Do they really want competition?

Just watch the video and it is very clear. Wolf Blitzer understands it, David Axelrod, senior advisor to the President does not. They aren't talking about competition because they really WANT competition. They are talking about it because it sounds good and it masks the move toward single payer. Hats off to Wolf for really pushing the point.

ACORN working for...

Prostitution, sex trafficing of underage girls, tax fraud... it's all good.

That's the ACORN way.

Did I mention they get tax payer funding?

What the videos, wretch into the closest trash can, then call your Congressman and ask them to pull all funding for ACORN. Election fraud was bad enough to prompt the phone call, but this is just ridiculous. How long will our tax money fund this institution?

This was just funny...

The Lies and Story Behind the President's Speech

The following are excerpts from the President's speech to Congress on 9.9.09 with my comments following.

Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem.

- Actually, it is a part of the deficit problem, but how is spending more money and resources going to fix the problem?

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already
have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing
in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the
doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change
what you have.

- Unless he is talking about a new, unseen bill, this is not true. Your healthcare plan would be required to change. At the most, your plan COULD be the same as it is now for up to five years. Of course even mentioning this ignores the fact that my healthcare plan is MY business, not the business of the government. The tone of being some benevolent dictator is revolting. My healthcare is MY business and the Constitution does not give the government the right to interfere with it.

What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for
you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny
you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill,
it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when
you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able
to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given
year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for
out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should
go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to
cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like
mammograms and colonoscopies

- See this is the problem. Sometimes politicians don’t seem to live in the real world. This is all fluff that sounds really good, but what it really means is $$$$$$$$$. Insurance companies have to show a profit. If you cover more things, you limit deductibles… you have to increase premiums. Costs don’t magically disappear. They are real. They are legitimate. And they are going to SKYROCKET! Or, your health insurance company will go out of business. Guess that could affect the coverage you currently haven’t couldn’t it?

This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do
it right

- If these are such a good idea, why not start them now? Why wait four years? Oh wait, when they fall flat or become an obvious Trojan horse for a government run plan it will be too late. President Obama’s last election will already be over.

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those —
particularly the young and healthy — who still want to take the risk and go
without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their
workers. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us
money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health
insurance, it means we pay for those people's expensive emergency room visits.
If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us
to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an
unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part,
many of the insurance reforms we seek — especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions — just can't be achieved.That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be
required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the
cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who
still cannot afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of
their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements.
But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees.
Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.

- Okay, just to make sure I read that right, because you are alive, you will be required to have health insurance. Now, I understand about car insurance, after all you are placing other people at risk, but you don’t have to drive it you don’t want to, and hence, you don’t need to buy car insurance. But if you are a living, breathing American you will be FORCED to buy health insurance? Why not just FORCE people to pay their emergency room bills? Garnish their wages until their bill is paid. And I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again, mandating coverage does not MAGICALLY give businesses the money to pay for it. Even larger businesses that don’t insure their workers will look at the cost and say one of two things, either they have to lay off some workers to be able to afford it, or simply close up shop and move the business off shore. Oh yah, this should help unemployment.

The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts,
but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the
power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it
weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

- Actually it’s not a lie. Of course, no government actually calls them death panels, but what the bill proposes, or use to propose before a Senate committee withdrew it, is a panel to determine guidelines for appropriate care, much like those that exist in the UK. Only they aren’t only for older people, they are for all people. Like this baby that was born premature at 21 week and 5 days. The NHS rule book for premature babies is that only babies born after 22 weeks or later will be provided for. So this baby survived for two hours while his mother begged and pleaded with doctors to help him, but he passed away without any medical attention. Now, would you call the panel that makes that decision a “death panel?” I think the name is understandable.

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal
immigrants. This, too, is false — the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to
those who are here illegally.

- As the congressman pointed out, this is a lie. There is no stipulation in the bill that beneficiaries of any of these changes must be US citizens, therefore the door is open to all.

And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up — under our plan, no
federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will
remain in place.

- I really wish this one were true, but HR3200 makes it very clear that minimum coverage will be determined by the department of Health and Human Services and whoever is the commissioner or czar or whatever you want to title them, that is put in charge of the application of the system. Half a dozen amendments were proposed and voted down (on party lines) that would have kept the Hyde Amendment in place, prohibiting abortions. If the bill would have kept abortions from being funded then why not just approve the amendment? Well, the President and half of Congress needs to make sure they live up to the promises that they have made to Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the rest of the pro-abortion lobby.

So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has
been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition.
Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by
five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one
company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality
goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their
customers badly — by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to
drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by
jacking up rates.

- This was probably the biggest lie of the night. Did you catch it? The president affirms that his guiding principle with the ‘public option’ is about competition. Now he is right that consumers do better with competition, but his plan doesn’t provide that. It provides a government option. That’s not competition, that’s a government take over. If the President wanted consumers to benefit from competition he would make the healthcare market a national one by breaking down the state and local barriers and letting all insurance companies compete in any market. End local mandates and local monopolies. THAT is competition! Not a government option.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this
idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the
government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public
insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private
insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient
and rely on the premiums it collects.

- REALLY!? Now even without public subsidies, would the government insurance provider have to pay the same taxes that the private companies do? No. Would they have to maintain the same capital requirements that the private companies do? No (look at Fannie and Freddie as an example). So would the government plan be undercutting the private insurance companies? Yes.

And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company
bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.

- If the government is supplying insurance, then by definition, there will be a bureaucrat or panel that will decide what will be covered and what won’t. A patient may say that they absolutely have to have a sex change in order to live a healthy, normal life, but will the public option cover that? Or that they have to have an abortion because they can’t afford a baby. Will that be covered? Who is going to make that call?

Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one
dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. Period. And to prove
that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to
come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't
materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked
in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last
decade were not paid for — from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care.

- Quite frankly he is already predicting TRILLION dollar deficits EVERY year, so there is very little integrity to back up this statement, but in any case, how can you extend insurance to another 30 MILLION people without costing any more money? Again, I think we need to remember this is the real world, not fantasy land.

Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding
savings within the existing health care system — a system that is currently full
of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax
dollars we spend on health care doesn't make us healthier.

- Can you really say that you are serious about this if you are not asking for tort reform? The extra tests that most doctors do are to cover their bottom lines if and when they get sued. If you aren’t talking tort reform, then you really aren’t serious about bringing down these costs.

Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making
the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver
health care that can reduce costs for everybody.

- Didn’t the President just expound on the fact that government run insurance will be so much cheaper and more efficient than private insurance companies? Now he is saying that the system that the government already runs and controls needs to be improved to be more efficient? What he doesn’t mention is that the cost cutting measures in Medicare include reductions in fees paid to physicians, which will cause more physicians to refuse to treat Medicare patients, or up their costs to their non-Medicare patients.

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 cost of health care. I don't believe malpractice reform is a
silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive
medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we
move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let
doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration
considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these
issues. It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human
Services to move forward on this initiative today.

- Lip service to tort reform. Read it this way, “I know you want me to say the words tort reform, but I just can’t bring myself to do that, so I’m going to tell you that my Health and Human Services Secretary will look into this problem. I’m brushing tort reform off, but hey at least I kind of mentioned it.”

And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth
of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion
over the long term.

- CBO numbers do not back this up. Not even close. They predict a deficit in the hundreds of billions of dollars related to HR3200.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit
will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More
Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more
will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

- Read it like this, “I don’t like scare tactics unless they help me.”

One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our
self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our
healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role
of government has always been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate.

