Well, it's here - the combined House of Representatives health care bill. It's only 1,990 pages and contains the word 'shall' only 3,425 times.
Oh - and it has a separate 13-page bill to repeal the sustainable growth rate caps on Medicare spending ... and it doesn't say how it's going to be paid for ... and it's projected to cost more than $200 billion even though it's called the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
And ... in the age of proclaimed transparency, they checked IDs and prevented some people from attending the press announcement on the bill.
Read it and weep, America!
Showing posts with label health reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health reform. Show all posts
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
The end of personal responsibility in America - from dependence to bondage
If I 'need' a new furnace, should I be able to go out and get one and then tell the seller that I really can't afford it so he should just give it to me - or not make me go into debt to pay for it?
If I 'need' a car, should I get a new one with state-of-the-art accessories and then tell the dealer that, because I have a low-paying job, I'm entitled to have it for what I can pay, despite the price, and not go into debt for it?
If I fail to convince the suppliers of these products that they should grant them to me based upon my need and not my ability to pay, should I turn to government to force, through law, my 'right' to a new furnace and/or the new car?
Of course not.
But so many people think that other 'services' should be treated this way, especially when it comes to the service of health care. A letter-writer in today's paper has a tragic sob story based upon her experience as a 'medical insurance biller.'
The author somehow believes that because you might 'need' a particular service, it should be provided at no cost - or at whatever cost you can pay - rather than at the cost of producing the product. She also seems to believe that individuals who provide a service should not expect payment for those services simply because the costs are too high for some to afford.
What she doesn't account for is the personal responsibility of the individual receiving such services. She doesn't address the fact that said person may not have pursued a higher paying job by getting more training or education. She doesn't address the fact that said person might have chosen to have children and pay those costs rather than save money for future expenses. She doesn't address whether or not said person has family who can (and probably should) help in such circumstances. She also doesn't address why a person should not be obligated, over time, to pay for services rendered, as if there is something bad about owing a debt to a person who has helped extend your life through the application of their knowledge.
No - she assumes that one individual's 'need' requires another individual's sacrifice - rather than assume a mutually beneficial exchange between the two. Her letter indicates she thinks that because a person cannot afford a product, they 'need,' government to step in and mandate it be provided. Which means she thinks you and I should pay for someone else to have something based upon her concept of what is right. (And she apparently misses the contradiction of why the receiver of services shouldn't have to pay but you and I should, despite our lack of involvement in the transaction.)
And why shouldn't she? Look at what people have come to expect of government - rather than of themselves: food, housing, child care, higher education, bus tokens, cars for transportation, refrigerators, help in finding a job, supplements, pensions (Social Security), and medical care...as well as a host of other things that enshrine in law personal preferences, like preventing your neighbors from planting trees because you don't like the location they pick.
What we are seeing is the end of personal responsibility in America - and with that comes the end of liberty.
We've become a nation where all things are 'rights' and must be granted by government, despite the fact that your 'right' to something necessarily infringes upon my 'right' to keep my own money and not to pay for you to have something - especially when I'm also paying for my 'right' to have the same thing and at the same time.
Everything these days seems to revolve around 'rights talk.' As George Will recently wrote:
But this talk of 'rights' is even more insidious.
When everyone has a 'right' to the product of other's labor (and health services are a prime example), there is no private ownership of that labor. It is, at that point, government ownership of that labor - and the means of production, where government dictates what you must provide to others and at what costs and under what conditions. Even if you can choose which doctor to go to, that doctor must follow the government's laws of the exchange of his services for your payment, regardless of what the two of may agree to otherwise. Government's determination of your 'rights' to this type of service means that the doctor's liberty - and yours - no longer exist in the transaction.
That is certainly contrary to what our founders fought for and, in fact, exactly what they fought against in the struggle to form these United States. They firmly rejected the idea of 'rights' granted by governments or kings and embraced the idea that 'rights' are inherent, granted by God. As a result, governments are supposed to guarantee the protection of each person's rights - not create new ones in order to put government in control of their management.
And yet, we find many of our countrymen embracing such concepts and ideas when it comes to what they're 'entitled' to. When government provides, rather than protects, what we've always believed were 'rights granted by our Creator,' we have lost our liberty. And without our liberty, we are reduced to tyranny, with an ever-growing government constantly expanding its ability to determine what is and is not a 'right' and then graciously giving it to us - and, inevitably, taking credit for it during a re-election campaign.
Thankfully, there is also a letter writer (third letter down in the link above) who understands that health care is a benefit - not a right - and urges people to work to attain such benefits. Sadly, though, that opinion is not shared by enough people. It's too easy to allow government to provide, rather than work hard in order to provide for yourself.
And now that we find a majority of Americans receiving rather than contributing to the costs, we are truly at the stage we were warned of:
We are, I believe, already fully entrenched in dependence.
So what about bondage and tyranny?
Think about the fact that more of the average American's work effort goes to supporting governments (federal, state, local ... and all the related quasi-governmental agencies or property tax levies) than it does to supporting themselves and their families. I once heard a phrase: there is no greater form of tyranny than when government seizes your funds to pay for items that you would never pay for yourself.
Consider these quotes:
Considering this, can bondage be right around the corner? Or are we already at that stage?
When that bondage arrives, it will not come with pronouncements and chains ... it will come wrapped in the guise of 'safety,' and 'greater good' and 'compassion' or 'saving the planet' or 'for the children' or any number of catch phrases designed to mask what is really happening - that government has become the master and we its slaves.
If I 'need' a car, should I get a new one with state-of-the-art accessories and then tell the dealer that, because I have a low-paying job, I'm entitled to have it for what I can pay, despite the price, and not go into debt for it?
If I fail to convince the suppliers of these products that they should grant them to me based upon my need and not my ability to pay, should I turn to government to force, through law, my 'right' to a new furnace and/or the new car?
Of course not.
But so many people think that other 'services' should be treated this way, especially when it comes to the service of health care. A letter-writer in today's paper has a tragic sob story based upon her experience as a 'medical insurance biller.'
The author somehow believes that because you might 'need' a particular service, it should be provided at no cost - or at whatever cost you can pay - rather than at the cost of producing the product. She also seems to believe that individuals who provide a service should not expect payment for those services simply because the costs are too high for some to afford.
What she doesn't account for is the personal responsibility of the individual receiving such services. She doesn't address the fact that said person may not have pursued a higher paying job by getting more training or education. She doesn't address the fact that said person might have chosen to have children and pay those costs rather than save money for future expenses. She doesn't address whether or not said person has family who can (and probably should) help in such circumstances. She also doesn't address why a person should not be obligated, over time, to pay for services rendered, as if there is something bad about owing a debt to a person who has helped extend your life through the application of their knowledge.
No - she assumes that one individual's 'need' requires another individual's sacrifice - rather than assume a mutually beneficial exchange between the two. Her letter indicates she thinks that because a person cannot afford a product, they 'need,' government to step in and mandate it be provided. Which means she thinks you and I should pay for someone else to have something based upon her concept of what is right. (And she apparently misses the contradiction of why the receiver of services shouldn't have to pay but you and I should, despite our lack of involvement in the transaction.)
And why shouldn't she? Look at what people have come to expect of government - rather than of themselves: food, housing, child care, higher education, bus tokens, cars for transportation, refrigerators, help in finding a job, supplements, pensions (Social Security), and medical care...as well as a host of other things that enshrine in law personal preferences, like preventing your neighbors from planting trees because you don't like the location they pick.
What we are seeing is the end of personal responsibility in America - and with that comes the end of liberty.
