Lisa Dawson – 10/14/10

This page was last updated on October 14, 2010.

Put the blame where it belongs; Lisa Dawson; Beaver County Times; October 14, 2010.

Ms. Dawson’s previous letter was entitled “Focus on gay rights is a distraction.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“I am writing in response to Gary Van Winkle’s letter on Oct. 10, regarding his fear that he will no longer be able to afford his supplemental Medicare due to increased premiums.

“Do you not find it ironic that premiums were raised before universal health care was put in place? While I agree with you that the rising cost of health care insurance is somewhat alarming, I really don’t think that you are putting the blame where it belongs.”

[RWC] I’m not sure Ms. Dawson knows what “ironic” means. In any case, medical insurance premiums increase all the time. Ms. Dawson seems to believe there was some kind of mass increase. If so, wouldn’t that be pretty stupid? Wouldn’t unnecessarily increasing premiums give Obamacare supporters ammunition?

For a discussion of why healthcare costs are increasing so fast, please read my paper “Healthcare.”

“Health insurance companies will look for any excuse to raise their premiums. I am sure that you are aware that the same Republicans who voted against universal health care are supported heavily by lobbyist [sic] from insurance companies. It is not a difficult stretch of the imagination to imagine these individuals who voted against a national health plan for children a few years back to decide to cut Medicare, or even Social Security all together.”

[RWC] As for “Health insurance companies will look for any excuse to raise their premiums,” according to Fox News reporter Shannon Bream during the July 30, 2009, edition of “Special Report with Bret Baier,” Morningstar (an independent investor research company) reported the net margin of the top five healthcare insurers for 2008 ranged from 1.5% to 4.5%. For the last 50 years, the average net margin for all businesses has been 5.5%.

According to an Associated Press story (“Fact Check: Health insurer profits not so fat”; Calvin Woodward; October 25, 2009), “Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6%, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones. Profits barely exceeded 2% of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans. … Health insurers posted a 2.2% profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries.” In any case, medical insurance premiums must take into account what healthcare providers charge, and when the cost of healthcare goes up so must insurance premiums or the insurance company will go belly up.

Regarding “same Republicans who voted against universal health care are supported heavily by lobbyist [sic] from insurance companies,” in 2008 health PACs contributed 55% to Democrats and in 2010 it’s been 59%. The figures for insurance PACs for 2008 and 2010 were/are 49% and 51%, respectively. In any case, if healthcare insurers did contribute a lot more to Republicans than Democrats it would make sense. Why? Democrats were/are trying to put the healthcare insurance industry out of business and real Republicans don’t believe in the concept of a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly.

As for “these individuals who voted against a national health plan for children a few years back,” I assume Ms. Dawson is writing about the SCHIP reauthorization back in 2007. If that assumption is correct, Ms. Dawson is wrong once again. Here’s what I wrote in a previous critique on this issue from another writer: “Why does Ms. Delanko apparently believe it’s OK for parents to dump their childrearing responsibilities on their neighbors?

“I’m sure it was an honest oversight, but Ms. Delanko neglected to mention President Bush is fine with reauthorizing the current SCHIP program. The current program helps with healthcare for children of the poor not poor enough (up to 200% of the federal poverty level and allows states not to count certain income) to qualify for Medicaid. Incredibly, SCHIP also covers some parents. What Mr. Bush opposes is expanding the program beyond the poor and increasing the max age for covered children beyond the current 18. The current House version would triple federal SCHIP spending to $15 billion/year and the Senate version would increase it to 2.4 times the current level.

“At one point the proposal included families of four making more than $80,000/year and increased the max age for covered children to 25. Make no mistake about it; the proposed SCHIP expansion has nothing to do with “the children” as proponents would have us believe. It’s all about gradually implementing a taxpayer-funded, government-run healthcare system for the U.S.

“While I believe President Bush should veto the SCHIP expansion, I’m disappointed in him – and all elected Republicans – for not letting the SCHIP program expire on schedule.

“Do I believe people who need help because of unforeseen circumstances should get it? Of course, but via private charities funded by voluntary contributions.”

“Have you forgotten that the Republicans are the same folks who were pushing to privatize Social Security only months before the Stock Market [sic] tanked? Technically, Social Security and Medicare fall under the category of entitlement programs. Ever since FDR instituted these programs, conservatives have proclaimed them to be part of the socialist agenda and have taken every opportunity to undercut them.”

[RWC] Unfortunately, Republicans did not propose “to privatize Social Security” as Ms. Dawson claims. First, the 2005 proposal merely proposed taxpayers have the option to invest a very small portion (4%) of their SS taxes in personal accounts, but still under the oversight and rules of the SS Administration.

Second, Democrats themselves proposed and supported personal accounts in the late 1990s. Remember the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), Sen. Hillary Clinton’s immediate predecessor? This was also a recommendation of the bipartisan President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security in 2001.

If by “only months” Ms. Dawson means about 36 months, she is correct.

Conservatives do believe Medicare, Socialist Security, Obamacare, etc. are “part of the socialist agenda” because they are, but what’s been done “to undercut them?” Medicare and SS are in severe financial distress because they are Ponzi schemes, not because of anything opponents of these programs have done.

“Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.”

[RWC] I hope so, but Ms. Dawson won’t like it if I do.