Senate Health Care Debate Gets Good News/Bad News from the CBO

"In the greatest country on Earth, no American should die simply because they don't have health insurance. We have a historic opportunity to enact meaningful health care reform that will work to stabilize the economy, provide quality for millions of Americans," stated Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) on the Senate floor Monday (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/senate-debate-begins-with-baitsmanship/). While one is hard pressed to locate a single America that does not feel reform is needed to control escalating insurance premiums and cost of health care. The trouble is that Congress is off the mark with either bill being discussed. The central tenet of the House bill is a public option while the Senate version has one with an opt-out clause. For the majority of the year thus far, Congress members have touted their take and pimped their vote all under the guise of health care reform.

I still, as of this post, not heard one signal argument that unequivocally demonstrates how adding only one option to the pool of options for health care is going to drive down costs and premiums so all can afford health care. In order for reform to have the desired affects – affordable choices and lower costs – Congress needs to scrap the public option and replace it with legislation that will open state borders for the purchase of health care insurance and remove the anti-trust exemption that health insurance companies currently enjoy. Open up competition will lead to lower premiums. The Congressional Budget Office(CBO) estimates that in the best-case scenario that premiums would go down for most Americans by 2016 due to government subsidies while a worst-case scenario results in a little more than 10 percent of policyholders will experience a decrease even after the subsidies. In fact the CBO estimates that, under the worst-case scenario, the majority of Americans will see no effect or an increase up to 13 percent. The assessment can be seen at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf.

Again, why are we allowing Congress to pass a bill that does not achieve the goals in all scenarios? Why not allow market forces to work through increase competition? Some may argue that free market forces are not enough. To that I agree slightly. To assist free market forces the government will need to repeal the anti-trust exemption. Let's demand true reform from Congress. If the CBO is correct and the best-case scenario does take place, we will be looking at higher taxes in order to fund government rule health care. It is the greatest Ponzi scheme every done if we allow our Congress to pass "reform" in its present state. Neither bill will start for at least three years after passage. In the meantime our "reform" does nothing but collect taxes; taxes that will have to be raised to cover the costs.

That being said, it is time for Congress to pass true reform that takes effect immediately and does not raise our taxes. As Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, states" This is not delivering huge premiums savings to the insured. But the flip side is that here's a bill that reduces the deficit, covers 30 million people and has the promise of lowering premiums in the long run" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113004391_2.html?hpid=topnews). I don't know about the rest of you but Government said that Social Security was going to be there for me when I retire and we all know that it will be insolvent in the near future. If the bill does nothing but establish more government in our lives then why are we sitting idly by and allow Congress to pass "reform" that reforms nothing and will raise our taxes?

Beware of China’s Role in the Health Care Debate

Americans stay on your toes this weekend as the Democrats in the Senate look to vote this Saturday to bring Sen. Reid's health care reform bill to the floor for debate. In order to open debate, on the bill, the Senate will need 60 votes to bring the bill to the floor. Republicans are looking to stall the process by requiring the bill be read word-for-word which is something typically motioned waived and accepted without objection. Normally I agree with dispensing of the reading but in this case it is extremely important that the entire bill be read. By reading the entire bill, Americans can be assured that our elected officials are not voting, again (Stimulus Bill), without reading the bill in its entirety. Per Senate rules all bills are to be read three times on three separate legislative days. Reading the bill once is sufficient and I hope that Republicans do not use this procedure to delay a vote.

The CBO scored the Senate bill and put the price tag at $849B over ten years. The Senate version, according to the CBO, would reduce the deficit by $127B. The CBO report can be seen here: http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf. Part of the scoring includes the belief that 1/3^rd of States will opt-out of the program and the start of the public option is push backed to 2015. A few concerns here: 1. What if no States opt-out? 2. If reform is needed, why are we waiting until 2015?

I understand that if a public option is passed and a Health Benefits Advisory Committee is established it will take time to iron the red tape out but 6 years? Do our elected officials believe that we are naïve and stupid? I think so. During those six years it will give the government an opportunity to tie the public option, Medicare, and Medicaid to the States in a manner that if they opt-out it will cost them Federal funds much in the same manner the transit dollars were tied to the lowering of the DWI limit, speed limit, and drinking age. The States need to learn, and the citizens of those States, that we cannot continue to allow the growing beast in Washington D.C. to exert so much power over our lives. Thomas Jefferson sums it up best, "Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."

Concerns are already being raised by Governors over the Senate health care bill because it will shift responsibility to paying for the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid onto the States. My hope is that the States will now finally use this abuse of Federal power to exert their 10^th Amendment rights. The trouble is that too many States have become drunk on the Federal tit and may not be sober enough to fight for their rights. Granted we are the United States but our Founding Fathers wrestled with the concept of a central government leading to tyranny. In just over 200 years we have seen the central government of the United States grow in power and stature.

We hope that all elected officials are looking out for the best of all Americans but let's face it, what is good for California may not be applicable for Minnesota and vice versa. Government ought to be local. The role of our Federal Government is a growing beast that must be tamed before it consumes us all and ruins the great land we have all come to cherish. The mounting debt and unchecked actions by the Federal Reserve already have our biggest benefactor worried about repayment of debt. China is not looking favorably on the actions of the United States and is looking to replace the American dollar as the standard world currency.

The health care reform being proposed by Congress will only exasperate the problem. We can achieve reform without $900B bills. The Federal Government needs to be reminded of their limited role and I hope citizens of the different States realized that too. More is at stake than reform of the health care system with the two bills floating through Washington D.C. Our future as a country rides on the shoulders of our States to exert the power granted them in the United States Constitution to stand up the tyranny of central government that resides in Washington D.C. Or fear the wrath of the debt collector.

Whether you agree or disagree with actions being taken on health care reform be wise to the beast that grows in Washington D.C. Be wise to the mounting debt and the day of reckoning when the debt collector comes calling. It is not too late to stem the tide. Call your local representatives and Governors to lit the fire of defending the 10^th Amendment and reclaim what is rightfully the States.

Opt-Out is a Cop-Out

For weeks leading up to the Senate Finance vote on the Baucus Bill – that still has not been given Legislative language (thus not a bill) – the White House and leading Democrats courted the vote of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who is fighting for his political future, announced Monday that the merged bill in the Senate will have an "opt-out" public option. The very type of option that Olympia Snowe and Senate "Blue Dog" Democrats are dead set against having as an option. The move by Sen. Reid may put him in the crosshairs of the White House as the Obama Administration has used a lot of political capital to make health care reform appear to be bi-partisan.

President Obama has been campaigning and fundraising for a number of Democrats embattled for political life in the past weeks. Will the move by Sen. Reid put his biggest political chip in jeopardy by putting in a public option? Only time will tell. Having an "Opt-Out" option will negate a slew of lawsuits, well that is if State's get a backbone, as forcing States to offer further expansion of Medicare is an affront on State Rights. As I have said before in previous blog entries, health care reform is needed to curb the escalating premiums and bring cost savings within the industry itself.

The goal of President Obama is to reduce costs and increase competition. The trouble with the public option is that it does neither. To increase competition, open the borders of the states to allow insurance companies to offer coverage across state lines. Roughly 1600 insurance options exist within the borders of the United States yet the majority of states have between 2 and 5 options. Looking to Economics 101 for an answer is required. Economics 101 sales, provided the price is at equilibrium, an increase in supply, while keeping demand the same, the price will drop. So, why are that so many politicians disregard this model of Economics?

The other goal is to reduce cost. Doctors must carry expensive insurance to shield themselves from lawsuits. The malpractice insurance does not discriminate. Surgeons, specialists, and family practioneers all must carry it to protect themselves. Tort reform is required. Without Tort reform doctors will need to earn more and more money to cover the cost of malpractice insurance. So, why doesn't the Democrat led Congress include Tort reform within their health care reform platform?

We can create legislation that will not cost $.01 but Congress lacks the courage to do so while achieving the goals of health care reform. So, why doesn't Congress do it?

Public Option fails twice

The Senate Finance Committee heard two different amendments yesterday that both called for a public option. Sen. Rockefeller's amendment fell failed to win majority support with Sen. Baucus (D-MT), Sen. Conrad (D-ND), Sen. Nelson (D-FL), Den. Carper (D-DE), and Sen. Lincoln (D-AR) joining the Republicans on the committee in voting 15 to 8 to reject the amendment. The other public option bill was offered by Sen. Schumer (D-NY) that was also rejected, 13 to 10, with Sen. Baucus (D-MT), Sen. Conrad (D-ND), and Sen. Lincoln (D-AR) joining Republicans in opposition. The main difference between the two proposed amendments was Sen. Rockefeller's bill set rates for the first two years at Medicare rates and then negotiated them afterwards where Sen. Schumer's amendment established rates by negotiating right away with doctors and hospitals.

