Where have I been lately? I just read about Michelle Obama's initiative on childhood obesity. Finally, something really substantial that will lower the spiraling cost of health care. This is something I forgot to put in my last post on the subject. Reversal of the growing epidemic of obesity will save scads of money in the future without lots of taxes today.
This is a great example of what our government needs to do, start using a variation of the KISS principle. Instead of Keep It Simple Stupid, Keep It Short and Succinct. As I have ranted before, it is easier and less burdensome to enact a 50 page bill than a 500 page bill. 2000 page bills are a nightmare for small businesses, why does our congress keep working on them?
Another interesting tidbit I learned is the Surgeon General, Regina Benjamin, is overweight. She defends her size by saying it helps her identify with the 67% of Americans who are overweight. I am obese and my doctor is very lean. He is an active runner. He practices what he preaches. Maybe this will be a great opportunity for Vice Admiral Benjamin to lead the way by personal lifestyle changes to lose weight.
Ranting about weight loss and government action, check out OKCmillion. Mick Cornett, mayor of Oklahoma City initiated a challenge to his city to lose 1 million pounds. Oklahoma City is one of the most overweight cities in the USA. Mayor Cornett started this campaign so Oklahoma City can shed its overweight stigma. (Sorry, I couldn't resist that almost pun.)
Friday, January 29, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
A modest but realistic proposal on health care reform
I read an AP article online today indicating the democrats are still trying to put through their bloated 2000 page pig ears.(pork and earmarks) They are hoping President Obama's state of the union address tonight will inspire them to get back on track and railroad their alleged health care reform through congress and onto the backs of the American Taxpayers. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said not having a health care reform package enacted was unacceptable. Last week she said she did not have the votes to pass the Senate health care bill. Is there a link between Botox abuse and Alzheimer's?
I know I've said parts of this before so bear with me. Here is my proposal on REAL health care reform:
1. Put limits on malpractice suit payment amounts. This would lower the malpractice insurance premiums paid by health care providers. It would also cut back on the use of "defensive medicine" where Doctors order marginally at best procedures not for the benefit of their patients but to protect themselves from a malpractice claim.
2. Limit advertisements for prescription drugs and other covered procedures. They are the most prevalent ads in the media today. These ads actually encourage patients to ask for certain drugs from their doctors. If they trust an ad on TV or a magazine more than their doctor's judgment, they should change doctors. After all, that is what doctors really provide; their professional opinion and advice on the best method to treat illness and injury.
3. Put page limits on all legislation, not just health care boondoogles. The senate finance committee's version was 1000 pages! The house, overachievers that they are, doubled the ante to 2000 pages. If any member of congress has the rare blend of audicity, stupidity and arrogance to say they have read any of these bills, they should be shot in both feet with a pellet gun. The members of congress do not read these bills, they rely on congressional aides and interns (remember Monica Lewinsky?) to read and summarize a small portion of the total bill.
There was a parable about several blind men trying to describe an elephant by touching different parts of the elephant's body. Needless to say, the man touching the trunk reached a different conclusion than the men touching the elephant's ears, flanks, legs and underbelly. This is the same way health care bills are presented to congress.
To continue elephant parable usage, let me quote the great educator Marva Collins. When her students faced an overwhelming learning task, she would say "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time." If congress would do this instead of trying to swallow the whole hog at once, they would be more effective and productive legislators. (Did I just mix my metaphors with elephant and hog?)
I know I've said parts of this before so bear with me. Here is my proposal on REAL health care reform:
1. Put limits on malpractice suit payment amounts. This would lower the malpractice insurance premiums paid by health care providers. It would also cut back on the use of "defensive medicine" where Doctors order marginally at best procedures not for the benefit of their patients but to protect themselves from a malpractice claim.
2. Limit advertisements for prescription drugs and other covered procedures. They are the most prevalent ads in the media today. These ads actually encourage patients to ask for certain drugs from their doctors. If they trust an ad on TV or a magazine more than their doctor's judgment, they should change doctors. After all, that is what doctors really provide; their professional opinion and advice on the best method to treat illness and injury.
3. Put page limits on all legislation, not just health care boondoogles. The senate finance committee's version was 1000 pages! The house, overachievers that they are, doubled the ante to 2000 pages. If any member of congress has the rare blend of audicity, stupidity and arrogance to say they have read any of these bills, they should be shot in both feet with a pellet gun. The members of congress do not read these bills, they rely on congressional aides and interns (remember Monica Lewinsky?) to read and summarize a small portion of the total bill.
There was a parable about several blind men trying to describe an elephant by touching different parts of the elephant's body. Needless to say, the man touching the trunk reached a different conclusion than the men touching the elephant's ears, flanks, legs and underbelly. This is the same way health care bills are presented to congress.
To continue elephant parable usage, let me quote the great educator Marva Collins. When her students faced an overwhelming learning task, she would say "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time." If congress would do this instead of trying to swallow the whole hog at once, they would be more effective and productive legislators. (Did I just mix my metaphors with elephant and hog?)