- This is in the middle of a section where he uses the memory of the late Ted Kennedy to drive home the emotional aspect. I completely agree with the statement, but it runs counter to the government based plan that the President just laid out.

I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further
down the road — to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

- That must be why the plan takes four years to kick in.

Basically the President gave a good speech that laid out the same things that he has been saying all summer. Looking at the legislation, many of his points are misleading, disingenuous or out right lies. The speech was more of the same and was really just about reasserting himself into the center of the debate.

Inappropriate

Am I a fan of the President's policies? Obviously not.

Do I believe that he has lied repeatedly during some of his speeches on healthcare? Yes. At the very least his comments have been very misleading half truthes.

In this case about illegal immigrants, there is nothing in the bill that requires verification of citizenship to receive benefits. In the past and present, this has been an open door to illegal aliens. So, the President is being very deceiving.

That being said, do I think it is appropriate to yell out "You LIE!" or "Liar!" during a presidential address to Congress? No.

Of course, I don't think the President's comments were appropriate either, but I will comment more on that later.

Here's the video

The Expectation is KILLING ME... okay, maybe not

So, what are we going to hear tonight? That is, if we are watching. The President’s prime time press conferences have gotten a decreasing number of viewers each time. I think tonight is a little different considering the tremendous hot button that the healthcare debate has become, plus this is a speech to Congress so it carries a lot more weight than just your average press conference.

Will he say that healthcare reform must include a public option? Will he give an unreasonable deadline, considering the real bill hasn’t even been made public yet, or possibly even been written? Will he announce that his own team, rather than Congressional leadership, is crafting the bill? Not a question of if, but how often, will he mention the late Senator Kennedy?

This could be a huge opportunity to win public favor and convince the American people that he is taking the reigns on this issue and he’s going to do it right. If he announces that they are going to slow down and really weigh their options because healthcare reform is too big and too important to get it wrong, he will get broad support and unanimous approval. His ratings would spike. The far left would be critical, but he would win over independents, a group that he is losing in droves right now.

There are lots of things that could be done with this speech, but will any of it make a difference. An address to Congress carries a lot of weight, but also a lot of expectation. This is a rare occasion. If treated lightly it will hurt his credibility. People are tired of platitudes and generalities. The average Joe has heard more about healthcare in the last 40 days than they ever want to hear about again. They want the specifics. They want the nuts and bolts. No more messing around and vague generalities. Unfortunately, the President has notoriously lacked details in any of his speeches up to this point, and those that he has provided have been demonstrably contrary to the current legislation.

So what will we see and how many will watch?

The speech is scheduled for 8pm eastern time if you are interested.

Our Current and Escalating Economic Mess

As we are all distracted by the mess that is healthcare reform we need to keep one eye on our economy. Unless you are the Vice President, or a lobbyist for a labor union, you probably realize that the $787 BILLION stimulus package so far has been a bust. Millions more jobs have been lost, unemployment in most areas is hitting levels not seen in a quarter of a century or more, and the US government is borrowing almost half of every dollar they spend. Deficits are planned for more than 10 years out of approximately $1 TRILLION per year. That’s planned spending that doesn’t even include the full impact of healthcare reform (if that survives in any form). This cannot go on forever. Unlike what some in congress may say, we cannot borrow our way to prosperity. The United States is not immune to reality.

The Fed continues to print money to buy up debt from the Treasury and our lenders are getting tired of it. China has said that they will start to diversify their foreign reserves. Of course when they say that, they mean that they are going to start dumping the $2 TRILLION dollars that they hold in US currency. Certainly this is one of the reasons gold has come back up to $1000 an ounce as China and other countries move away from the dollar towards investments that will provide protection against American inflation. For us that means an uptick in inflation considering $2 TRILLION will start floating back into the system.

Economists have started to say that we are pulling out of the recession, which is true, we are pulling out of the latest trough. But was that the bottom? Cash for clunkers spurred an artificial boom of 700K cars sold, but what will an artificial boom do to demand in the next two quarters?

The method deployed for the stimulus has never worked and is not going to work for us long term. The government can’t borrow and spend the country into sustained prosperity.

What’s worse is that the backlash against these monstrous deficits will not result in a cut back in spending, but rather an increase in taxes. This will only force more jobs and more companies off shore or out of business. Throw in a health insurance mandate and you’ll crush the small businesses that make up half of the economy. Mandating insurance coverage doesn’t magically give companies the ability to afford it.

The dollar just hit a new low for the year. Gold is soaring. High unemployment.

Have we paved the way for a solid, sustained recovery, or are we going through a sugar spike that is going to leave us worse than how it found us.

Cut spending. Cut taxes. Pull some money out of the system. Stop lending money to ourselves. Restore investor confidence in the US dollar.

Friday Rant

Just a quick rant list for Friday:

- Van Jones the “Green Jobs” Czar. This is just one more example of the kind of people that the President chooses to associate himself with. This week Van Jones made news by referring to republicans using a cheap, school yard expletive. But more research into Van Jones reveals several odd things. Number one he is a self described communist. Ok, that’s a little different. He also signed on to a 9/11 “truther” petition that demands investigations into the US government and makes claims that the Bush administration at the very least KNEW about the 9/11 attacks and did nothing to stop them. Oh yah, definitely cabinet level material here.

- Rep Charlie Rangel. Under investigation by the ethics committee for failing to correctly report his income from rental properties around the world, Congressman Rangel, the Chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee (you know the one that is responsible for tax law), gave campaign contributions to members of the ethics committee that were investigating him. Hmmm…. sounds kind of fishy to me.

- Sen Harry Reid. Recently the Senator Majority Leader endeared himself further to his constituents by telling the largest newspaper in Las Vegas that he hopes they go out of business. The paper responded with this scathing editorial that left me laughing and cheering. Combine that with the fact that Reid trails either of his republican challengers significantly, I would say the Senator Majority Leader will be looking at unemployment come 2010.

- Vice President Biden. Well, just saying Vice President Biden kind of explains everything, but this week he said that the economic stimulus package had exceeded their expectations. REALLY!? I hope someone on his staff showed him the new unemployment figures. Of course unemployment figures stop counting people who have given up looking for jobs. The official number is 9.7, but some say that real unemployment may be as high as 16%.

- The Presidential address to the school children of the nation. My first thought was, “wow, has the President already run out of groups that want to hear him speak?” Then when I read the “accompanying materials” that encouraged teachers to prepare for the speech by reading books about presidents, or a book about Barack Obama, and included all kinds of activities for kids to discuss how they are going to help the President. I don’t know the whole thing just seems creepy. My kids say that their school hasn’t even mentioned it. Personally I think the whole thing is going to back fire and the kids that do see it will mock, rather than admire, the effort.

Health Care Reform Goes Hand in Hand with Tort Reform

As politicians head back to Washington and start reviewing and debating the latest version of what will be the Kennedy Healthcare Act or some version thereof, I thought it would be good to look at something this bill is guaranteed to miss, tort reform.

It’s one of those political, Washington sounding phrases that basically means we need to get a hold of the trial lawyers who troll around outside doctor’s offices waiting for them to make a mistake. Don’t get me wrong; just like anything that has been abused, there are legitimate cases against irresponsible doctors. The system should be set up to deal reasonably with those and discourage and weed out the vampires that bleed the system.

These frivolous lawsuits cost you money and drive up the over all cost of healthcare. Malpractice insurance isn’t cheap! It varies by region and the type of practice you have, but it can easily run into the six figure range for an annual premium, especially for more high risk type specialties like OBs and nuerosurgeons. But the costs aren’t all direct. Every time a doctor meets with a patient they not only have to focus on treating a condition, or finding the cause of a problem, they have to think about what tests they need to run just to cover their backside in case of a lawsuit. The costs for people in rural areas are even more significant because many times a doctor can’t make enough money with a rural practice to cover his costs, so many communities don’t have a doctor, forcing them to commute to the doctor’s office. Sound familiar?