During the debate on both bills the Democrats seeking a public option raised the point of competition and believes that a public option is the only method to ensure "fair" competition. The trouble I see with this logic is the government cannot establish a "fair" playing field if they are player and regulator. Sen. Grassley (R-IA) concurs with, "Government is not a fair competitor. It's a predator." Naturally the premiums of a public option will be less due to the lack of overhead but the missing element is funding. With low cost, premiums, option to people and businesses, we will see more opt for such an option thus increasing the amount of funding required to sustain. The new required funds will either come from higher taxes or premiums. Either way it will not be good for Americans and ultimately not achieve the goal of driving down health care costs.

If Democrats are serious about competition, I hate to sound like a broken record, then all for interstate health care insurance programs to exist. As I said yesterday, during the debate the Democrats referenced a chart that displayed the monopoly and oligopoly that many insurers experience in the vast majority, over 70%, of the states. So, to eliminate the monopolies and oligopolies currently instituted is best accomplished by opening up competition between states. Adding just one more option, public option or CO-OP, will not achieve the necessary additional competitive forces required to drive down premiums. Why does Econ 101 come into the minds of Congress? Perhaps it is because the vast majority of them are lawyers and have not worked in the private sector.

Sen. Rockefeller frustration boiled over, during the conversation with his amendment, when he pleaded that, "the public option will be optional. It will be voluntary. It will be affordable to people who are now helpless before their insurance companies." The trouble Sen. Rockefeller is that it will not be optional in the long run as companies will discover it is cheaper to kick in the penalty than to offer insurance benefits. Plus, a mandate that stipulates that all citizens of the United States must have health insurance eliminates the voluntary aspect of any option let alone the public option.

Although Sen. Baucus voted against both amendments he did say, "There's a lot to like about a public option." I do not see anything to like about the public option. The public option will only grow the size of government and enable lazy Americans that feel government is the answer. In addition, the public option will not breed competition which I have clearly stated above. Why do we, as Americans, continue to allow such an argument to be made? Someone please show me how adding a public option increases competition!!!!!! If no one can, please join me in requesting all in the debate on health care to remove this argument that a public option will increase competition.

Public Option does not increase competition required to lower costs

Today the Senate Finance Committee will be debating several amendments that contain a public option. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), while debating Sen. Rockefeller's (D-WV) public option amendment, stated that the only way to achieve competition in health care is to institute a public option. During the debate the liberal Democrats referenced a chart that showed that competition does not exist right now as health care insurance companies, roughly 75%, hold a monopoly or an oligopoly in the states they operate. I agree that more competition is required to drive down cost. Where I differ, as do moderate Democrats and the majority of Republicans, the public option does not foster competition. Before my progressive friends "jump the shark", hear me out.
The trouble with the logic of a public option leading to competition is that adding just ONE additional plan does not break the oligopoly. If you have two plans offered and add one more plan, how does that increase competition? Yes it does offer another option but an oligopoly still exists. To break out of the monopoly or oligopoly trend across America, in regards to health care insurance, needs more than just one option. That being said, why are liberal Democrats lack the understanding on how to breed competition? To create the competition, as I said in what I'd suggest for health care reform, is to open the state borders.
Allow everyone in the United States to purchase health care insurance from any state in our nation will create the competition that is required for drive down the cost of health care premiums. The public option will lead to less competition. Now the public option will not act like a light switch to the private insurance programs; rather it will act as a dimmer switch. After the public option is established and running, American's will lose their current insurance program.
Democrats floated the notion that the Mayo Clinic came out in favor of a public option that is similar to Medicare. This claim was false, http://healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.org/2009/09/23/mayo-clinics-position-on-the-public-option/, as the Mayo Clinic blog states, "If the "public plan" means a government-run, price-controlled, Medicare-like insurance model, we do not support it because it has been shown over many years that such a model has not controlled costs and had punished doctors, hospitals and others that provide high-quality, affordable care." Just a few days ago the Mayo Clinic reported, in the Star Tribune, which lost over $730M is medical costs of Medicare patients. Now, where does a hospital/clinic, like the Mayo Clinic, going to make up the lost revenues? It falls on the shoulders of those with non-government run insurance.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mi) just claimed that, per the CBO, only 25% of those without insurance right now would opt into the public option. The popular of given of those uninsured is 48M people. Based on Sen. Stabenow, per the CBO, we are looking at 12M people. In a system that already offers health care for, roughly, 178M people how will we be able to ensure "real competition and choice" as Sen. Stabenow just said when it only affects 6.7% of the market? Any ration person understands that adding 7% to anything is not creating competition or big enough of anything to mix the overall pot. If the ultimate goal is to offer choice and to reduce cost of premiums to Americans then Congress needs to move in the direction of doing so by making health care insurance available interstate. By going interstate it will increase commerce as states like Iowa, as Democrats claim, has only 1 insurance option will be able to purchase insurance in other states and it will allow health care insurance providers to enter into more markets.

