« Global Warming - The new Cold War? | Main | Long Overdue Pushback Arrives in Senate »

I See Your True Colors

There's an article (with accompanying chart) making its way around the blogosphere, especially on the left. Its author and other backers of one of the proposed health care finance reform measures say that it is graphic proof of how good the plan is.

Let's take a look at the chart:


The blue represents the amount the individual pays. The red is the amount the individual's employer pays. And the red-blue stripe is the "subsidy" -- the federal government's assistance in paying the bill.

Damn, that looks convincing, doesn't it? No matter how you cut it, both employees and employers make out. In one case, the the individual's portion is reduced by over $4,500 and the employer's by over $1,300. In the other case, it's even better -- the savings are in excess of $9,000 and $1,400. How the hell could anyone oppose that?

Well, anyone who actually reads the chart.

The author is exceptionally honest in the graphic -- more so than in the article. The article doesn't go into detail where the "subsidies" come from, but the chart does. Note the color coding -- the family's portion is blue, the employer's is red, and the subsidy is striped blue and red.

Because that's where the subsidy comes from -- the blue and red.

The "subsidy" is the federal government's contribution. And where will the federal government get that money? Why, by taking from individuals and employers -- properly weighted, of course, to hit the more affluent segments of both. A redistribution of wealth to bring about social justice -- "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

A nice ideal, of course, but with a healthy dose of unreality to make it work. How will it be decided where the line will be drawn between the "poor enough to need help" and "wealthy enough to pay more?" Well, obviously the numbers will have to be jiggered to find the break-even point. Adjusted slightly downward, of course, so that there will be a surplus to cover unexpected shortages.

And let's never forget that whenever the government is involved in redistributing wealth, it has to take its cut. Government programs require government workers to run them, and government workers don't come cheap. No, in addition to their salaries, there's also a huge amount of overhead expense in running a government program.

The average efficiency of the 200 biggest charities in the US is 89%, according to Forbes -- meaning roughly seven dollars they take in goes towards their works, and less than one in eight for keeping themselves going. There are some that actually hit 100% on that chart, and a few dismal failures. (I note with a certain smugness that the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation is at the bottom, sucking up more than two out of every three dollars in overhead, and less than one in three for its works.)

The federal government is notoriously inefficient, but let's spot them a little here. Let's say that they manage to only suck up a quarter in overhead. (That puts them in the standings alongside the Alzheimer's Association, the American Heart Association, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, and the YWCA of the USA -- #s 172-176 on the list. Bill Clinton really, really blew the curve.)

That means for the best case scenario in that chart, where the government subsidizes health coverage for $5,885 per family per year, it will have to collect over $7,800 in taxes. And in the maximum case, where the subsidy is $10,286, that amount goes to over $13,600.

And remember those numbers are based on the government only taking a quarter in overhead. Anyone who thinks that that will actually happen needs to be locked up for their own safety.

The secret of the chart? It spells out just how much of a scam the proposed bill is. All it takes is a willingness to see not only what its author wants us to see, but what he doesn't realize he's saying.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I See Your True Colors:

» Say Anything: Reader Blogs linked with Obamacare's True Colors

» Wizbang linked with Hold That Dime

Comments (14)

One other point. The chart... (Below threshold)

One other point. The chart assumes 7.5% inflation on the "status quo" options, but does not mention inflation on the Senate bill. Not sure I understand; but it appears the Senate will wave a wand and abolish inflation? Is 7.5% a historical norm for inflation in medical care? Or did someone just make up that number?

The real fight isn't over h... (Below threshold)

The real fight isn't over how much money is spent on health care, but rather over who 'gets' to to pay for the health care people receive. As the chart shows, there isn't any real difference in the amount spent under the differing scenarios, but Obamacare offers the illusion that someone else is going to pick up the tab.

The chart doesn't address t... (Below threshold)

The chart doesn't address the fact that today, the majority of us with medical coverage don't need a governmental subsidy. Between employer and employee pieces we manage. The only time the majority of us would need government subsidy is after the government "fixes" the "problem" and makes medical insuracne and care more expensive for all of us.

Hide the impost!... (Below threshold)

Hide the impost!

Matt: the majority does fin... (Below threshold)

Matt: the majority does fine, but the battle is over the rest, those who for whatever reason can't get coverage at a rate they are willing and able to pay. Do they do without? Does the majority pay for them?

And as you touch on, the 'solutions' that benefit the minority invariably hurt the majority. our premiums and taxes will go up, our access to doctors will go down.

while the majority is somewhat sympathetic to those having trouble affording medical care, there is a limit to how much we're willing to suffer. The more we hear about how the reform is going to make things worse for us, the less we like it.

We would do well to examine... (Below threshold)

We would do well to examine the British Heath Service, England's largest employer, and the largest single item in their national budget.

And somehow, we're going to reduce costs.

Do you believe in magic? Congress thinks we do.

We get to pay in for three years before the program actually starts -- right after the 2012 elections.

At which time I fully expect we will have a new president. The O in Obama represents the number of times he will be reelected.

Good point.The ave... (Below threshold)

Good point.

The average person won't realize that it will take in more than $12,500 in taxes to make $10,000 in government subsidies - and that's being very optimistic.

A family of 4 earning $54,0... (Below threshold)

A family of 4 earning $54,000?

I see they've excluded govt. employees.

Lordy, please let Me fall i... (Below threshold)

Lordy, please let Me fall ill and croak before all this shit gets passed.

Clinton blew the curve? Tha... (Below threshold)

Clinton blew the curve? That's a new one for him isn't it? Most of the time something really curvy is blowing him.........

Sorry, couldn't resist.

"Clinton blew the curve?... (Below threshold)

"Clinton blew the curve? That's a new one for him isn't it? Most of the time something really curvy is blowing him"

Yeah, sucks to be Him. ha ha ha ha

TAXES,TAXES and even more T... (Below threshold)

TAXES,TAXES and even more TAXES with the liberals running it all

"TAXES,TAXES and even more ... (Below threshold)

"TAXES,TAXES and even more TAXES with the liberals running it all"

Yes, yes and yes. But have heart. Their judgement draweth nigh.

"Clinton blew the curve? Th... (Below threshold)

"Clinton blew the curve? That's a new one for him isn't it? Most of the time something really curvy is blowing him"

Yeah, sucks to be Him. ha ha ha ha

11. Posted by 914 | December 17, 2009 12:15 PM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)"

How can You neg this comment? Do You have evidential proof that "free willy" never "came" to the beat of a different bum?






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy