universal health care” all the way through the last presidential campaign from then-candidate Obama. Last week the buzz words were “government health insurance option”, and now it’s just health care legislation so he can claim victory.
Meanwhile, even many Democrats in Congress are not sure what they are supposed to be producing in the way of legislation, so it’s no wonder the public is confused.
The rhetoric is confusing but the facts are not. The president and the Democrats are inflating, distorting and ignoring many of the verifiable facts about health care to increase public support for a total government takeover of our health care system.
In other words, they are taking advantage of the public’s health care ignorance.
In a May 28, 2009 Associated Press article, the president was quoted as saying, “If we do not get it done this year, we’re not going to get it done.”
He’s right, because enough people are seeing through the confusion and discovering the facts about health care. The same phenomenon happened from April 1993 to April 1994 when public support for the Clinton Health Plan went from 71 percent to 43 percent (USA Today/CNN polls, 1993, 1994).
The biggest fact that’s being distorted is the number of people uninsured. It is not 50 million people as the president claims, nor is it the 46 million people claimed throughout the last presidential campaign.
CEO Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute clearly explains in her latest book, The Top Ten Myths about American Health Care, that the real number is about 8 million people who are chronically uninsured.
If the goal was to really provide health insurance for the truly uninsured, a $2,000 health insurance voucher would cost $16 billion a year. If it were provided for five years, the cost would be $80 billion. So why are the president and Congress trying to find $1.5 trillion to pay for a government health care plan that will most likely end up looking like Medicare’s ugly twin sister.
The answer is that it’s not about providing health insurance coverage for the uninsured. It’s about more government control, and another government bureaucracy that would eventually resemble Medicare, and we know how well it is not working.
The most misleading perception being perpetrated on the public is that somehow our government will be able to run a completely socialized system better than any other country in the world. Somehow our political elites will be able to avoid a system with rationing and massive cost overruns.
The trustees of the Medicare System just reported that Medicare will be operating in the red starting this year. That’s accounting lingo for losing money! What the trustees are not telling people is that indirect rationing is already underway through Medicare price controls and increased regulations.
Those are also facts the mainstream media have conveniently chosen not to report.
There are cost effective and non-traumatic ways to improve our health care system. Some changes need to be made, but to follow the failed path of countries who are now trying to undo the unavoidable pitfalls of government-controlled health care makes no sense at all.
It also makes no sense to continue to ignore the $56 trillion unfunded liability for Medicare, Social Security and other “entitlements”.
That’s not rhetoric, that’s just another fact.
5 Tricks to Accept Socialist Health Care
In June of 2009, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing five tricks that liberals use to trick Americans into accepting socialized health care.
June 15, 2009
Five Traps That Trick Americans Into Accepting Socialized MedicineThere is no serious debate in Washington about health care, as Democrats make another attempt to confiscate control of our entire health care system. It’s a war of words even among Democrats, as each faction tries to fashion its own idea of how best to get the sheeple on the road to health care rationing.
That’s right. All proposals the Democrats are considering lead to the same dead end – socialized medicine and then health care rationing. All of this is in the name of providing health insurance for a conveniently misleading number of 50 million uninsured.
Although the Republicans are offering alternatives, once again they are being ignored by the Democratic leadership and the mainstream media. Democrats are also ignoring the pitfalls of government-run health care experienced in other countries.
When the intelligent thinkers sift through the health care hot air they find five traps that are being used to entice the American sheeple onto the road to rationing. Many of us are aware of these traps, because we remember the last time the Democrats tried to take control of the entire health care system 15 years ago.
Mandate health insurance coverage. This is how the Social Security system got started in 1935. The deductions from people’s paychecks and from their employers were mandated, because everyone deserved some assistance in their golden years, and everyone had to participate in order for it to work.
There were a few small problems along the way. Congress changed the rules, increased the amount of the deductions and started using the money for other purposes. And by the way, if your future Social Security benefits are your only means of “retiring”, your lifestyle will suffer dramatically.
A government mandate is also how Medicare got started in 1965. Look how well it’s not working. Like Social Security, the problems are being ignored.
Government health insurance will be an option. Representative Tom Price of Georgia described this trap the best. It’s like competing against a team that made the rules, and they can change the rules whenever they want to in order to give themselves a better advantage. Eventually, there will only be one option, and even the sheeple can figure that out.
Private health benefits will be taxed. This is the class warfare trap. People who have health insurance benefits being partially paid by their employer should be punished for being so lucky. We must all share in the same mediocre benefits controlled by Big Brother.