We've become a nation where all things are 'rights' and must be granted by government, despite the fact that your 'right' to something necessarily infringes upon my 'right' to keep my own money and not to pay for you to have something - especially when I'm also paying for my 'right' to have the same thing and at the same time.
Everything these days seems to revolve around 'rights talk.' As George Will recently wrote:
If our vocabulary is composed exclusively of references to rights, aka entitlements, we are condemned to endless jostling among elbow-throwing individuals irritably determined to protect, or enlarge, the boundaries of their rights. Among such people, all political discourse tends to be distilled to what Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School calls "rights talk."
Witness the inability of people nowadays to recommend this or that health care policy as merely wise or just. Each proposal must be invested with the dignity of a right. And since not all proposals are compatible, you have not merely differences of opinion but apocalyptic clashes of rights.
Rights talk is inherently aggressive, even imperial; it tends toward moral inflation and militates against accommodation. Rights talkers, with their inner monologues of pre-emptive resentments, work themselves into a simmering state of annoyed vigilance against any limits on their willfulness. To rights talkers, life -- always and everywhere -- is unbearably congested with insufferable people impertinently rights talking, and behaving, the way you and I of course have a real right to.
But this talk of 'rights' is even more insidious.
When everyone has a 'right' to the product of other's labor (and health services are a prime example), there is no private ownership of that labor. It is, at that point, government ownership of that labor - and the means of production, where government dictates what you must provide to others and at what costs and under what conditions. Even if you can choose which doctor to go to, that doctor must follow the government's laws of the exchange of his services for your payment, regardless of what the two of may agree to otherwise. Government's determination of your 'rights' to this type of service means that the doctor's liberty - and yours - no longer exist in the transaction.
That is certainly contrary to what our founders fought for and, in fact, exactly what they fought against in the struggle to form these United States. They firmly rejected the idea of 'rights' granted by governments or kings and embraced the idea that 'rights' are inherent, granted by God. As a result, governments are supposed to guarantee the protection of each person's rights - not create new ones in order to put government in control of their management.
And yet, we find many of our countrymen embracing such concepts and ideas when it comes to what they're 'entitled' to. When government provides, rather than protects, what we've always believed were 'rights granted by our Creator,' we have lost our liberty. And without our liberty, we are reduced to tyranny, with an ever-growing government constantly expanding its ability to determine what is and is not a 'right' and then graciously giving it to us - and, inevitably, taking credit for it during a re-election campaign.
Thankfully, there is also a letter writer (third letter down in the link above) who understands that health care is a benefit - not a right - and urges people to work to attain such benefits. Sadly, though, that opinion is not shared by enough people. It's too easy to allow government to provide, rather than work hard in order to provide for yourself.
And now that we find a majority of Americans receiving rather than contributing to the costs, we are truly at the stage we were warned of:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.
We are, I believe, already fully entrenched in dependence.
So what about bondage and tyranny?
Think about the fact that more of the average American's work effort goes to supporting governments (federal, state, local ... and all the related quasi-governmental agencies or property tax levies) than it does to supporting themselves and their families. I once heard a phrase: there is no greater form of tyranny than when government seizes your funds to pay for items that you would never pay for yourself.
Consider these quotes:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~ C. S. Lewis
"Government initiatives tend to fail because they lack competitive pricing mechanisms that measure effectiveness and value. This trend is getting worse as more and more authority moves away from local control toward higher levels of central control. Governments based on politically expedient special interest (instead of moral principle) tend to use our money and their version of how people should live, to dictate "feel-good" solutions. The truth is government does not have insider knowledge on what individuals need and how they will respond. The U. S. government has become nothing more than a massive tyranny of good intentions. God gave us freedom to choose. Why does government attempt to do what even God did not?" ~ Wes Alexander
Considering this, can bondage be right around the corner? Or are we already at that stage?
When that bondage arrives, it will not come with pronouncements and chains ... it will come wrapped in the guise of 'safety,' and 'greater good' and 'compassion' or 'saving the planet' or 'for the children' or any number of catch phrases designed to mask what is really happening - that government has become the master and we its slaves.
Monday, October 05, 2009
And they said we wouldn't end up with 'death panels'
I thought this was an interesting article from the National Post, addressing Canadian health care decisions:
While this is not labeled a 'death panel,' it is the end result: a government bureaucracy making a decision about what treatments are 'worth' the cost, and deciding life and death issues.
Many people will make the argument that insurance companies do the same thing. But comparing the force of government to a voluntary contract with a private organization is not comparing apples to apples.
Since we pay for our own insurance (yes, despite the fact that we are both healthy and have no medical issues), I examined multiple plans, what they offered, the cost and the limitations and we decided to contract with a particular company. We know the limits of our policy and are making our own arrangements for the costs we are obligated to pay out-of-pocket. We know that, should there be any changes to the terms of our contract, we have a mandated notification time frame and if we do not like it, we can go elsewhere.
In our options, we had different levels of deductibles, different items covered, different restrictions as to hospitals and/or doctors, etc. Interestingly, though we did not want a plan that included well-baby care, that's a mandate in Ohio so despite the fact that we do not have children, we are forced to have that coverage - and we are paying for it, knowing that we'll never utilize it.
Our choices would have been more numerous if we'd been able to purchase 'across state lines,' but that's not something included in H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, though it should be.
If the Democrat plans for 'health reform' take effect, we'll be paying for everyone else's coverage for everything while having government mandate coverage for even more things that we don't need.
And with government paying for everything and everyone, eventually the bureaucrats will realize that there really isn't enough money to cover the costs and they'll start rationing service, services, drugs, treatments, etc... just like the article above indicates.
In the end, the problem with 'health care' in America isn't that people don't have it - they do. No one is ever 'denied' care - it's available. The problem is that not everyone has set aside the money necessary to cover the costs of their treatments, but they want them anyway - even if others have to pay for it.
Two things that would reduce costs - tort reform and competition across state lines - are not part of the plan, even though they'd do more to help Americans than anything in either Senate or House plan would.
SIDE NOTE: I'm just sick and tired of liberals saying that insurance companies are 'bad' and 'evil' because they, in effect, ration care. As I've noted above, there's a difference between a voluntary contract for services and the force of government. But if you listen to the arguments, liberals say that conservatives shouldn't object to a government plan that 'rations' because insurance companies already do. But if we need a government plan so people don't have to suffer the consequences of insurance companies 'doing terrible things to sick people,' how can you then support a the exact same 'terrible things' being done by the government plan you support? Because it's the 'government' it's somehow now okay????
Apparently, the irony/double standard/contradiction - call it what you will - is missed by those who believe government is the solution to every problem.
Choosing health
National Post
Published: Monday, October 05, 2009
Opponents of U.S. President Barack Obama's proposed health care reforms have just been handed a powerful talking point by Ontario's government.
Democrats cobbling together the U.S. plan want to include a "public option" -- a taxpayer-funded health-care alternative that would enable Americans to choose between private medical insurance plans or a government-backed system similar to Canada's. Opponents of the public option maintain that Canadian-style health care would entail rationing, caps on care, bureaucratic interference in medical decision-making and even "death panels" deciding when the ill become too expensive to save.
Most Canadians believe this is a gross exaggeration of reality. But then how to characterize Ontario's decision to cut off funding for colorectal cancer patients taking a life-prolonging drug, in order to save $9-million a year?
Andre Marin, the province's plain-speaking ombudsman, said the decision "verges on cruelty." Marin said the "arbitrary" limit on the number of cycles of the drug Avastin that Ontario will fund forces patients to pay out of their own pockets or abandon treatment.