President Obama delivered on specifics

"The time for bickering is over" – The Boston Globe

"Now is the time to deliver" – Star Tribune

"President heckled during speech" – Chicago Tribune

"Time for games has passed, Obama says" – Houston Chronicle

"On healthcare, Obama juggles losses and gains" – LA times

"Obama makes pitch" – Wall Street Journal

"President moves to reframe debate" – The Washington Post

"Aim of Obama health speech: Reigniting a presidency" – The New York Times

These are just some of the headlines around the nation this morning after President Obama speech to a joint session of Congress. President Obama vowed last night that "I am not the first president to take up this cause but I am determined to be the last." During the speech President Obama laid out a plan on what he wants to see health care reform to look like.

"We know we must reform this system. The question is how. Now, there are those on the left who believe that they only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would – where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own. I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have," the president summed up the extreme positions that are the undercurrent of the health care debate. The president claimed that Congress is in agreement with 80% of the type of health care reform is needed.

The goal of President Obama's health care reform is to meet "three basic goals".

1. Provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance.
   
2. Will provide insurance for those who don't.
   
3. Slow the growth of health care costs.
   

Thankfully the president went on to elaborate these points.

In regards to providing more security and stability for those who have insurance the president went on to explain that his plan:

• No change to current plan offered by one's employer
  
• Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for preexisting conditions
  
• Insurance companies cannot drop coverage due to illness or "water down" coverage
  
• Eliminate arbitrary caps on year and lifetime insurance benefits
  
• Limit the out of pocket expenses
  
• Require insurance companies to provide cover for routine and preventive care at no cost
  

For those without insurance, President Obama's plan will:

• Create a new exchange to purchase insurance from – similar to the one that Congress uses
  
• Tax credits for individuals and small businesses that cannot afford insurance on the exchange
  
• Required Insurance companies on the exchange to abide by the same consumer protections enacted to protect those that currently have insurance
  
• Exchange will be established in four years after enactment of health care reform
  
• Interim low-cost coverage will be provided for those who cannot get insurance today due to preexisting conditions
  

The third part of this plan is to slow the growth of health care costs. This part of his plan may be the most controversial and possibly unconstitutional.

• Basic health insurance mandate established on individuals
  
• Businesses will be required to offer insurance or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers
  
• Hardship waiver established for those individuals and businesses that cannot afford to provide health care insurance
  

While I am pleased that President Obama laid out specifics the devil will be in the details. I am troubled by the mandate on health care and how illegal immigrants will be affected by the reform. President Obama mentioned that "If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits." Now what if one wants to pay cash for their services received? How does the illegal immigrant visit get paid for? "Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," stated President Obama. The claim drew groans from the Republicans and even an audible "You lie" from Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.Car).

If the presidents claim that people who opt to not purchase health care insurance, doesn't that claim apply to illegal immigrants who by their very nature of being illegal do not posses health care insurance? It has to. To claim that costs are out of control because of emergency room visits, who does he think is more likely to go there – a 20-something American or an illegal immigrant? Now if reform does not cover illegal immigrants will hospital and clinics have to deny health care? If illegal immigrants are not turned away the rest of us will be covering the tab.

The president went on to mention that "My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there's choice and competition. That's how the market works." No kidding Mr. President, yet the majority of your progressive base does not understand this concept. One of the Republican ideas is to allow people from one state to purchase insurance from another state. Based on what was stated last night, "in 34 states, 75 percent of insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company." That being said, open up competition by eliminating the stranglehold insurance companies have in these situations. Instead the president continues to push for a public option.