Now lets look at the scenario that occurred in Texas.

According to an Op-ed by the Texas Governor, Rick Perry, they were faced with a serious issue six years ago. Doctors were leaving the state in droves. 13 out of 17 liability insurers (providing malpractice insurance) left the state. Costs to doctors were going through the roof, which elevates the costs to the patients. 24 counties had no primary care doctors at all. 2/3 of the counties had no practicing obstetricians and 6/10 had no pediatricians.

Sounds like a mess doesn’t it?

So they reformed it, capping non-economic damages and put and end to law suits dragging on for years that do nothing but rack up lawyer’s fees.

And the market responded.

Ten insurance companies came into the state and malpractice insurance costs plummeted by an average of 27%. Over 14,000 doctors have come back to, or started up their practices in Texas in the first five years since the reforms. More OBs, pediatricians, and general practitioners are moving into areas that have never had these services in their communities.

In all fairness, there is one group that is very unhappy with the changes; the trial lawyers.

So why doesn’t the President’s healthcare reform plan include tort reform?

Take a look at this list of donations of trial lawyers to politicians, then take a look at the fact that lawyers/law firms gave over $178 million dollars to Democrats during the last election cycle ($54 million to Republicans). $eem$ like a pretty $trait forward an$wer to me.

Tell your reps you don’t want ANY healthcare reform without TORT reform. Let’s fix the system.

A healing elixir

It’s been quite the week. After a very busy weekend I went to bed early Monday night with a sore throat. Other than a trip to the doctor’s office, an occasional visit to the rest room, and two occasions where I became so hungry the pain woke me up, I stayed in bed until Wednesday morning. Nothing like a week’s worth of sleep and some antibiotics to clear things up.

The funny thing is I tried herbal teas with honey, Advil, Tylenol, and even a special prescription mouthwash that is suppose to be great for sore throats, but none of it made my throat feel any better. Non-contagious I came into work yesterday with my throat still killing me and poured myself the first coffee I had had in three days. It worked beautifully. My throat felt better for hours. I honestly thought it was going to make it worse, but it was like a magic salve of goodness running down my throat. I’ve had strep before and coffee has never helped, but I’ve never tried French press coffee with strep. I think there must be something about the oils in it… I don’t know, but it was beautiful. Later in the afternoon it started bothering me again and I poured myself another cup and it got better with every sip. I highly recommend.

Of course, I highly recommend the press anyway, especially if you are a heavy coffee drinker and want to cut back. Huh? Oh yes, I use to drink pots, if not gallons of coffee a day. Now, just two to three cups a day and I am gooooood. If you don’t like coffee because of its bitterness, but you really like the smell of coffee, you have to try the press. It’s all the beauties of coffee and none of the draw backs. I’ve been on the press for a couple of years now and have even converted my wife. In fact… we don’t even OWN a drip coffee maker right now. The two that we had both busted and we have no desire to replace them. I am in the market for a bigger press, just in case we have guests who want an amazing cup of coffee.

I still have some drip coffee on occasion and in a pinch it gets you through, but why someone would be willing to subject themselves to that on a regular basis, knowing the rich, bold, flavorful goodness of the French press, is beyond me.

Speaking of which… I think it’s time for some right now.

Outrageous!!!

I’m a fan of the second amendment, just like I’m a fan of the first amendment, but I don’t own a gun and I certainly don’t carry a gun. Recently at an anti-Obamacare rally in AZ, one of our many gun-toting citizens decided to appear at the rally armed; a gun on the hip and an assault rifle over the shoulder - all of it perfectly LEGAL.

Do I think it was necessarily a good idea? No. It’s not something that I would do. But I am not about to tell someone else that they can’t. Especially when it’s legal and… well… they have an assault rifle. J

Now here is the interesting part that I wanted to talk about. The American Thinker has a clip of the man (obviously cropped like mad) that was played on MSNBC. The reason MSNBC played the clip is so that they could go on a long rampage about how all of this healthcare protesting has a racist tint to it. REALLY!? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

Here is the best part…

Are you ready?

The part that they cropped out of the video is the part that shows that the man CARRYING the assault rifle… is BLACK.

Go to American Thinker and watch the video then look at the full picture below it. Ridiculous.

Once again. This has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with a BAD IDEA and a BAD BILL. By calling it racist or even strongly hinting that this is racist, totally diverts people from the real issue, which of course, is the goal. How dishonest of MSNBC to do that. It just goes to prove… once again… how IN THE TANK they are for this administration that they would sacrifice any shred of professional integrity that they might have one time had, in order to smear people that oppose the administrations agenda.

Shame on you MSNBC!

BTW... if you watch the video, the MSNBC egghead says "a Mark Hinckley figure", but obviously, being a moron, he messes it up. The man who tried to assassinate President Reagan was mentally deranged, JOHN Hinckley. Seriously, where do they get these people?

Poll Comparisons to Past Presidents

It’s been a rough start. Just my personal opinion. I think it’s a combination of the speed with which he is moving combined with the far left policies that he is pushing that have translated into this sudden move downward. Peter Wehner has a poll comparison between the initial approval rating of Presidents since Eisenhower to their average during August. Some of the numbers are very impressive, some for good reasons... others for bad.

Eisenhower +6 (from 68 to 74 percent)
Kennedy +4 (from 72 to 76 percent)
Nixon +3 (from 59 to 62 percent)
Carter -3 (from 66 to 63 percent)
Reagan +9 (from 51 to 60 percent)
George H. W. Bush +18 (from 51 to 69 percent)
Clinton -14 (from 58 to 44 percent)
George W. Bush -1 (from 57 to 56 percent)
Obama -14 (from 68 to 54 percent).

The numbers aren’t really that important at this point in the game. The real key is that conservatives need to keep good solid pressure on the administration and bring out the information that the media is ignoring. Read the bills. Watch what is going on. Keep the information flowing.

A letter to Congressmen Waxman and Stupak

Congress is on a witch hunt to try and embarass executives at all of the major insurance companies and gather information about their business.

This is ridiculous.

So, I drafted the following letter which I will be sending to my reps and to Congressman Waxman and Congressman Stupak.

Congressman Waxman and Congressman Stupak,


Recently the Congress sent letters requesting information from insurance companies regarding executive pay and bonus structure, bonuses and salaries paid, along with information regarding profit from different aspects of their business. As an American I am always encouraged when the government supports transparent and open policies.

It is in that vein that I would like to request documentation from the Congress regarding the following items. Please include all requested information for all years encompassing the 105th through 111th Congresses.

(1) Information regarding earmarks. Including, but not limited to
a. Which congressional member requested all earmarks whether finally approved or not.
b. Which congressional member received campaign contributions directly or indirectly tied to companies, firms, or organizations who received any earmarks or other forms of government assistance.
c. As well detail any travel, dinners, parties, or fundraisers that were hosted or sponsored by any organization, company, or firm which received tax payer funds.