Avastin does not cure cancer, but prolongs life when taken in conjunction with chemotherapy treatment, adding, on average, nine months of survival.
"For patients whose cancer has already metastasized, it stops their tumours from growing and prolongs their lives, at least for a while. It is, without exaggeration, their lifeline," Mr. Marin said.
Ontario Health Minister David Caplan rejected the suggestion that the cap on treatment was a financial decision alone, arguing it was based on clinical evidence. But it's easy to reach the conclusion that the province decided nine extra months of life for a dying patient wasn't worth the money. Which is pretty much the kind of decision a "death panel" would be confronted with.
While this is not labeled a 'death panel,' it is the end result: a government bureaucracy making a decision about what treatments are 'worth' the cost, and deciding life and death issues.
Many people will make the argument that insurance companies do the same thing. But comparing the force of government to a voluntary contract with a private organization is not comparing apples to apples.
Since we pay for our own insurance (yes, despite the fact that we are both healthy and have no medical issues), I examined multiple plans, what they offered, the cost and the limitations and we decided to contract with a particular company. We know the limits of our policy and are making our own arrangements for the costs we are obligated to pay out-of-pocket. We know that, should there be any changes to the terms of our contract, we have a mandated notification time frame and if we do not like it, we can go elsewhere.
In our options, we had different levels of deductibles, different items covered, different restrictions as to hospitals and/or doctors, etc. Interestingly, though we did not want a plan that included well-baby care, that's a mandate in Ohio so despite the fact that we do not have children, we are forced to have that coverage - and we are paying for it, knowing that we'll never utilize it.
Our choices would have been more numerous if we'd been able to purchase 'across state lines,' but that's not something included in H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, though it should be.
If the Democrat plans for 'health reform' take effect, we'll be paying for everyone else's coverage for everything while having government mandate coverage for even more things that we don't need.
And with government paying for everything and everyone, eventually the bureaucrats will realize that there really isn't enough money to cover the costs and they'll start rationing service, services, drugs, treatments, etc... just like the article above indicates.
In the end, the problem with 'health care' in America isn't that people don't have it - they do. No one is ever 'denied' care - it's available. The problem is that not everyone has set aside the money necessary to cover the costs of their treatments, but they want them anyway - even if others have to pay for it.
Two things that would reduce costs - tort reform and competition across state lines - are not part of the plan, even though they'd do more to help Americans than anything in either Senate or House plan would.
SIDE NOTE: I'm just sick and tired of liberals saying that insurance companies are 'bad' and 'evil' because they, in effect, ration care. As I've noted above, there's a difference between a voluntary contract for services and the force of government. But if you listen to the arguments, liberals say that conservatives shouldn't object to a government plan that 'rations' because insurance companies already do. But if we need a government plan so people don't have to suffer the consequences of insurance companies 'doing terrible things to sick people,' how can you then support a the exact same 'terrible things' being done by the government plan you support? Because it's the 'government' it's somehow now okay????
Apparently, the irony/double standard/contradiction - call it what you will - is missed by those who believe government is the solution to every problem.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Health Czar - Interrupted
Something to entertain you (HA!) on a Saturday morning:
After months of Americans happily sacrificing for the Health Administration Bureau, Health Czar O'Brien holds his first press conference, ready to answer the tough questions.
But when an uninvited reporter tries to stump him with a question touting free-market reform*, the bureau's audio/visual team thinks fast and debunks her question with, hands-down, The Best(TM) answer possible.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Nothing new in Obama speech to Congress
I don't know about you, but I heard absolutely nothing new in President Barack Obama's speech to Congress last night. As a reiteration of previous statements and speeches, I don't think it was deserving of a joint session or national television coverage.
He said what he's said before and didn't add to the discussion. It sounded more like a campaign speech designed to 'put to shame' those he considers his opponents, though I do not believe he succeeded.
If he'd presented something new or announced a major policy change, I would feel differently. But he didn't, and I don't.
I've read H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, and I know that many of the things he stated in his speech are not true.
While the bill does say that illegal immigrants are not to be covered, it does not include any way of identifying who is or is not a citizen. Because there is no way of verifying citizenship before providing coverage, it is likely that illegal immigrants can be covered under this bill.
Obama said that you can keep your coverage if you want. However ... the bill says that all plans must meet certain criteria established by the government in order to 'qualify' as 'benefit plans.' If your employer does not meet those criteria, you will be required to change to a plan that has the government mandates. That's not 'keeping your coverage' - that's the government deciding what coverage you MUST have and then penalizing you and/or the employer if you don't.
He said that this will not add to the deficit, though every entity that has examined the bill says that it will. Obama says that savings and efficiencies will cover the extra costs. If there are savings and efficiencies to be had - do them now! Prove to the American public that they do exist and show us exactly how much they will produce in dollars and cents. Then - and only then - could you go forward with 'utilizing' those savings to pay for an expansion of government. (Personally, I'd like any 'savings' returned to the taxpayers, but I realize that's not the thinking of our politicians.)
He said he's open to other ideas. Two ideas expressed loudly and often at the town hall meetings and by many in emails and phones calls are tort reform and interstate competition (allowing insurance companies to sell products across state lines). Here are two prominent ideas that a majority of Americans believe would help provide instant reform. They are not even considered as part of the bill, nor were they addressed by the president. How 'open' to ideas are you if you continue to ignore those two concepts that the majority of Americans support?
In the end, it was the same old-same old from the President and I don't believe it swayed the public one way or the other.
If you'd like another perspective on the speech, I recommend Erick Erickson's post at RedState.com
He said what he's said before and didn't add to the discussion. It sounded more like a campaign speech designed to 'put to shame' those he considers his opponents, though I do not believe he succeeded.
If he'd presented something new or announced a major policy change, I would feel differently. But he didn't, and I don't.
I've read H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, and I know that many of the things he stated in his speech are not true.
While the bill does say that illegal immigrants are not to be covered, it does not include any way of identifying who is or is not a citizen. Because there is no way of verifying citizenship before providing coverage, it is likely that illegal immigrants can be covered under this bill.
Obama said that you can keep your coverage if you want. However ... the bill says that all plans must meet certain criteria established by the government in order to 'qualify' as 'benefit plans.' If your employer does not meet those criteria, you will be required to change to a plan that has the government mandates. That's not 'keeping your coverage' - that's the government deciding what coverage you MUST have and then penalizing you and/or the employer if you don't.
He said that this will not add to the deficit, though every entity that has examined the bill says that it will. Obama says that savings and efficiencies will cover the extra costs. If there are savings and efficiencies to be had - do them now! Prove to the American public that they do exist and show us exactly how much they will produce in dollars and cents. Then - and only then - could you go forward with 'utilizing' those savings to pay for an expansion of government. (Personally, I'd like any 'savings' returned to the taxpayers, but I realize that's not the thinking of our politicians.)
He said he's open to other ideas. Two ideas expressed loudly and often at the town hall meetings and by many in emails and phones calls are tort reform and interstate competition (allowing insurance companies to sell products across state lines). Here are two prominent ideas that a majority of Americans believe would help provide instant reform. They are not even considered as part of the bill, nor were they addressed by the president. How 'open' to ideas are you if you continue to ignore those two concepts that the majority of Americans support?
In the end, it was the same old-same old from the President and I don't believe it swayed the public one way or the other.
If you'd like another perspective on the speech, I recommend Erick Erickson's post at RedState.com
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Excerpts from Obama address to Congress
This just in via email:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 9, 2009
EXCERPTS OF THE PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS TONIGHT:
I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.