"Let me be clear, it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. If fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up," stated President Obama in regards to the establishment of a public option. While the president is correct with the assessment of the number of Americans that would sign up, where his logic falls short is the long term enrollment of the public option. Companies, large and small, will assess the cost of providing coverage versus the cost of "chipping in". Plus, under the hardship clause of the president plan, he acknowledges that 95% of small businesses would be eligible. It is small business that is the backbone of our society and will push up that 5 percent estimate.

President Obama pledged that "I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future – period." How is he going to prove that nothing will be added to the future deficits? Especially in light of an aging society and Medicare is near bankruptcy. To pay for part of his $900B plan, that will be over ten years, will come from "reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid." The rest of the money will come from charging "insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies." Now what happens if insurance companies decide to no longer provide "Cadillac" plans? Will the next plan down the line be hit with a fee? Are we naïve enough to believe that this extra fee will not be passed onto those being covered? I think not. Insurance companies will pass along the fee.

While the president was specific to many ideas in his plan, he fell short on one; tort reform. "Now, finally, many in this chamber, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the costs of health care. Now, I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs." The only direction given in regards to tort reform is to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward with the Bush administrations "demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas." Even though the compromise is a nice gesture, why does the president fall short to include it in a health care reform bill?

Overall I was pleased with the specificity that the president spoke. Had he stopped after talking about how he'd pay for his plan the speech would have been great. Instead he went on to invoke Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy did have a lifetime goal of universal health care but for the president, or anybody, to use his death to promote their agenda is pathetic and cowardice. I look forward to the debates moving forward and to see if the president's door is truly open.

Obama Administration confused on Public Option

On the Sunday morning talk show circuit Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius commented on CNN that President Obama’s health care plan may be changing as the public option “is not the essential element”. Or is it? Even though the headlines across the land quip Secretary Sebelius it appears the White House is already back peddling. Linda Douglass, White House Health Reform Communications Director, released a statement saying, “Nothing has changed. The president has always said that what is essential is that health-insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health-insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals.”

While Secretary Sebelius was pushing the conversation away from the public option, Sen. Conrad elaborated on Fox News Sunday that the president does not have the votes in the Senate to pass reform with a public option in it. Sen. Conrad has been pushing, a bipartisan approach, Co-operative option to increasing competition and providing affordable health care for all. While Sen. Conrad’s Co-Op option is more aligned with traditional Co-Op’s, Sen. Schumer has another vision of how a health insurance Co-Op would work.

Sen. Schumer is looking to have the Co-Op be run and subsidized by the government and include health care plans that were chosen by the government. In essence Sen. Schumer’s plan is no more than a public option organized a bit differently. According to the New York Times, the backers of a public option are outspending non-public option supports 3 to 1. A public option would be the death to privately held insurance.

The current House bill calls for companies to provide health insurance that is at least 80% as good as the public option or face a penalty of 8.5%. In our global economy how are large companies to compete with their counterparts around the world if they are faced with a possible 8.5% penalty for not keeping up with government run health care? They can’t and will not. Americans will see companies, albeit slowly, stripping away health care as a benefit the company offers. It makes sense too. With a public option available, where is the competitive advantage to offer a benefit that becomes too cumbersome to maintain and really is not needed since it is available for “free”?

No matter which side of this debate you fall on, make sure you get out to have your voice heard. Don’t rely on the sensationalism news reports to dictate your view of those for or against the president’s plan for health care. Get out to a town hall meeting and find out first hand. Call your member of Congress and learn of their position while voicing yours.

Health Care Industry: Control costs before establishing a public plan!

The Senate’s Health committee passed along a bill that would bring health care to more people than any other bill in the past 15 years. The trouble is that the bill does not focus solely on controlling costs. As I read the newspapers on the health care debate there is one controlling issue; need to reduce costs. Since cost of plans are increasing and the share of employee premium payments continue to rise, why are we focused on an all or nothing public option?

The president is back on television in interviews and advertisement to tout the need and press upon the American public that, “Make no mistake the status quo on health care is not an option for the United States of America.” While I agree with this stance, the simple notion that a public option will suffice and bring done costs is insane. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, stated, “Our broken system is working very well for private health insurers but not for American consumers.”

The answer from the Obama administration and many Democrats is a public option. Medicare and Medicaid are going to be bankrupt. Many will point to the escalating cost of health care as the root issue. I beg to differ. The root cause is beaurocratic involvement. The Government does do some things well, which may be way the Framers looked to limited the size of government, but they do not do entitlement programs well. Our Congress has mismanaged social security by allowing it to be part of the general fund and not leaving it in the special fund it was originally established in.

I agree something needs to change. The change needs to take place with costs. Before any public plan can be established or even discussed, we need to control the costs of health care. Government can influence cost control, not by offering a public option, by regulating the industry.

First, allow any citizen in any state to be able to purchase a health care plan from any state in the union. By opening up the options it will increase competition and through increase competition American’s will see the cost of the programs become less expensive.

Secondly, mandate that every American purchase catastrophic health insurance and stipulate that insurance companies cannot reject insurance due to pre-existing conditions. While I am not a big fan of being told that I must have the insurance, I am also not a fan of a government public option that would do more harm than good.

Finally, establish guidelines for medical lawsuits with the AMA in exchange that all hospital, clinics, and doctors must take all forms of insurance. The establishment of lawsuit guidelines will assist in driving down one of the biggest expenses for the industry; medical malpractice insurance. By requiring the acceptance of all forms of insurance it will force hospital and clinics to focus on preventative care to keep people healthy.

By moving in this direction the cost to the American public will be minimal compared to the potential $2.2T that we will be looking at under the Obama plan. Contact your Senator and Representative to concentrate on cost cutting measures in the health care industry instead of establishing an expensive entitlement plan.

Obesity: Americans become active before the Government Mandates it.

I walked out this morning to get my paper, Star Tribune, and read the headlines as I wondered back into the house. The headline that caught my eye was “More fit than fat: State’s kids No.1”. A report was released by Trust for America’s Health on Wednesday. Minnesota did score well in comparison to other states; adults are 31st while youth (10-17) is No. 1. The report suggests that in order to combat obesity is to provide “less junk food at schools, more home cooking and less eating out, more gym time for students, limits on children’s computer and television time, and more workplace wellness programs.”

As the President Obama pushes his “single payer” public option for health care, we will see more accountability stripped away from the general public and put on the government. A hint to this is a quote by former Medicare Administrator Mark McClellan made when talking about Medicare and the report findings that people in the 55-64 age range are “much heavier than today’s seniors”. McClellan said (New report warns obesity in America is still growing problem, http://www.ky3.com/news/local/49632427.html), “Add to that the fact that the latest evidence suggests that people with obesity have healthcare costs that are 20- to 30- percent higher than people who aren’t obese and you’ve got the markings for an even more severe financial challenge.”

I am disturbed by the list suggested to fight obesity. The first point is to provide less junk food in schools, while this makes sense but is that really where the fight of obesity should start? Right now the Senate is considering a federal tax on soda and other sugary drinks as a potential revenue stream to offset the cost of President Obama’s “single payer” public option for health insurance. The trouble with this approach is it will not dissuade people from drinking these drinks; rather it will just increase the cost of their consumption as companies, like Coke, will pass along the tax onto the consumer. As Susan Neely, president of the American Beverage Association appropriately points out, “Taxes are not going to teach our children how to have a healthy lifestyle” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html).

If we are to get the youth off the obese track, adult Americans need to be accountable and role models. Granted schools can assist by implementing the some of the suggestions as less junk food and more gym time the success of any obese combating program falls on the shoulders of those taking care of the youth. During last summer Olympics a lot was made of the number of calories Michael Phelps consumed on a daily basis; 8000 to 10000 calories a day. A lesson can be learned here that it does not matter how many calories are consumed; rather is how active one is during the day.

To consume more calories in the day that one will burn will lead to weight gain. Some argue that part of one’s body chemistry is genetic. Although that may be so, we all have the ability to influence it. Adult Americans themselves need to get off the couch, away from the blackberry, and get outside. Little things can be done. A walk after dinner, throwing the ball around with a child, participating in a recreational sport, or go for bike rides at the local park are all good ways to work off calories consumed. Incorporating these activities into family life will assist in raising kids that are more active and less likely to sit in front of the television or computer.

Taxing “unhealthy” food will not make our society to change their actions. It will only make it more expensive for those that do eat and drink the “unhealthy” foods. It is a personal choice on what you want to eat and if you want to exercise. Just as it’s one’s choice to be obese. The trouble is that as Government establishes a “single payer” public option that choice will be stripped away. As it was stated above by Mr. McClellan that obesity will increase health care costs, those that want a public option will not want to pay for your choice of consumption or lifestyle. So get out there and set the example before the Government mandates it.