(2) Information concerning Congressional travel. Include detailed and itemized information in regards to all of the following:
a. Per diems received by Congressional members. How and where those per diems were spent and a detailed list of excess funds which are required to be returned if not needed.
b. A list of congressional trips taken during the 105th – 111th Congress, including all trips that were funded through public or private means. Any travel that may have already been detailed in Section (1) should be noted again here as well.
c. Please clearly state all congressional members, family, and friends who were also present during such trips and the purpose for each attendee.
d. As well state the over all purpose for each congressional trip and provide justification for repeated trips to and from Washington D.C. in excess of one round trip per month. Please include all travel and provide dollar approximations for accommodations made to Congressional members through the Air Force and give written justification why Congressional members needed Air Force assistance, rather than taking readily available commercial transportation.
(3) A detailed accounting of all funds associated with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and a detailed plan for returning all of the funds that have been “borrowed” from these accounts for the last seven decades.

Being an understanding member of the electorate, I will allow you until the end of the calendar year to provide the above information. I may request further information from you on all of the included topics, after all, we are all interested in finding and eliminating wasteful spending during this financial crisis.

I would like to state that in the future all such information should be readily available and included in one of the governments myriads of web pages. As a concerned citizen I am sure that you will understand our desire for brilliant light to shine into the practices of our elected officials.

Best regards,

Keith Jones
www.keithjonesblog.com

Pre-existing Conditions

This is a hot button, I understand that, but read and keep an open mind.

I have some family members who are not employed where they get healthcare coverage. They have tried to seek private insurance, willing to pay the premiums themselves, and they have been denied because of certain chronic health factors. At the same time they don’t qualify for state assistance. This means when they go to the doctor they have to negotiate a price and pay out of their own pocket. That’s not too bad, but a trip to the ER ends up costing them huge and there just isn’t much they can do about it.

In this case it seems only right to say that insurance companies cannot deny someone coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

I hope that this exact scenario is the reason for Section 111, of HR3200, which across the board prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition. I hope. But sometimes things that are put in place for good reasons have ‘unintended’ bad consequences.

Now, let’s think for a minute. Say Jane is in her thirties. She’s self employed and relatively healthy and only goes to the doctor every couple of years, so when it comes to insurance she decides to pass and pocket the money. One morning, Jane finds a lump. She goes to the doctor and finds out that she has an aggressive form of breast cancer. Facing huge medical costs as well as the personal and emotional trauma of the situation she goes and applies for insurance, which they cannot deny. She gets her coverage and begins treating her cancer. She has a mastectomy, but finds a lump in the other breast resulting in another mastectomy. She goes through chemo and radiation and is in remission. Things are improving. The insurance company is also required to cover breast reconstructive surgery after a mastectomy, so she decides to have that as well. She’s finally recovered from this personal struggle and she finally hears the words from the doctor that she has been waiting for, a clean bill of health. Fantastic! But, it’s been two years of struggle and she wants to do some things to have fun, go on vacation, buy a new car, live life again. So, she looks at her expenses and decides to drop her medical insurance since she really doesn’t need it anymore.

The insurance company has just fit the bill for two years of treatments, including multiple surgeries, very expensive treatments and medications, and has collected a tiny fraction of that money back in premiums. They are literally tens of thousands of dollars in the red for just one case. They are a company, with stockholders and investors, they have to show a profit, so they increase premiums across the board. Naturally that causes other people who aren’t in the midst of a personal tragedy to drop their insurance, knowing they can pick it up again should a tragedy occur.

Realistically speaking, how can the insurance company stay in business? Insurance companies don’t really make money off of sick people, they make money off of healthy people.

So then do we start bailing out insurance companies?

Undoubtedly you suddenly have people being dropped as insurance companies go out of business. Amid the national outcry to help the average family that is suddenly without coverage, the government steps in with a plan to help those who have been hit hard by this unfortunate turn of events.

Hmmm…

Public option or no public option, this bill has some good intentions with some very negative possible consequences.

Are you serious? Predictions for 2012?! Yes! It's Entertaining!

A recent poll showed that the country is moving to the right, despite the fact, or maybe even because of the fact that we just elected a far left president. Certainly the push towards bigger government, higher taxes, and increased government intervention into EVERYTHING has spawned right wingers like a virtual conservative ideological baby boom. Conservatives and the Republican Party are now looking at the 2010 election with mouths watering. Some estimate that as many as 70 congressional democrats could be on the chopping block. Ouch.

With that in mind, I recently got an email asking about 2012. Granted in politics, three years can be a life time (the last seven months have certainly dragged by). But really over the next probably 12 to 18 months you are going to see a field of Republican leaders emerge.

This far out, these are my best guesses of who might be in it and what I think their chances are… just because it’s fun to do.

Some familiar faces:
- Mitt Romney. He’s never left the public eye with frequent appearances on talk shows, radio, and even a tour around the country. He’s got plenty of money and a solid understanding of economics, which, if things continue to circle the bottom of the toilet, may still be a major issue in 2012. He also carries a lot of baggage with the MA healthcare system sucking wind, but, I think he would be a solid candidate.
- Sarah Palin. First let me say, I like Sarah Palin. She is a very likeable person. In hindsight I think she was thrust onto the national stage too early. She needs more exposure, which she is getting VERY cheap right now, winning some body blows against the healthcare mess by posting messages on FB. Ouch. She energizes the base and I think will be a huge asset in raising funds for conservatives if she chooses to. That being said, I don’t think she would make a very good Presidential candidate yet, if ever. I do think she would be a great person to replace Michael Steele as head of the GOP, since she could really bring in the funds from the base and people trust her to back conservative principles.
- Mike Huckabee. The former governor is somebody else that I really like. I like listening to him, he is an excellent speaker and did very well in most of the large debates last time around. We’ll see if he has honed his international policy portfolio at all, which last time really hurt him.

Some newer faces:
- Tim Pawlenty: The current governor of Minnesota is poking his face out into the national scene more and more. He was rumored a possible VP candidate last time around and holds some fairly decent conservative credentials. He has also been a sane voice in state that was once run by a former professional wrestler and recently elected an SNL character to the Senate. I like Minnesota, but there is just a lot of crazy up there.
- Rick Perry: The current governor of Texas may be in a prime spot if the economy is still in the tank, considering he is leading a state with a thriving economy, a growing business environment, and a stable housing market. He has also recently been making some international house calls to Israel, promising a close relationship between the loan star state and our only real ally in the Middle East. He is actively recruiting foreign businesses from allied nations to come set up shop in Texas, rather than driving businesses away with ever increasing taxes. What a novel concept! At the same time he has said some really stupid things in the last six months, which may fly well in TX and win him another term as governor, but don’t sound too good on the national stage. He’ll need to taper his TX rhetoric a bit to win the country.
- Piyush Jindal: I know you probably said, “who?” Piyush is actually Bobby Jindal’s real first name. At 37, the LA governor is young. Very young. But if anybody could pull it off, I would be betting on him. Educated as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, Jindal is nothing short of brilliant. Even though he underwhelmed at his first major national speech, he is a gifted public speaker and very good off the cuff. Throw that on top of the fact that he was very easily elected governor of LA, without a typical run-off election. He enjoys an approval rating in a historically liberal state 11% above the current liberal president and he is doing amazing things to turn Louisiana around. He has already pledged to run for re-election in 2011 which I think is a great move. I really think he would be a better candidate in 2016 or even 2020. After all, he’s so young, he has plenty of time and he is on track to build up a great record. Whenever he runs, I think you are looking at the first President of east Indian immigrants.

And the wild card:
- There are a few politically entrenched people out there that have the ability to jump into the race and make an impact. People you might not think of until they actually announced and then you’d go, “oh yeah, sure!” Some random names come to mind, like Newt Gingrich and even Rick Santorum, but I think either of those would be long shots.

In any case, I think there is a great possibility that someone with some national exposure, though not widely considered could still come to the front and be a major force. Maybe even some Hollywood type like a Kelsey Grammer or Gary Sinise, should they decide to put their careers on hold to put their hat into the political ring. In any of these cases they would need to start hinting at their intentions with speeches and appearances just to get themselves as at least an option in people’s minds.

In any case, for political junkies like me the next two elections are going to be very interesting. Of course, in the meantime we’ll be enduring some very interesting… if not trying times. We should probably consider the “fasten seatbelt sign” radiantly illuminated.

God's blessings

I don’t talk about it nearly as much as I should, but I am a very blessed man. Really in too many ways to count God has just filled my cup to over flowing. One of those ways that just hits me every single week is at my church home. It’s not the sermons, although those are outstanding. It’s not the worship, although it is powerful and moving. It’s not any of the things that happen during the normal adult worship experience. It’s when I get a chance to go help teach kids in our Kidzone Large Group at Mission.

It really is an amazing experience. For an hour each week I get to come together with my truly amazing wife, Brandi, our good friend and fellow goofball, Kevin, one of the teens who doesn’t say much but keeps the whole thing rolling in the tech booth, Matt, and somehow God takes all of our talents or lack thereof and makes something really great. I hope that it makes half of the impact on the kids that it makes on me.

Seeing my wife up there praising God and getting fifty kids at a time to join her in singing and worshipping and celebrating God is just so awesome. Then to see her turn around and sit down with kids. She has this heart of gold that the kids just pick up on and… I can’t describe it, I can get the kids to give me five, but she gets them to pour out their hearts for five minutes. She hears about the hurts and fears and then prays with them and ministers to them – it is truly awesome to witness.

Then Kevin, my goofy twin separated at birth, gets up there and gets the kids totally involved with his jokes and stories and completely gets their attention, and then after it’s over he completely flips the switch and so many times will sit down and give a personal testimony to the kids and the adults, of how he has seen God work in his life. It’s powerful stuff. I know he connects with the kids, but that guy also blows me away on a regular basis.

Somewhere in there I get to get up and tell a story. Usually one that I heard a hundred times growing up, or one that I’ve read fifty times, and even some that nearly bring me to tears because they so clearly convey the love and mercy of Jesus. I have a script, but I never follow it exactly. The points all seem to come out at one time or another, but I just feel like God is taking the small gift he has given me and used it to plant some seeds, water some seedlings, and reinforce the footholds that God is making in kids’ lives. It’s moving to me. I think I get more out of it than the kids do. I love it.

10:30 on Sunday morning has become one of the highlights of my whole week. Definitely one of, if not the most, uplifting hour of my whole week.

If you don’t have a church home, you need to get one. More importantly, if you don’t know Jesus, you need to seek him out. I’d love to introduce him to you. I might have to tell you a couple of really cool stories to do it, but hey that was Jesus’ method too.  I’m KeithJonesBlog on FB.

If you have a church home, but you aren’t serving, or you aren’t serving in an area where you really feel you are using the talents that God has given you; then please find your spot. There is room for everyone to serve in God’s kingdom, and the experience and fulfillment that God can bring through that can really shed some important light on life.

An interesting development indeed…

It is true that you really can’t believe everything that you read. Some sources are saying that a public plan is ‘off the table’. While other Democratic leaders (Speaker Pelosi) are saying that the public option is alive and NEEDS to move forward. This has become the essence of a rock and a hard place.

If the Democrats abandon the public option, then their base will be livid, feeling like they’ve missed a huge opportunity considering they have a liberal president and overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. If they move forward with the public option they anger a majority of their constituents and resign themselves to a possible landslide defeat at the polls in 2010.

What to do?

This all just adds to the fact that we have no idea what will be in the final healthcare bill, which means when it finally does come out I am anticipating a 1500+ page behemoth of a bill that will be shoved through congress as quickly as possible. If that is the route they attempt then it will be essential to bombard the capital switch board with angry calls to slow down. There have been some encouraging developments, but we don’t know what we are actually going to get until we see the legislation. It is essential that we see it for an appropriate period of time.

This whole exercise has been a testament to the power of the people’s voice. But don’t go quiet now. We don’t have a bill and we have very vague answers on what is going to be in the bill. Stay on top of it.

Jail for Prayer?

Six months in jail for saying a prayer. Is this Iran... no, wait it's Florida.

Read it here.

Kind of funny that when people read the first amendment,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

they see the part about "respecting an establishment of religion" but they miss the part about "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Sarcasm and straight talk

(warning! sarcasm ahead)

What are our expectations on healthcare reform? The President tells us that his bill will give us the best care in the world, cover everyone, help us get the deficit and spending under control, get rid of waste, bring lower premiums, more coverage, outlaw denial for pre-existing condition, and eliminate huge premiums and out of pocket expenses.

Wow! Where do I sign!

He also promises that it won’t lead to government rationing, long lines, long wait times, denied care, euthanasia, or tax payer funded abortion.

Wow! Perfect! I love it. It sound almost too good to be true!

Wait a minute… didn’t my parents tell me something about things that sound too good to be true… hmmm… oh yeah - they usually are. But come on, this is a smooth talking politician that is telling me this. It’s GOT TO BE TRUE! That’s why the bill is so BIG, it has to encompass all of this GREAT stuff. Of course it needs to be passed quickly, we want that great care and reduced cost to start as soon as possible. This is going to SAVE OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM!!

Kind of like the stimulus saved our economy and kept us out of 8% unemployment. Wait, what is unemployment again?

But come on this isn’t like that boondoggle of a stimulus plan. I mean that bill was RUSHED through before anyone read it. It was over a thousand pages. That’s totally different than this one… oh wait.

(sarcasm stops here)

Here is what we know so far about the ‘proposed healthcare reform’.

- The bill isn’t finished. What is available now in the form of HR3200 has already changed and we don’t know what all of those changes are. Even in its current form it is over a thousand pages long and not exactly easy reading.
- We’ve had a bunch of promises and assurances made by the President and members of congress that are obviously not reflected in the current bill as written.
- We’ve heard some very scary stuff that can be seen as a logical progression or interpretation of what is in the current bill.
- Both the bill and the promises made by the administration would grow the government, cost huge amounts of money that we don’t have, and push us further and further into red ink, rather than balance the budget.
- Some changes to healthcare systems are irreversible. Look at the UK, they have a population of approximately 61 million people. Their NHS employs over 1.4 million people and they are constantly complaining that it isn’t enough. They have almost as many ‘administrators’ as they have healthcare providers. How many will the US, a country of 330 million, need? Exactly. Once you go public it’s hard, if not impossible to change course.

If you haven’t attended a town hall event, or called your congressmen, or written them an email or letter, then you need to. Tell them to stop the current reform and if nothing else, DO NO HARM to the current system. Propose changes, but make them clear and reasonable changes that get the government out of healthcare, reduce costs, and expand insurance options. Don’t shove some mammoth, government run overhaul down our throats and don’t lie to us. We’re tired of it.

Are you afraid?

Do you fear your government yet?

I know, fear tactics from a right-wing, reactionary conservative, but I submit a couple of videos for your consideration.

Here is the first. It’s an interview with the deputy White House press secretary who fails repeatedly to answer the question. Fortunately Fox seems to have a few more legitimate journalists on staff and she makes him squirm… a lot. But as you watch this think for a minute. If the purpose of all of this “fishy email” stuff was to get “misinformation” on the healthcare system and “correct the mistakes” then they could have had a dozen or so White House staffers cover twenty or thirty of the top right-wing blogs and then put together a webpage that gives the “myths” and then their side of the story. Then there would not have been any issue with retaining emails or giving the “big brother” appearance. For all of their faults, these are smart people, I’m sure that came up. So why have people send in emails?

You know I went to a class on running for political office a while back and one of the things that they really emphasized was building databases of voters. Both those that will vote for you and those that will vote against. It can be useful information. If a junior staffer hasn’t been told to list and catalog the email addresses they have received I would be SHOCKED.

But watch.



Hmmm….

This next one I really have no explanation for. I’m not a huge GB fan, although I agree with most of the stuff that he says. This, quite frankly, is just strange and at the very least, extremely disturbing. Please do not try this at home. Just think of all of the things that you have on your home computer from TurboTax records to personal emails… even fishy ones.

The 'Thinking Liberal' Chimes In

Paglia, the ‘thinking liberal’ that I have talked about before has, well, a scathing piece for President Obama, the Democratic congress and especially Speaker Pelosi. She starts off saying that she does not have buyer’s remorse over Obama, but she is obviously not happy with what is going on. She was also in favor of the Hillary-care back in the nineties, but isn’t happy about the current scheme. I really couldn’t have said much of this better myself, so grab your dictionary, here is a quote:

But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have
nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily
cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama's aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.

You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you're happy with it,
Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling
on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes
belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face
it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by
profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.

I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks?
And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues
to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic;
many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy
required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be
Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama
thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape
and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering
economy.

As with the massive boondoggle of the stimulus package, which Obama foolishly let Congress turn into a pork rut, too much has been attempted all at once; focused, targeted initiatives would, instead, have won wide public support. How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan -- it's the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.

She also was not real pleased with the ‘fishy email’ business.

But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.

Ouch.

So what SHOULD we be asking our Reps for?

I have asked repeatedly for anyone reading this blog to call their representatives and tell them that we DON’T want this massive government overhaul of the healthcare system, but I have been very limited in chiming in on what we SHOULD be requesting. Our healthcare system works for a majority of the people right now. But it isn’t perfect and it probably never will be. Any system encompassing one sixth of the US economy and affecting the lives of every single citizen is going to have some flaws here and there and some things to complain about. There are some very easy, straight forward, and extremely effective things that we can do to improve the system and drive down the cost for EVERYBODY.

The first thing is competition. Competition is our friend and a huge, untapped gold mine in driving down healthcare costs. Right now federal and state laws limit competition in the insurance market. They do this in a number of ways, primarily by limiting the players in the game. Break open the gates and allow every market in the country to be open to any insurance company willing to compete in it. When you have more companies competing for business you have lower costs and you get improved service because companies try and set themselves apart from their competitors. With a more competitive market companies are forced to control their costs more and they become more efficient as a matter of necessity. It’s a beautiful thing.

The next step is to kill mandates. Mandates are required coverage on any insurance plan. They sound really good; like requiring insurance companies to cover mammograms for all of their clients. The problem is that half of their clients will never need a mammogram. Why should plans that only cover men have mammogram coverage? Leave certain things as an option that people can add to their plans for certain members.

Another one is cost limits, which are also included in HR3200. This means that insurance for someone that is going to use it extensively can only cost ‘x’ (usually x = 2) times as much as someone who will need very little coverage. For instance you have a college that is near a retirement community. There are laws in some areas that say that the cost for the college student, who may never even use his insurance, has to cost no less than half the price of the insurance for the person in the retirement community who may use their insurance every week. This may drive down the price of insurance in the retirement community (to a very small degree), but it sends the cost of insurance for college students through the roof.

Change the tax laws to disconnect health insurance from the employer. This is a HUGE one, because it allows people to be directly responsible for their healthcare choices and allows them to choose the plan that is best going to suit their family. This is also huge in opening up the market and encouraging companies to offer more reasonable packages for different situations.

Start early. Young people should be able to start early with healthcare savings accounts, which are like ultra low risk investment accounts; small yield, no principle risk, completely portable, and need to be federally insured. The money going in should be tax free and employers should get a tax break for contributing to it. Hand in hand with this is catastrophic coverage, which only covers that scenario. You go to the doctor, you pay directly from your HSA. Most doctors will give a discounted rate for people who pay immediately and directly without having to file insurance claims - lower cost. Plus, because you are managing it yourself you are only going to go to the doctor for things that are significant. You think you have strep, you go to the doctor and pay for it out of your HSA. You fall and brake your arm - it comes out of your HSA. You are diagnosed with lymphoma - your catastrophic coverage kicks in. For younger, healthy people, this is really the best type of care; lowest cost, you get to use whatever doctor you want, you are covered for the unexpected, and you have control over your healthcare.

True mutual plans. Mutual plans are basically insurance companies owned by the members of the plan. These are NOT the government subsidized, government regulated plans that some congress members are talking about. They are truly independent bodies of people that all get together and share healthcare costs like any type of traditional co-op.

Pooling plans. This could be a great option for small businesses who can pool with other small businesses to get the best deal on insurance plans for their employees. The more people covered, the best deal possible. It gives small businesses the same leverage that big businesses have.

For me these are the best options going. Some of these things are available in some markets and some are not. They need to be available EVERYWHERE. When we open up competition, extend the number of options for patients, and get government regulations and bureaucracies OUT of the way, costs go down and coverage improves.

The next thing to tackle after these changes is tort reform. None of the bills proposed so far even touch this issue because too many congressman receive too much backing from ambulance chasing trial lawyers (sorry, I was doing so good at not ranting in this post too..). Quite frankly both parties, but primarily the Democratic party receives HUGE donations from tort lawyers NOT to fix the system. This has to be addressed to deal with costs.

Medicare and Medicaid HAVE to be reformed. I’ve mentioned it before but I’ll say it again, because they limit fees to the doctors, that are BELOW costs in some cases, they drive up the costs for the rest of us. These are CRUSHING plans. The good thing is that if we make the changes I’ve already suggested then the overall cost of insurance coverage will go down and you will have fewer people on either Medicare or Medicaid. Just imagine a couple who have not had to deal with significant health problems in their family, but they and their employers have been contributing to an HSA for thirty or forty years- that’s huge. If they pass away without using up the funds, let them pass that on to their children tax free.

These are the things that we need to be pushing for. They don’t all have to go into one MASSIVE, unreadable bill. They can be individual and they can be over months or even a couple of years. Don’t crush the system and reform it, just make improvements that are REALLY going to make a difference in the positive direction for EVERYBODY.

Capitation

Capitation.

I know it sounds like a horrible term, and it is, but not in the way it sounds. Capitation is mentioned numerous times in HR3200, the current and only published bill on healthcare reform. It is mentioned on page 125, 333, 451, 452, and 778 as one scenario that they will be exploring to drive down costs.

Capitation is where each doctor has a certain number of patients, given out in a number of ways, either by geographic area, patient preference, whatever. The doctor is paid based on how many patients he has. Not how many he sees, but how many he has.

See any problem with that?

Sound familiar to anyone?

This is a very similar program to the way that HMOs use to operate. Doctors are not rewarded by how many patients they actually help, in fact the fewer they help the more attention they can give them and quite frankly the less stressful it is. The rest of the patients are simply told to wait. Doctors are encouraged to handle the patient issues as much as possible on their own; if they refer a patient out to a specialist then the normal payment that they receive is actually reduced; repeating a lot of the issues that made HMOs so infamous.

Some refer to this as the “Walmart” method of healthcare. Not only do the doctors not have any incentive to actually see patients but the more patients that they see the more money it will cost them and hence LESS money that they receive. That means there is actually an INCENTIVE for them to see fewer patients, perform fewer tests, less lab work, and refer patients to specialists less often.

That doesn’t mean that doctors are suddenly going to turn into these money hungry people that deny patients healthcare, but they would basically be punished for doing a better job and rewarded for being lazy. That’s a recipe for horrible healthcare.

IT'S NOT ABOUT RACISM!!!!!!

I am so tired... let me say that again, SO TIRED, of being labeled racist because I don't agree with someone's policies or agenda.

It has nothing to do with race!

It has everything to do with economics, liberty, small government principles, concern for family and future generations, and what's that other thing... oh yeah COMMON SENSE!!

The race card has been played and over-played. No body's buying it any more. Give it up and move on to a real debate about ISSUES, IDEAS, and POLICY.

People Are Mad

Well, despite the push by the White House to tamp down on the “disinformation” that comes from people actually reading the current healthcare legislation, the word is getting out and getting out big. At townhall events around the country (which you can find a list of here) representatives are hearing from their constituents, both for and against these sweeping reforms.

And people are mad.

I don’t advocate violence at any of these meetings. I really don’t think that this is the most effective of way of being heard. Debate passionately, but act gently. I can’t say that the President has helped in this regard considering that he has been advocating for the ‘in your face’ approach since before the election.


Quite frankly, I understand why people are passionate about this and I understand why people are so mad. I’m mad. Not just at the legislation but at the treatment of voters who are opposed to the legislation. I thought under President Bush dissent was patriotic. Why has it suddenly become racist? People are mad at healthcare reform and the President is pushing it – and hard. Why wouldn’t he and his staff EXPECT that people would be mad at him for doing this?

Unless there is going to be new legislation suddenly sprung on us after the July recess that is DRASTICALLY different than the 1000+ page HR3200 that is already out there, then the President is being very deceptive in what he is telling the people. That upsets me.

Where do all of the new, breakthrough drugs in the world come from?

Where do all of the new procedures, technologies, and therapies in the world come from?

So… where will they come from when the incentive is gone and the government is driving the bus?

Find your reps. Find their townhalls. Call their offices. Make your voices heard.


*****Update: Great column by Peggy Noonan today along these same lines.

Welcome to the AARP 'Listening' Session

Nancy Pelosi says that all of these concerned people at town hall meetings are paid stooges from insurance companies. Actually her exact words were that they are "astroturf". Nice, eh?

Big Brother Wants to Know...

The White House recently asked that if you see a “fishy” email about healthcare that you should forward this email to them at a specified email address(flag@whitehouse.gov). Hmmm… you know the more I think about that one, the more it REALLY bothers me, and I’m not the only one. It makes me ask myself several questions.

What are they going to do with the email addresses? Really. I mean, are they going to make up some form letter to try and dissuade the person from forwarding more “fishy” emails? Are they going to answer the issues brought up in the “fishy” email? If they take ANY action on this how can that not be viewed as some type of intimidation tactic? Not that you expect Rahm and Robert to show up at your front door and brake your thumbs or anything, but… getting an email from the White House saying that you don’t seem to understand what they are trying to do… that’s kind of a big deal. It’s very much, hey we’re watching what you are doing and we know that you don’t understand this, so we are going to… set you straight here. Can you imagine if you had gotten an email from George W. Bush’s White House for sending out ‘truther’ emails about the 9-11 attacks? Or dissenting emails about the Iraq war? Can you imagine how fast the ACLU would be suing the White House for that? Of course, crazy, small government conservatives like myself would take such an email and plaster it all over blogs, facebook, forward it to news sources, and basically blow the whistle long and loud, which in the end would be bad PR for the White House. So… I really don’t think they will be sending out emails on this.

Are they going to research the email addresses and see where it originated? Are they looking for information that this all comes from the insurance industry and they are trying to tie it back to a common source? Even if they could do that, which, they just can’t because all of this doesn’t come from one source, it comes from educated people reading bills that Congressman can’t seem to find time to read, what would it prove? If a company comes out, really any company for that matter, and says “hey, the government is trying to put me out of business” I’m going to look into it and if I think they have a valid point I’m going to talk about it, blog about it, email about it, and maybe even talk to my representatives about it because that is over stepping the bounds of the government. That’s a good thing to get upset about. The government doesn’t need to be putting any businesses out of business. We need more jobs, not less. Insurance companies making profits is a good thing. When industries are profitable it attracts other people to the market, which means more competition and lower prices. Not to mention that they grow and employ more people. What’s not good about that?


Quite frankly, I really don’t know what the government hopes to do with this. I can’t think of any scenarios where this really turns out good for them. If anything it will only spur on the conspiracy theorists and has already gotten them a letter from at least one member of congress. Talk radio is going to get even more crazy about this… and I think some weird people might even be blogging about it.

Of course, if any of you think this is “fishy”, or if any of my other dozen or so blog posts on this messed up, government nationalization of healthcare are “fishy” then you should probably do your civic duty and turn me in by sending a link to my blog to flag@whitehouse.gov. No, really… the curiosity about what they are going to do with this information is just killing me! I want to know! I’ve got to know! I may turn MYSELF in!

Of course, maybe that is what they are trying to do… take any attention possible away from healthcare legislation with a distraction… hmmm….

*****Update: Greate video from NC about how the administration has been handling dissent about healthcare.

A little mid-week humor

The White House Attacks Drudge over the President's Statements

The White House is fighting back against the DrudgeReport because Matt Drudge and some bloggers had the NERVE to pull up video of the President describing his plan before he was elected. Watch and listen



Here is the video she was referencing. It is a combination of videos where the President very clearly describes wanting a single payer system and the process that will help him get it. Eliminating private health insurance. Your insurance.



Now the White House video shows the President making the same promise that he has made over and over and over during this healthcare “campaign” that he is on.

If you look at the bill, you can see why some, including myself, claim that the president is not telling the whole truth, and that the goal is in fact that the bill would cause more and more people to go towards the public option and away from their private insurance.

The President says that if you like your insurance and you like your doctor then you will get to keep them. Unfortunately he leaves out the rest of the information contained in HR3200, which says that you can keep them if you want to. Of course after five years (at the MOST) YOUR insurance plan is required to change to be just like the public option, only more expensive of course because your insurance company has taxes that don’t apply to the government, they have to show a profit (unlike the government), and they can’t fix prices paid to doctors like the government can, in fact they end up eating the loss that doctors endure from accepting the public plan. If the president was honest he would say that “you can keep your insurance… for up to five years.”

Like the bill says…

The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

Sorry, that’s not twisting the president’s words. That’s reading the bill. After all, the President’s speeches don’t become law, bills do.

Which reminds me… have you called your representatives about this? I’m just telling mine very simply that this plan is no good. We don’t need more government in healthcare, we need less. If you vote for this reform, or for ANY MAJOR overhaul of the healthcare system, I will not be voting for you. Let’s make small improvements and see if they work.

A short break from healthcare

I needed some light reading to detract from the insanity of this healthcare debackle, so...

I am currently reading Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman. It’s an older book, but from a historical perspective, that’s fine. Friedman is an interesting character. An American Jew, he became fascinated with the holy land during his teenage years and studied Jewish and Arab culture during high school and college. He became a reporter and went to Beirut to live during the late seventies and stayed there for five years before being reassigned to Jerusalem. Imagine a Jewish reporter, living in the middle of a civil war between the Druse, Shiites, Sunnis, Christians, Maronites, Palestinians, and half a dozen other sects or ethnic backgrounds, who are at times battling each other and at times battling the Israeli army. Throw in international peacekeeping forces from the US, France and a hand full of others and you can see the dangerous world of chaos that Thomas Friedman found himself in.