Our collective failure to meet this challenge – year after year, decade after decade – has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can’t get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.
***
During that time, we have seen Washington at its best and its worst.
We have seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before. Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors’ groups and even drug companies – many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about eighty percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.
But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.
Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.
The plan I’m announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:
It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. It’s a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge – not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals. And it’s a plan that incorporates ideas from Senators and Congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans – and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.
***
Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:
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.
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 – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.
That’s what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan – more security and stability.
Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.
***
This is the plan I’m proposing. It’s a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight – Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.
But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.
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.
That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed – the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town hall meetings, in emails, and in letters.
##
Obama's speech to Congress
Politico has talking points that have been released in advance of President Barack Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress tonight.
I thought this particular point was very interesting, in light of what polls have said:
Actually, according to Rasmussen, that's not true. From an Aug. 17th article on RasmussenReports.com:
Doing nothing is an option, especially with 70% of Americans rating their own health insurance coverage as good or excellent.
However, if Senators and Representatives really want to do something that the American public would welcome, they could make the Congressional health plan available to everyone.
Note, too, the use of words in the talking point: "...any member who really spent time talking to constituents last month..." This is, I believe, a not-so-subtle slam on all the individuals who showed up at town halls to protest the specifics of the plan - or ask unanswered questions about the cost.
Many representatives didn't hold public meetings for their constituents, though many made appearances at friendly-crowd places like union halls. And while representatives 'talked to' constituents, many did not listen.
But that's the focus of the talking point: if Congress talked to the 'right' people, they heard what they wanted to hear and have 'approval' to go forward, when in actuality, going forward with a health care bill would mean Congress is overriding the 'will of the people.'
It will be interesting to see how closely the speech mirrors these released talking points.
And just for fun, you can play "Obama Health-Care Speech Bingo"
I thought this particular point was very interesting, in light of what polls have said:
"Members heard a lot from their constituents over August including stories from people who are struggling with the rising cost of health care or who have been denied coverage because they or someone in their family got sick. One thing has became crystal clear to any member who really spent time talking to constituents last month: Doing nothing is not an option."
Actually, according to Rasmussen, that's not true. From an Aug. 17th article on RasmussenReports.com:
Most voters (54%) now say no health care reform legislation this year would be better than passage of the bill currently working its way through Congress. This does not mean that most voters are opposed to health care reform, but it does highlight the level of concern about the specifics now being discussed in Washington.
Doing nothing is an option, especially with 70% of Americans rating their own health insurance coverage as good or excellent.
However, if Senators and Representatives really want to do something that the American public would welcome, they could make the Congressional health plan available to everyone.
Seventy-eight percent (78%) of U.S. voters say every American should be allowed to purchase the same health insurance plan that members of Congress use.
Note, too, the use of words in the talking point: "...any member who really spent time talking to constituents last month..." This is, I believe, a not-so-subtle slam on all the individuals who showed up at town halls to protest the specifics of the plan - or ask unanswered questions about the cost.
Many representatives didn't hold public meetings for their constituents, though many made appearances at friendly-crowd places like union halls. And while representatives 'talked to' constituents, many did not listen.
But that's the focus of the talking point: if Congress talked to the 'right' people, they heard what they wanted to hear and have 'approval' to go forward, when in actuality, going forward with a health care bill would mean Congress is overriding the 'will of the people.'
It will be interesting to see how closely the speech mirrors these released talking points.
And just for fun, you can play "Obama Health-Care Speech Bingo"
Things I'd blog about if I had all day
* There's an interesting analysis of the Van Jones resignation and what it says about President Barack Obama and his administration in the Washington Examiner. While I was driving yesterday, I heard Rush Limbaugh's take on this as well.
Both author Michael Barone and Limbaugh questioned how someone like 'green jobs' czar Van Jones, a self-avowed 'truther' could end up in the Obama administration, especially given his other beliefs and associations. Could it be that the Obama administration didn't know? Or is it that they knew, and approved?
Either way, it spells long-term trouble for the president. If he didn't know about Van Jones, what else doesn't he know about the other czars in his administration who are in charge of multiple initiatives and public funds? If he did know and brought him in anyway, is it an indication of Obama's belief in and/or support for such theories or philosophies?
Perhaps only time will tell.
* This same article also had an interesting opinion on 'green jobs' which I fully share:
I only hope our local mayoral candidates will remember this fact about the free market.
* Michael Moore's new movie premiered this week and basically says that capitalism is evil. Here's my question for all candidates, especially those who say they are Democrats (as that party has embraced this filmmaker and his films): Do you agree with Michael Moore that capitalism is evil?
The answer to that question will tell more about the candidate than any policy or position paper or press conference.
I'd also like to know what the everyday Democrat thinks of this opinion? Is this really what my neighbors, who are registered as Democrats, think of our economic system?
Or is that some people are evil and do bad things - and that even good people will make bad (evil) decisions?
* There's been a lot of discussion about the conservative opposition to the health care bill and government-run health care versus Medicare and Veteran's Services health programs.
Here's the thing: I oppose the concept of Medicare and of the government forcing our Veterans to use a government-run program for their health care needs. I can find no authorization in the Constitution (except the 'general welfare' clause which our founders specifically said should not be used as a catch-all for anything government wants to do) for such programs.
However, individuals have participated in and paid into the Medicare program and expect a return for that investment and promise. So it wouldn't be 'fair' or 'right' to suddenly eliminate a program people are participating in, or expect to provide for them in the future.
There is another way, though, that those on the left fail to consider. Instead of continuing to collect the money from today's payers in order to fund yesterday's enrollees (which is causing the bankrupting of the system as it goes broke), modify it so that the individuals get the funds back and make the decisions about how to spend those funds on their own. That way, they get more purchasing power for their money since the government isn't taking its share (for government salaries, program administration, etc...) right off the top.
What would happen if we suddenly returned to the individuals their portion of what they'd paid in and then said, 'we trust you to make good decisions that are in your best interests without us telling you what to do?' Or would there be too many who truly believe that people cannot make good decisions which is why the government must do it for them?
Again, the answer to that question tells us everything we need to know about the person giving the answer.
* I heard a sound clip on one of the talk shows yesterday about a businesswoman in California at one of the health care town hall meetings - it should be heard by everyone, especially the elected officials.
What go her so upset to begin with was that she had taken the time to call and write her representative. But she said that when she did so, she got a form letter response saying 'thank you for your support', which obviously indicated no one had really read what she'd written; or she was condescendingly told by staffers that the representative really knew better than she did.
Her point was that as a business owner, there were two things Congress could do immediately to help 'solve' the claimed health care 'crisis': 1) tort reform and 2) open up the market between states. She then said something startling: there are 1,300 insurance companies in the nation but only six that are available in California for her to choose from.
Can you imagine? Over 1,300 companies that could be offering plans and competing for our business, but only six that Californians can select? I have no idea how many there are in Ohio, but could it be a similar amount?
Opening up inter-state competition wouldn't cost a thing. And it could be done by Congress pretty much immediately. Why not try it and see if providing such immediate 'choice and competition' would have any effect before setting up huge bureaucracies to 'provide choice and competition'????
The only reason why that would be opposed would be in lawmakers thought they'd somehow lose either control, power or campaign funds in doing so.
It's an instant way to provide exactly what they say they want to provide without costing taxpayers a single penny. Why wouldn't they do so if 'choice and competition' were truly the goal?