It’s free! This is the biggest and easiest trap for people who love more government programs and higher taxes, because they will most likely be on the receiving end after Uncle Sam takes more money from those greedy rich people. When the Democrats spend more time talking about how to pay for “it” – when we do not even know what “it” is – we are screwed.
It’s now or never! The fast-track timetable that the president wants will have the same consequences as the hurry-up-and-pass-it-now $787 billion “stimulus” spending bill. Namely, no one will have time to read it and know what’s in it, so the administration can make the rules up as they go.
An alternative title for this article could have been “Five ways to make health care in America worse,” because each one of these traps will create another problem that will lead to another bad solution by Congress and the president, only to be ignored into the distant future.
For Social Security and Medicare, the distant future is already here.
Questions for Obama
In July of 2009, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing questions he had for President Obama concerning his health care reform legislation.
July 27, 2009
Health Care Questions Obama Can’t AnswerDuring President Obama’s primetime press conference last Wednesday, he made the usual promises about Obamacare, which have no resemblance to what Congress is working on. The president continues to promise more choices, better health care, fewer costs and less government intervention. The “Health Care De-form” legislation working its way through Congress is just the opposite.
Rather than the lapdog mainstream media doing its job and challenging the president on his assumptions and assertions, they play “run and fetch” with whatever the president says. Since they didn’t do their jobs, here are a few real questions for starters.
Mr. President, since government mandates have never produced the desired results in the history of this country, why do you believe they will work this time?
When the government mandated a salary and wage freeze during World War II, businesses still had to compete for the best people in the workforce. As a result, businesses started offering health insurance benefits as an employment incentive and the practice has intensified over time. So much so, many politicians now proclaim that health care is a “right”.
Mr. President, is food a similar “right”? (No response)
Mr. President, since persistent problems have been reported about Medicare, Medicaid and veterans’ health care, why do you believe that this time the government bureaucracy will perform much better than ever before?
I can’t imagine that he really believes that, but he has to keep saying it because that’s what the “sheeple” want to hear, and it provides cover for what the Democrats in Congress are working on to get us on the road to health care rationing.
Mr. President, if the real objective is to provide health insurance for the “uninsured” in this country, then why not allow people the opportunity to pay a small fee to participate in Medicare? In fact, why not offer free Medicare to those that are really, really poor?
According to my calculations the costs would be only a fraction of $1.5 trillion if you use the real number of 8 million chronically uninsured people instead of the misleading 46 million. Alternatively, why not provide a “health insurance voucher” for those who are chronically uninsured?
Mr. President, have you considered changing the law to allow association health plans, along with allowing health insurance premiums to be tax deductible regardless of who paid for them?
History has shown that free market forces are better than government mandates to curb the rapid rise in costs.
At that point, President Obama would pull a “Clinton”. In 1994, when I asked President Bill Clinton a question during a televised town hall meeting he did not want to answer, he said, “Send me your information and I will get back to you, next question.”
I’m still waiting.
Mr. President, since no country with government-controlled health care has been able to avoid health care rationing to control costs, what evidence do you have that suggests we will be able to do what no other country has been able to do?
Oops! The president’s staff might call security on that one.
If the last question of the night about a “racial” incident in Boston involving a friend of the president was not a plant, then it was a brilliant accidental distraction to throw to the media. “Run and fetch” worked again, because that was the main story by many news outlets the next day.
Here’s my last question: Mr. President, do you really know what’s in the “Health Care De-form” legislation?
Sorry, we are out of time.
Define the Right Problem
In September of 2009, Mr Cain appeared on Fox News's Neil Cavuto and discussed the proposed health care reform plan and the public option.
8
Neil Cavuto Appearance
On January 4, 2011 Herman Cain appeared on Fox News's Neil Cavuto and discussed his support for repealing the 2009-2010 health care reform legislation.
Reagan Debate
In September of 2011, Herman Cain participated in the Republican debate at the Reagan library. He was asked about mandates and stated that they were unconstitutional. He describes his plan if elected.
TEA Party Debate
In September of 2011, Mr Cain participated in the TEA Party debate and was asked health care. He talks about tort reform and personal saving accounts.
QUESTION: I'm Caroline Taylor (ph). I'm from Orange Park, Florida, with the Peoples Tea Party.
My question is, health insurance is expensive because health care is expensive. What is your plan to reduce the cost of health care so that our insurance premiums and other related costs can also be reduced?
BLITZER: All right.
Mr. Cain?
CAIN: First, repeal Obamacare in its entirety.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: Amen.