Although he is Jewish, he lived extensively in Muslim dominated areas (of course not really advertising that he was Jewish), and gained some interesting perspective on the conflict inside Lebanon and throughout the Middle East as a whole. While he has some fascination with the Zionist movement that resettled Jews in their ancient homeland, he is critical at times of Israeli action and takes a fairly even handed approach. If nothing else the stories are fascinating although obviously on the macabre side considering he is constantly surrounded by car bombs, shootings, kidnappings, random checkpoints from forty different militias, ethnic cleansing, and people generally overwhelmed with the situation that they are in.

One story he relates is a dinner party where machine gun fire opens up in the street right outside the home, which obviously is not in the plans of the hostess. As she feels her guests becoming more and more uncomfortable she finally asks, “should we eat now or wait for the cease fire?”

I still have about half of the book to read, but Friedman’s observations are extremely insightful and give you a very interesting picture of what military forces are up against when you go into a country occupied by several contingents of rival ethnic and religious groups. This is the first book of his that I have read, but have had others recommend his writings numerous times. If you want to get at least a decent understanding of the Middle East mindset I highly recommend it. Unlike many books on the subject it is an easy read.

This is what we have to look forward to?

Imagine this letter came to you? Or your mom? Maybe your spouse?

This is government run medicine.

Is this the "right to healthcare" that everyone is touting.

Now imagine this across the country in a single payer system, where you have no alternatives... welcome to Obamacare.

20/20 Health Care Story

Stossel is right on the money. Must see.

Environmentalists Created a Drought That is Going to Cost All of Us

As if the economic downturn wasn’t enough, environmentalists have created a dust bowl. The San Joaquin Valley in California is the largest agricultural area in the world, it provides half of the vegetables for the entire country, and it’s gone bone dry in order to improve the chances of saving the delta smelt.

The delta smelt is a fish and was listed as ‘threatened’ on the endangered species list. As a result an environmental lobby went to court and asked the court to shut down the turbines that pump water into the irrigation system for the San Joaquin Valley. Not 'reduce' or 'cut back', but turn off.

And that’s what the court ordered.

Now there is a 41% unemployment rate in the valley. An estimated 80,000 workers have lost their jobs. Every business in the area is suffering. Farms and houses are being foreclosed on. The ground is dry and the crops are dead.

Don’t just think it’s bad for the farmers. It’s going to affect food prices across the country. Vegetable prices are going to go up.

All for the sake of a smelt that MAY be getting injured or killed in the pumps.

The Pacific Legal Fund is fighting this and putting pressure on Washington to convene a committee to look into the issue and turn the pumps back on. Their website is here. You can sign their petition here.

Public Health Insurance Option Will Lead to a Single Payer System

I made the case, again, early this week that the public option being pursued would eventually lead to nationalized healthcare in the form of a single payer system.

Some creative bloggers, who are actually in favor of a single payer system talked to Rep Barney Frank about the public option and a single payer system, asking him why he didn't just want to go with a single payer system now. He explains that they don't have the votes to get that passed, but that they have the public option and he believes that will lead to a single payer system. Past history tells us that you certainly cannot trust Rep Frank a good portion of the time, but in this case I think it's safe to believe him.

Is Obama the Antichrist?

Okay, I do not make a habit of interpreting end time prophecies. The thing about prophecies is that they are usually very obvious right AFTER they are fulfilled. So someday when I am in heaven I’ll go… “oh, yah, I totally see that now!” And I have read the book of Revelation many, many, many times and I have yet to find the word “antichrist” in it. I’m not completely familiar with the whole pre-millennial, post-millennial, yada, yada, yada… quite frankly it really doesn’t matter too much to me how God shakes everything out in the end. I have my faith and trust in Him, I’m living for Him every day, and I’m doing my best to fulfill the purpose that He has given me. So any way it goes down… I’m okay. I know I’ll win because I’m with God.

That being said I have heard from several of you out there that Obama is the antichrist. The Bible speaks of anyone being against-Christ as the antichrist (kind of obvious from the name) and there have been many people in history that fit this bill quite nicely. Is President Obama one of them? Well, personally he doesn’t really seem to fit the bill. I think his actions seem anti-United States sometimes, but anti-US does not make him antichrist. He’s definitely anti-logic, anti-common sense, anti-free market, anti-truth, and anti-fiscal responsibility, but the man says he believes in Christ and has his faith in him and I am not about to jump into the spiritual judgment seat. I’m not going to sit in judgment on the man’s soul; his presidency on the other hand is entirely fair game…

In any case, there seems to be a strong desire out there to condemn the President as the antichrist (whether that means the beast or the prophet of the beast in Revelation, I don’t know), but this video shows what I consider to be an interesting play on words. Whether it is anything more than that is really not my call.

Nationalized Healthcare Part 2

I know, yesterday I went on about the trials and mess associated with nationalized healthcare and that isn’t what is being proposed in these bills. Yes, I understand that, but that is where these bills are leading us. Granted they wouldn’t take us there next week. It may even take years, a myriad of lawsuits, and a lot of jobs lost and businesses destroyed, but it would take us there.

What these bills are doing is requiring certain levels of coverage and mandating that employers provide coverage. (Let’s ignore the fact that this would cripple small business and completely drive some of them out of business. I know, I was talking to a small business owner this weekend who is already struggling and views this change as the gallows.) This minimum coverage level is a political tool. Lobbyists are already raking in the dollars pushing the right people to include their industry in the minimum coverage. Of course existing plans would not have to up their coverage for five years, unless of course they make a change in coverage, premium, or pretty much a letter in their plethora of paperwork. If they changed anything, they have to switch to the minimum coverage. Naturally this increased coverage (not increased benefit necessarily) of course costs more. So now private insurance companies have to adjust their rates for this adjusted level of care and they won’t be going down.

At the same time you have the “public option”, which is where the government comes into the game. Number one they aren’t a ‘for profit’ entity, so they aren’t trying to maintain the margins that the private insurance companies do. They also aren’t subject to the same tax laws as the private companies, and as we’ve already discussed, they have a huge percentage of the market and dictate what they will pay. The resulting decrease in government rates from the “public plan” now increases the rates on the private insurance companies, as I mentioned in part 1.

Now companies are in a struggling economy looking at their medical insurance costs shoot through the roof. So, they lay off some employees and take a look at their alternatives. They are spending a significant amount per employee to have insurance coverage and it is increasing all of the time as the Secretary of Health and Human Services decides on new additions to the minimum coverage. The law says that you have to provide coverage or pay a fine, but the fine is less than what the coverage is costing per employee. It doesn’t take a very creative bookkeeper to discontinue coverage and dump every employee into the “public option” to opt for a government fine that is lower and more stable than providing coverage at the minimum level.

So after all of the private insurance companies have been driven out of business, you will have socialized medicine on a single payer system. That’s when the fun we’ve already discussed in part 1 kicks in. It’s not an immediate take over, but it is a take over and a big one considering healthcare makes up approximately 17% of the US economy.

There are other issues that need to be considered as well and I need to actually dig through the nuts and bolts of this bill. There HAS to be some very creative wording in here regarding law suits and I’m very intrigued as to what it says. When it comes to providing health insurance there is always the risk of law suits, some legit, some not. However will the government ALLOW themselves to be sued if they wrongfully refuse coverage or will they be able to claim sovereign immunity? Hmm… I’m very intrigued. Since it is the government writing the bill you would think that they would specifically express that sovereign immunity applies, but since it is being written by liberals who have been on the receiving end of millions in campaign contributions from trial lawyers, they might specifically deny it, just to throw their loyal contributors a bone.

Either way… it’s not good for any of us.

… and on a side note, it will never apply to those who are voting for it. Their fluffy government insurance stays put for life.