* Hourglass 1941 blog has a second video of Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy refusing to answer questions about H.R. 3200, America's AFfordable Health Choices Act of 2009, will be paid for. Instead, she walks away. She should either admit she doesn't know or explain how the bill will be funded. Perhaps she just afraid that doing either would look worse than just walking away?
Both author Michael Barone and Limbaugh questioned how someone like 'green jobs' czar Van Jones, a self-avowed 'truther' could end up in the Obama administration, especially given his other beliefs and associations. Could it be that the Obama administration didn't know? Or is it that they knew, and approved?
Either way, it spells long-term trouble for the president. If he didn't know about Van Jones, what else doesn't he know about the other czars in his administration who are in charge of multiple initiatives and public funds? If he did know and brought him in anyway, is it an indication of Obama's belief in and/or support for such theories or philosophies?
Perhaps only time will tell.
* This same article also had an interesting opinion on 'green jobs' which I fully share:
"If there were money to be made in green jobs, private investors would be creating them already. In fact big corporations like General Electric are scrambling to position themselves as green companies, gaming legislation and regulations so they can make profits by doing so. Big business is ready to create green jobs -- if government subsidizes them. But the idea that green jobs will replace all the lost carbon-emitting jobs is magical thinking."
I only hope our local mayoral candidates will remember this fact about the free market.
* Michael Moore's new movie premiered this week and basically says that capitalism is evil. Here's my question for all candidates, especially those who say they are Democrats (as that party has embraced this filmmaker and his films): Do you agree with Michael Moore that capitalism is evil?
The answer to that question will tell more about the candidate than any policy or position paper or press conference.
I'd also like to know what the everyday Democrat thinks of this opinion? Is this really what my neighbors, who are registered as Democrats, think of our economic system?
Or is that some people are evil and do bad things - and that even good people will make bad (evil) decisions?
* There's been a lot of discussion about the conservative opposition to the health care bill and government-run health care versus Medicare and Veteran's Services health programs.
Here's the thing: I oppose the concept of Medicare and of the government forcing our Veterans to use a government-run program for their health care needs. I can find no authorization in the Constitution (except the 'general welfare' clause which our founders specifically said should not be used as a catch-all for anything government wants to do) for such programs.
However, individuals have participated in and paid into the Medicare program and expect a return for that investment and promise. So it wouldn't be 'fair' or 'right' to suddenly eliminate a program people are participating in, or expect to provide for them in the future.
There is another way, though, that those on the left fail to consider. Instead of continuing to collect the money from today's payers in order to fund yesterday's enrollees (which is causing the bankrupting of the system as it goes broke), modify it so that the individuals get the funds back and make the decisions about how to spend those funds on their own. That way, they get more purchasing power for their money since the government isn't taking its share (for government salaries, program administration, etc...) right off the top.
What would happen if we suddenly returned to the individuals their portion of what they'd paid in and then said, 'we trust you to make good decisions that are in your best interests without us telling you what to do?' Or would there be too many who truly believe that people cannot make good decisions which is why the government must do it for them?
Again, the answer to that question tells us everything we need to know about the person giving the answer.
* I heard a sound clip on one of the talk shows yesterday about a businesswoman in California at one of the health care town hall meetings - it should be heard by everyone, especially the elected officials.
What go her so upset to begin with was that she had taken the time to call and write her representative. But she said that when she did so, she got a form letter response saying 'thank you for your support', which obviously indicated no one had really read what she'd written; or she was condescendingly told by staffers that the representative really knew better than she did.
Her point was that as a business owner, there were two things Congress could do immediately to help 'solve' the claimed health care 'crisis': 1) tort reform and 2) open up the market between states. She then said something startling: there are 1,300 insurance companies in the nation but only six that are available in California for her to choose from.
Can you imagine? Over 1,300 companies that could be offering plans and competing for our business, but only six that Californians can select? I have no idea how many there are in Ohio, but could it be a similar amount?
Opening up inter-state competition wouldn't cost a thing. And it could be done by Congress pretty much immediately. Why not try it and see if providing such immediate 'choice and competition' would have any effect before setting up huge bureaucracies to 'provide choice and competition'????
The only reason why that would be opposed would be in lawmakers thought they'd somehow lose either control, power or campaign funds in doing so.
It's an instant way to provide exactly what they say they want to provide without costing taxpayers a single penny. Why wouldn't they do so if 'choice and competition' were truly the goal?
* Hourglass 1941 blog has a second video of Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy refusing to answer questions about H.R. 3200, America's AFfordable Health Choices Act of 2009, will be paid for. Instead, she walks away. She should either admit she doesn't know or explain how the bill will be funded. Perhaps she just afraid that doing either would look worse than just walking away?
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Show me the money!
The blogger from Hourglass1941 attended a health care forum at the Ohio Expo Center on September 1 and decided, after the event, to ask several of the speakers how the federal government was going to pay for all the things promoted in the bill.
Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman, Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy and Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (also a candidate for U.S. Senate to replace retiring Senator George Voinovich) were really not able to explain where the money would come from, with Coleman referring to her as "darlin'" and Fisher talking about a 'fence at the top of the cliff instead of an ambulance below' ... whatever that means.
In their own words:
H/T The Jawa Report
Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman, Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy and Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (also a candidate for U.S. Senate to replace retiring Senator George Voinovich) were really not able to explain where the money would come from, with Coleman referring to her as "darlin'" and Fisher talking about a 'fence at the top of the cliff instead of an ambulance below' ... whatever that means.
In their own words:
H/T The Jawa Report
Friday, August 28, 2009
Random thoughts on a rainy Friday
* Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle has a post about the Freedom From Religion Foundation's opposition to the prayers said prior to Toledo City Council meetings.
First, I thought the Constitution guaranteed our freedom OF religion, not FROM. Also, despite my Christianity, I'm NEVER offended by someone of another religion offering up a prayer and have never thought that a prayer from a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc, prior to any gathering, including a political/governmental one, would in any way whatsoever hinder my participation in the function.
And then I wondered, considering all the talk about 'representing' the community, just what the religious affiliation of Toledo was. The Census Bureau is prohibited by law from tracking religion as a statistic, so it's hard to tell what portion of the city's population identifies itself as religious, or to get a breakdown of which religions. Here's the question: if the majority of citizens identify themselves as 'Christian' and the city council is trying to be representative of the community in their selection people to offer prayers, isn't it likely that the majority of those prayers will have Christian overtones?
Here's the other point: tolerance. I'm tolerant of people who have a different religion than me, or who are atheist/agnostic. Why can't they be tolerant of me and my Christian faith? And if they don't like the prayer being offered, can't they just get up and leave during that portion?
And just who is the person identified in the letter from this organization that is so offended by a prayer that mentions Christianity and Jesus Christ? Are they as offended by the mention of Muhammad by an Imam who practices Islam? The letter doesn't say...
* I'm tired of polls that ask people what they think about something without first finding out if the people can properly define the subject matter PRIOR to offering an opinion. I've written about this in relation to a poll about the recession and am now seeing it in polls about health care.
From a recent Denver Post story:
If 63% of the people can't define a 'public option' correctly, why would we trust their support for it? How can they be in favor of something if they don't really know what it is?
At least this poll asked about the definition. Most pollsters don't want to include that aspect in their questions for fear of the criticism I've just given.
* This morning I heard a news clip of Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner saying that the only mayoral candidate he's heard present an economic development plan is Republican Jim Moody. Considering Carty's history, I could only wonder if this was the kiss of death for the Moody campaign.
* I love rainy days when the clouds make it so dark in the house that you need to turn on the lights. I love the sound of the rain on the windows and the way I can watch the heavier downpours move across the surface of Maumee Bay. It's the kind of day where you want to stay in your pajamas, curled up on the couch with a good book or good movies on TV.
Alas, nothing good on TV and, not being able to predict the weather, I spent all day Wednesday reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. So I guess I'll have to get my work done, instead.
First, I thought the Constitution guaranteed our freedom OF religion, not FROM. Also, despite my Christianity, I'm NEVER offended by someone of another religion offering up a prayer and have never thought that a prayer from a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc, prior to any gathering, including a political/governmental one, would in any way whatsoever hinder my participation in the function.
And then I wondered, considering all the talk about 'representing' the community, just what the religious affiliation of Toledo was. The Census Bureau is prohibited by law from tracking religion as a statistic, so it's hard to tell what portion of the city's population identifies itself as religious, or to get a breakdown of which religions. Here's the question: if the majority of citizens identify themselves as 'Christian' and the city council is trying to be representative of the community in their selection people to offer prayers, isn't it likely that the majority of those prayers will have Christian overtones?
Here's the other point: tolerance. I'm tolerant of people who have a different religion than me, or who are atheist/agnostic. Why can't they be tolerant of me and my Christian faith? And if they don't like the prayer being offered, can't they just get up and leave during that portion?
And just who is the person identified in the letter from this organization that is so offended by a prayer that mentions Christianity and Jesus Christ? Are they as offended by the mention of Muhammad by an Imam who practices Islam? The letter doesn't say...
* I'm tired of polls that ask people what they think about something without first finding out if the people can properly define the subject matter PRIOR to offering an opinion. I've written about this in relation to a poll about the recession and am now seeing it in polls about health care.
From a recent Denver Post story:
"Nearly 8 in 10 Americans support a federal health insurance plan for those who can't afford or can't get private insurance, but only 37 percent define "public option" correctly, a new national poll found."
If 63% of the people can't define a 'public option' correctly, why would we trust their support for it? How can they be in favor of something if they don't really know what it is?
At least this poll asked about the definition. Most pollsters don't want to include that aspect in their questions for fear of the criticism I've just given.
* This morning I heard a news clip of Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner saying that the only mayoral candidate he's heard present an economic development plan is Republican Jim Moody. Considering Carty's history, I could only wonder if this was the kiss of death for the Moody campaign.
* I love rainy days when the clouds make it so dark in the house that you need to turn on the lights. I love the sound of the rain on the windows and the way I can watch the heavier downpours move across the surface of Maumee Bay. It's the kind of day where you want to stay in your pajamas, curled up on the couch with a good book or good movies on TV.
Alas, nothing good on TV and, not being able to predict the weather, I spent all day Wednesday reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. So I guess I'll have to get my work done, instead.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Sen. Kennedy and health care
Sen. Edward Kennedy passed away Monday.
I offer my sympathies to his family and friends over his loss. Having lost an uncle to brain cancer, I know first-hand what a dreadful disease it is. So I'm grateful he is no longer suffering its effects - and that he had a full and good life.
I was not a fan of Sen. Kennedy. It will come as no surprise to readers of this blog that I rarely agreed with any of his positions and was quite opposed to many of his proposals.
However, I respected and admired the shrewd politician that he was. Which brings me to the subject of health care....
Kennedy was a strong proponent of universal health care and supported a government-run option.
I can only imagine the thoughts he was having on the subject as he learned of the public's growing opposition to the concept. Being an avowed and unabashed liberal, he probably thought those of us opposed to the idea just didn't know what we were doing...that he knew better for us on the subject.
I don't mean that as an attack; merely a statement of fact. But knowing that the proposal was sinking fast, what could he do to help it? Give it a rallying point - which is what his death has done.
The DrudgeReport.com headline:
ABC News:
CBS News:
Even his final act has political overtones - shrewd, calculated, brilliant - and perfect timing, which is a big factor in political success.
I'm certain he would rather still be with us, fighting in the trenches of 21st Century politics. But knowing that he really had no option (death greets us all some day), I do not think he would mind the use of his death to promote one of his long-time goals.
While I don't think it will be enough to overcome the opposition, I can - and do - admire the strategy, unintended though it may be.
Of course, the strategy may back-fire. While Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid may think this is a good thing to do, if the bill goes down in flames (which it appears is likely), the last bill with Kennedy's name will have been a failure - something I don't believe Kennedy would appreciate.
Regardless of the outcome, I think Kennedy would appreciate the battle. Rest in peace, Sen. Kennedy.
I offer my sympathies to his family and friends over his loss. Having lost an uncle to brain cancer, I know first-hand what a dreadful disease it is. So I'm grateful he is no longer suffering its effects - and that he had a full and good life.
I was not a fan of Sen. Kennedy. It will come as no surprise to readers of this blog that I rarely agreed with any of his positions and was quite opposed to many of his proposals.
However, I respected and admired the shrewd politician that he was. Which brings me to the subject of health care....
Kennedy was a strong proponent of universal health care and supported a government-run option.
I can only imagine the thoughts he was having on the subject as he learned of the public's growing opposition to the concept. Being an avowed and unabashed liberal, he probably thought those of us opposed to the idea just didn't know what we were doing...that he knew better for us on the subject.
I don't mean that as an attack; merely a statement of fact. But knowing that the proposal was sinking fast, what could he do to help it? Give it a rallying point - which is what his death has done.
The DrudgeReport.com headline:
HEALTH BILL FROM THE GRAVE: DEMS RALLY AROUND KENNEDYCARE
ABC News:
'Win One for Teddy,' Say Dems Pushing for Health Reform
Key Question Is Whether Kennedy's Death Can Rally Fellow Democrats
CBS News:
Sen. Byrd: Health Bill Should be Named for Kennedy
Even his final act has political overtones - shrewd, calculated, brilliant - and perfect timing, which is a big factor in political success.
I'm certain he would rather still be with us, fighting in the trenches of 21st Century politics. But knowing that he really had no option (death greets us all some day), I do not think he would mind the use of his death to promote one of his long-time goals.
While I don't think it will be enough to overcome the opposition, I can - and do - admire the strategy, unintended though it may be.
Of course, the strategy may back-fire. While Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid may think this is a good thing to do, if the bill goes down in flames (which it appears is likely), the last bill with Kennedy's name will have been a failure - something I don't believe Kennedy would appreciate.
Regardless of the outcome, I think Kennedy would appreciate the battle. Rest in peace, Sen. Kennedy.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Miscellaneous Monday Matters
* Chris Stirewalt, of the Washington Examiner, has an interesting column about President Barack Obama and his relationship with the media. I recommend you read "The thrill is gone for Obama and the media" and note toward the end of the column where he says something similar to my comments in this post about how Obama is still in campaign mode.
* Thomas Sowell, one of my all-time favorites, has a (currently) four-part series called "Whose Medical Decisions?" which are a must-read for anyone who'd like a fresh perspective on the health care bill components currently being considered by Congress.
His first one emphasizes what Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's own "Special Advisor for Health Policy," has to say about the type of medical care Americans get and how a government-run program will end up rationing care:
His second one explains why it is important that you get to decide how to spend your own money, regardless of how 'society' (meaning politicians) thinks you should spend it - especially when it comes to your health care. He also makes a distinction between 'health' care and 'medical' care - which is rather important when it comes to the legislation.
His Part III column points out Congress's 'bait and switch' - saying the legislation is supposedly to address the 'millions' of Americans who don't have health insurance, but the actual language in the bill has "nothing whatever to do with insuring the uninsured — and everything to do with taking medical decisions out of the hands of doctors and their patients, and transferring those decisions to Washington bureaucrats." He also points out the overlooked fact that many people without insurance can afford it, but choose a different priority for the money - a priority Congress doesn't like and wants to control.