CAIN: Secondly, pass market-driven, patient-centered reforms such as, under the current code, deductibility of health insurance premiums regardless of who pays for it. But as you know, I want to throw that out and put in my 999 plan. Secondly, the other thing that we can do in order to help bring down the costs is pass loser pay laws. Doctors will tell you that one of their biggest expenses is medical liability insurance because of frivolous lawsuits.
Secondly, restructure Medicare, another big cost that's passed on to us as consumers related to all the bureaucracy associated with that.
Another market-driven idea, allow association health plans. When I ran the National Restaurant Association, which today has 14 million employees, we wanted to design a system for health insurance that was going to be customized for our industry. We could not do that. We need to be allowed to do that, and so should other organizations and other associations.
Fox News / Google Debate
On September 22, 2011 Herman Cain participated in the Fox News / Google debate. He tells the story of his involvement with the medical industry and stage 4 cancer treatement.
WALLACE: And we'll get right to that question of Obamacare.
Mr. Cain, you are a survivor of stage 4 colon and liver cancer. And you say, if Obamacare had been...(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: ...and we all share in the happiness about your situation. But, you say if Obamacare had been in effect when you were first being treated, you would dead now. Why?
CAIN: The reason I said that I would be dead under Obamacare is because my cancer was detected in March of 2006. From March 2006 all the way to the end of 2006, for that number of months, I was able to get the necessary CAT scan tests, go to the necessary doctors, get a second opinion, get chemotherapy, go -- get surgery, recuperate from surgery, get more chemotherapy in a span of nine months. If we had been under Obamacare and a bureaucrat was trying to tell me when I could get that CAT scan that would have delayed by treatment.
My surgeons and doctors have told me that because I was able get the treatment as fast as I could, based upon my timetable and not the government's timetable that's what saved my life, because I only had a 30 percent chance of survival. And now I'm here five years cancer free, because I could do it on my timetable and not a bureaucrat's timetable.
This is one of the reasons I believe a lot of people are objecting to Obamacare, because we need get bureaucrats out of the business of trying to micromanage health care in this nation.
The Western Debate
In October of 2011, Herman Cain participated in the Western Debate in Las Vegas. He supports HR 3400 that was already in the congress that allowed for tort reform and cross state purchase of insurance.
COOPER: Herman Cain, same question. Is there any aspect of so- called Obamacare that -- that you would keep?
CAIN: No. I think we all agree that Obamacare must be repealed because it is a disaster. And the more we learn about it and the more time goes along, the more we see. We're all in agreement with that.
But here's where I would start in answering that question. It's called H.R. 3400. This was introduced back in 2009, but you didn't hear a lot of talk about it. Instead of government being imposed on -- on our system, it imposes -- it basically passes market-centered, market-driven, patient-centered sort of reforms to allow association health plans, to allow loser pay laws, to allow insurance products to be sold across state lines, and a whole list of other things. So that's a great place to start.
It allows the patient and the doctors to make the decisions, not a bureaucrat. I'd start with HR-3400.
2012 Presidential Campaign Website Statements
Chapter Seven:Repeal & Replace Health Care “Deform”
President Obama and the liberals in Congress have dismantled the free market health care system and replaced it with health care “deform.” They have passed measures that compromise the sacred patient-doctor relationship, eliminate patient choice, stick a bureaucrat in the examining room, ration care and do nothing to limit frivolous lawsuits that drive up the cost of health care. In all these provisions, they made health care more expensive and less accessible for American families they claimed to protect.
Under the guise of making health care a “right” for all people, President Obama and the liberals in Congress instead extended the tentacles of government, expanding their control and diminishing patients’ rights. They have also made it more difficult and more expensive for doctors to practice medicine, including specialized practitioners who are desperately needed to save lives. In reality, their attempts at reforming the system have actually deformed it.
The majority of Americans agree: it’s time to repeal and replace Obamacare with patient-centered, free market reforms. It’s time to institute legitimate and sweeping tort reform that lets doctors practice medicine without fear of frivolous lawsuits. Looser pay laws would be a great start! And loosening the restrictions on Health Savings Accounts would help to empower Americans to save and invest their own money to expand their options for care.
Let’s level the playing field under the current tax code and allow the deductibility of health insurance premiums regardless of whether they are purchased by the employer or the employee. That would help shift ownership of one’s health care back to where it belongs, the individual. Patient-centered free market health care reforms have already been developed and introduced in Congress, but they are stuck in committee and they can’t get out. With the right leadership we can get them out and get them passed.