His Part IV urges us to really think not only about the legislation, but about the mindset that leads to such rules, regulations and elimination of our freedom.
Take the time to read the entire columns - it's well worth it.
* I remember reading an article once about how political decisions overrode medical/scientific ones when the issue of AIDS and H.I.V.-infection first became known. I've looked for the article, but cannot find it on line. However, the premise was that standard or routine medical protocols for treating an infectious disease were not implemented in the early days of knowledge of the disease because of political considerations having to do with the gay community and many of the civil rights issues they were bringing forward at the time. Even the original name given the illness - Gay-Related Immune Disease (GRID) - was changed to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) to address some of these political concerns as well as the spread of the disease among intravenous drug users and hemophiliacs who'd received blood transfusions.
As I remember it, the concern of the article was that a push to make the disease seem more mainstream than it really was prevented a reduction in the spread of the disease because it focused efforts on reducing the stigma of associating the illness with the homosexual lifestyle.
I couldn't help but recall this perspective on the disease as I read this article about potentially requiring circumcision for all baby boys to reduce the risk of H.I.V., even though "the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men."
I suggest you read the news story for more details on the issue.
* Two quotes to remember when it comes to freedom:
"Whatever the individual motives of the censors may be, censorship is a form of social control. It is a means of holding a society together, of arresting the flux which censors fear. And since the fear cannot be appeased, the demands for censorship mount in volume and intensity. And one form of censorship can easily lead to other forms." ~ Carey McWilliams
"As Hitler showed us, a press suppressed does not make a recovery. As Lenin indicated, a press controlled does not revert to a critic’s role. As history reminds us, free speech surrendered is rarely recovered." ~ William J. Small
* Thomas Sowell, one of my all-time favorites, has a (currently) four-part series called "Whose Medical Decisions?" which are a must-read for anyone who'd like a fresh perspective on the health care bill components currently being considered by Congress.
His first one emphasizes what Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's own "Special Advisor for Health Policy," has to say about the type of medical care Americans get and how a government-run program will end up rationing care:
Americans also have more of what the article calls "amenities" with their medical care. "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy, comfort and auxiliary services than do hospital rooms in most other countries."
In other words, it is not quantity but quality that is different — and more expensive — about American medical care. This is what Dr. Emanuel's "over-utilization" consists of.
At one time, it would have been none of Dr. Emanuel's business if your physician prescribed the latest medications for you, rather than the cheaper and obsolete medications they replaced. It would have been none of his business if you preferred to have a nice hospital room with "amenities" rather than being in an unsanitary ward with inadequate nursing care, as under the National Health Service in Britain.
The involvement of government gives Dr. Emanuel the leverage to condemn other Americans' choices — and a larger involvement of government will give him the power to force both doctors and patients to change their choices.
His second one explains why it is important that you get to decide how to spend your own money, regardless of how 'society' (meaning politicians) thinks you should spend it - especially when it comes to your health care. He also makes a distinction between 'health' care and 'medical' care - which is rather important when it comes to the legislation.
His Part III column points out Congress's 'bait and switch' - saying the legislation is supposedly to address the 'millions' of Americans who don't have health insurance, but the actual language in the bill has "nothing whatever to do with insuring the uninsured — and everything to do with taking medical decisions out of the hands of doctors and their patients, and transferring those decisions to Washington bureaucrats." He also points out the overlooked fact that many people without insurance can afford it, but choose a different priority for the money - a priority Congress doesn't like and wants to control.
His Part IV urges us to really think not only about the legislation, but about the mindset that leads to such rules, regulations and elimination of our freedom.
What we also should stop to think about is the mindset behind this legislation, which is very consistent with the mindset behind other policies of this administration, whether the particular issue is bailing out General Motors, telling banks who to lend to or appointing "czars" to tell all sorts of people in many walks of life what they can and cannot do.
The idea that government officials can play God from Washington is not a new idea, but it is an idea that is being pushed with new audacity.
Take the time to read the entire columns - it's well worth it.
* I remember reading an article once about how political decisions overrode medical/scientific ones when the issue of AIDS and H.I.V.-infection first became known. I've looked for the article, but cannot find it on line. However, the premise was that standard or routine medical protocols for treating an infectious disease were not implemented in the early days of knowledge of the disease because of political considerations having to do with the gay community and many of the civil rights issues they were bringing forward at the time. Even the original name given the illness - Gay-Related Immune Disease (GRID) - was changed to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) to address some of these political concerns as well as the spread of the disease among intravenous drug users and hemophiliacs who'd received blood transfusions.
As I remember it, the concern of the article was that a push to make the disease seem more mainstream than it really was prevented a reduction in the spread of the disease because it focused efforts on reducing the stigma of associating the illness with the homosexual lifestyle.
I couldn't help but recall this perspective on the disease as I read this article about potentially requiring circumcision for all baby boys to reduce the risk of H.I.V., even though "the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men."
I suggest you read the news story for more details on the issue.
* Two quotes to remember when it comes to freedom:
"Whatever the individual motives of the censors may be, censorship is a form of social control. It is a means of holding a society together, of arresting the flux which censors fear. And since the fear cannot be appeased, the demands for censorship mount in volume and intensity. And one form of censorship can easily lead to other forms." ~ Carey McWilliams
"As Hitler showed us, a press suppressed does not make a recovery. As Lenin indicated, a press controlled does not revert to a critic’s role. As history reminds us, free speech surrendered is rarely recovered." ~ William J. Small
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Scary reality: $107 trillion in liabilities
An editorial in the Charleston Daily Mail spells it out in stark - but factual terms: we're in trouble because (t)he nation can't pay for Social Security and the health entitlement programs it has now.
If corporations had such unfunded obligations, we'd have members of Congress demanding appearances and accountability in front of committees and lots of cameras. But they ignore their own house while complaining about others.
And these same people want to create a new government program based on the same pyramid scheme that puts non-elected people into jail?
Can you say stuck on stupid?
$107 trillion in liabilities
Congress needs to fix existing programs if it creates new ones
AS Americans listened to people yammer on about "death panels" and other distortions of some of the health "reform" proposals circulating in Congress, larger and more important questions have gone unasked and unanswered.
First on the list should be: Are members of Congress out of touch with reality?
The nation can't pay for Social Security and the health entitlement programs it has now.
The Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports for 2009, released in early May, laid out the situation plainly:
Social Security and Medicare have a combined unfunded liability of almost $107 trillion.
According to Pamela Villarreal, a senior policy analyst with the National Center for Policy Analysis, that's about seven times the size of the American economy, and 10 times as much as today's national debt.
Members of Congress have, over the decades, promised Americans $107 trillion more in benefits under these two existing programs over the next 75 years than they have provided for in taxes.
Medicare alone has an unfunded liability of almost $38 trillion.
By some people's reckoning, when today's college students reach retirement in about 2054, the burden of paying Social Security and Medicare benefits would consume one in three dollars of taxable payroll.
Yet some in Congress would create a costly new medical entitlement program to deflect attention from the fact that they don't want to deal with the problems they already face.
All responsible Americans should insist on better than that.
If corporations had such unfunded obligations, we'd have members of Congress demanding appearances and accountability in front of committees and lots of cameras. But they ignore their own house while complaining about others.
And these same people want to create a new government program based on the same pyramid scheme that puts non-elected people into jail?
Can you say stuck on stupid?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Random thoughts about health care
As you can see from my prior posts, the health care bill, HR 3200 America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, has been on my mind lately.
But here's what struck me this morning...
When I decide to purchase car insurance, the rate I'm charged is based upon many factors, including my prior driving record. If I've had lots of tickets and accidents, I'm going to pay a higher rate. If I'm a teenager who's just started driving, I'm going to pay a higher rate than a middle-aged driver because I'm more of a risk. This makes perfect sense to almost everyone who drives. People want to be charged based upon their record - not someone else's. And we are perfectly happy with insurance companies charging more to cover people who have less-than-stellar records or higher chances of actually using the insurance coverage.
The same goes for life insurance. If you're young and healthy with good habits, you're likely to pay a lower rate than older or terminally ill individuals - the thought being that the farther away you are from your date of death, the lower your payments over the years need to be to cover the costs of the eventual payout. This, too, makes sense to almost everyone.
So why is it so many people have a different opinion about health insurance?
The same logic from auto and life applies equally to health insurance. If a person is young, healthy and has good habits, they don't pay as much as someone who is older, has existing illnesses or pre-existing conditions. Why should the rates for both types of individuals be the same? We don't expect it in other types of insurance, why do we change our perspective when it comes to health insurance?
HR 3200 restricts insurance companies from having higher rates for people with pre-existing medical conditions or for their age, despite the fact that these individuals cost more to cover. For some reason, politicians, and many Americans, think that you shouldn't have to pay for your own costs.
Why is that? What makes people think that their own conditions should not be part of their costs of coverage? Why do they think that their fellow Americans should pay for them, despite their own behavior?
Because that's what the bill would do - require others to pay a higher rate so people with higher costs don't have to pay as much. Democrats are constantly talking about 'fair' ... how is this fair?
And if we accept that this is not fair for car insurance and life insurance, how do we accept that it is somehow fair for heath insurance - or anything else, for that matter?
Now, if you happen to think that car and life insurance should be treated the same way as health insurance is in this bill, I can respect that. I may disagree with your position, but at least you're consistent in applying the same logic and opinion to all similar situations.
But if you're okay with being 'rewarded' for good driving by having lower rates and being charged more if you're a bad driver, how can you NOT support the same approach to health care and, accordingly, oppose this bill?
*****
On the attacks so many on the right are getting from those who support 'Obamacare,' Eric Odom, Executive Director and Co-Founder of the American Liberty Alliance, makes a really terrific point worthy of consideration:
But here's what struck me this morning...
When I decide to purchase car insurance, the rate I'm charged is based upon many factors, including my prior driving record. If I've had lots of tickets and accidents, I'm going to pay a higher rate. If I'm a teenager who's just started driving, I'm going to pay a higher rate than a middle-aged driver because I'm more of a risk. This makes perfect sense to almost everyone who drives. People want to be charged based upon their record - not someone else's. And we are perfectly happy with insurance companies charging more to cover people who have less-than-stellar records or higher chances of actually using the insurance coverage.
The same goes for life insurance. If you're young and healthy with good habits, you're likely to pay a lower rate than older or terminally ill individuals - the thought being that the farther away you are from your date of death, the lower your payments over the years need to be to cover the costs of the eventual payout. This, too, makes sense to almost everyone.
So why is it so many people have a different opinion about health insurance?
The same logic from auto and life applies equally to health insurance. If a person is young, healthy and has good habits, they don't pay as much as someone who is older, has existing illnesses or pre-existing conditions. Why should the rates for both types of individuals be the same? We don't expect it in other types of insurance, why do we change our perspective when it comes to health insurance?
HR 3200 restricts insurance companies from having higher rates for people with pre-existing medical conditions or for their age, despite the fact that these individuals cost more to cover. For some reason, politicians, and many Americans, think that you shouldn't have to pay for your own costs.
Why is that? What makes people think that their own conditions should not be part of their costs of coverage? Why do they think that their fellow Americans should pay for them, despite their own behavior?
Because that's what the bill would do - require others to pay a higher rate so people with higher costs don't have to pay as much. Democrats are constantly talking about 'fair' ... how is this fair?
And if we accept that this is not fair for car insurance and life insurance, how do we accept that it is somehow fair for heath insurance - or anything else, for that matter?
Now, if you happen to think that car and life insurance should be treated the same way as health insurance is in this bill, I can respect that. I may disagree with your position, but at least you're consistent in applying the same logic and opinion to all similar situations.
But if you're okay with being 'rewarded' for good driving by having lower rates and being charged more if you're a bad driver, how can you NOT support the same approach to health care and, accordingly, oppose this bill?
*****
On the attacks so many on the right are getting from those who support 'Obamacare,' Eric Odom, Executive Director and Co-Founder of the American Liberty Alliance, makes a really terrific point worthy of consideration:
"The problem these pro-government groups has is that they seem to be miscalculating the silent majority of America. They lash out at some of us who have been a part of a true grassroots movement in a leadership capacity, and in the process they fail to see how it insults hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans who are all a part of this.
The Silent Majority doesn’t subscribe to an email list because we’re told to, we subscribe because we choose to.
We do not show up at a rally because we’re told to. No, we show up at rallies because we choose to.
The silent majority is not paid to rally, we aren’t bussed in from one state to another, and because of this we don’t have to manipulate the scenario in order for it to appear grassroots… because it is!
And the majority of Americans know it… because we’re all a part of it.
My message here is simple. You’re seeing a lot of back and forth right now. It’s important to note, though, that one side doesn’t like the message. The other side doesn’t like the messenger."
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Will federal 'health reform' be like Oregon's?
The Independent Institute has a short video that describes some of the ideas for federal health reform when it comes to prioritizing treatment, especially compared to the state of Oregon which also has a prioritization system.
I hope you'll watch it and start asking questions - and demanding answers.
Lest you think this is an exaggeration, here is the National Center for Policy Analysis' synopsis of an ABC story on Oregon's health system:
I hope you'll watch it and start asking questions - and demanding answers.
Lest you think this is an exaggeration, here is the National Center for Policy Analysis' synopsis of an ABC story on Oregon's health system:
DEATH DRUGS CAUSE UPROAR IN OREGON
Imagine receiving a letter from your insurance company rejecting to pay for a drug that could save your life. Then imagine your state health plan agreeing to pay for your suicide. That's been the case in Oregon, says ABC News.
The Oregon Health Plan was established in 1994 and the physician-assisted death law, Death With Dignity Law, in 1997. The health plan, for those whose incomes fall under the poverty level, prioritizes coverage -- from prevention first, to chronic disease management, treatment of mental health, heart and cancer treatment. However, the health plan takes "no position" on the physician-assisted suicide law.
But a 1998 study from Georgetown University found a strong link between cost-cutting pressures on physicians and their willingness to prescribe lethal drugs to patients -- were it legal to do so:
* The study warns that there must be "a sobering degree of caution in legalizing (assisted death) in a medical care environment that is characterized by increasing pressure on physicians to control the cost of care."
* Cancer drugs can cost anywhere from $3,000 to $6,000 a month; the cost of lethal medication, on the other hand, is about $35 to $50.
* However, the problem with the Oregon plan is that it sounds like administrators, not physicians, are making treatment decisions; if a patient can get assisted death paid for but not cancer treatment, the choice is obvious.
But critics, and even supporters, of the Death With Dignity Law -- the only one of its kind in the nation -- have been up in arms recently as idea has spilled over into other states, including Washington, where advocacy groups are pushing for enactment of Initiative 1000 in November, legalizing a similar assisted-death law, says ABC News.
Source: Susan Donaldson James, "Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon," ABC News, August 6, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