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Republicans win "Teddy Kennedy's" Massachusetts Senate Seat
In a rare display of realistic maturity, Martha Coakley conceded that republican Scott Brown won The special senate election to fill the vacancy caused by Edward Kennedy's recent death. Earlier, her campaign attorney held a press conference to let the world know he contacted the Massachusetts secretary of state's office that there were three alleged cases of ballots being pre-marked for Scott Brown. Since then, the secretary of state's office dismissed the allegations as unfounded and unprovable.
What does this mean for the USA? First, there are 41 republicans in the US senate now, enough votes to stop the democrats efforts to railroad their alleged health care reforms which are actually a thin disguise for socialized medicine. Second, the timing is remarkable. President Obama was sworn into office on January 20, 2009. His one year anniversary will have a sad note to it. Many of the Massachusetts voters reported discontent and disappointment with his performance in office. Many democrats are concerned now about the upcoming 2010 elections.
Let's face facts. The people of Massachusetts have spoken their minds at the polls. Maybe the democrats should listen to people who live outside the DC beltway more.
What does this mean for the USA? First, there are 41 republicans in the US senate now, enough votes to stop the democrats efforts to railroad their alleged health care reforms which are actually a thin disguise for socialized medicine. Second, the timing is remarkable. President Obama was sworn into office on January 20, 2009. His one year anniversary will have a sad note to it. Many of the Massachusetts voters reported discontent and disappointment with his performance in office. Many democrats are concerned now about the upcoming 2010 elections.
Let's face facts. The people of Massachusetts have spoken their minds at the polls. Maybe the democrats should listen to people who live outside the DC beltway more.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Fat Cat Bankers??!!
On Sunday, December 13, 2009 President Obama referred to American bankers as "fat cat bankers" who "just do not get it." This was said during an interview on CBS's "60 Minutes." He was referring to bankers inability to understand why Americans were upset with their large bonuses after taking bailout money. I guess President Obama forgot that the sub prime lending which caused the banking and credit crisis started when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to be put in conversatorship in September 2008. President Obama, who said that he would not have anything to do with lobbyists, did accept $120,000.00 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during his 144 days in the US Senate. In a similar vein, there was an article in the New York Times that 4 bailout recipients are still struggling and may need further government funding. Guess who's on this list. If you say Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you're today's winner.
Please remember this, it was sub prime lending that set off this recession. Why did banks and mortgage companies make loans to people that could not handle these loans? One big hint, the community reinvestment act. This act requires banks to conduct business with all communities within their service area. The act was passed to prevent redlining, the practice of not engaging in risky and imprudent transactions such as sub prime loans. The US government encouraged and cajoled the "fat cat bankers" to make high risk mortgages with the implicit guarantee that the government would back up the loans if defaults became a problem.
Please remember this, it was sub prime lending that set off this recession. Why did banks and mortgage companies make loans to people that could not handle these loans? One big hint, the community reinvestment act. This act requires banks to conduct business with all communities within their service area. The act was passed to prevent redlining, the practice of not engaging in risky and imprudent transactions such as sub prime loans. The US government encouraged and cajoled the "fat cat bankers" to make high risk mortgages with the implicit guarantee that the government would back up the loans if defaults became a problem.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The latest on congressional spending
According to the Associated Press, the house democrats are pushing through a $1.1 trillion (think 11 zeros and 3 commas to the right of the 1.1) spending bill in addition to whatever they finally decide (if anything) on the health care debacle often referred to as overhaul or reform.
The folks at Taxpayers for Common Sense found $3.9 billion funding congressional pet projects known as earmarks. They counted 5227 altogether. On a state by state basis this is over 100 earmarks per state. On a congressional district basis using 435 districts this is 12 per district. President Obama said he would read through every line of legislation and strike out unnecessary spending.
I wonder how many earmarks there were before his careful scrutiny of the bill??
The folks at Taxpayers for Common Sense found $3.9 billion funding congressional pet projects known as earmarks. They counted 5227 altogether. On a state by state basis this is over 100 earmarks per state. On a congressional district basis using 435 districts this is 12 per district. President Obama said he would read through every line of legislation and strike out unnecessary spending.
I wonder how many earmarks there were before his careful scrutiny of the bill??
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Transparency with the stimulus funds report
I just finished reading an interesting article on the Phoenix Arizona tv Channel 12 news website about the uproar over the errors in the stimulus quarterly reports. Apparently lots of funds were sent to nonexistent congressional districts. Fortunately, there were also lots of jobs created or saved in these same phantom districts. The Franklin Center for Public and Government Integrity reports there were over 440 phantom districts in the stimulus reports.
This amazes me since there are only 435 congressional districts in the USA. I am not an accountant or auditor, but it seems to me that if X amount of funds were paid to phantom districts then there should also be X amount of funds missing from the total paid to the non-phantom i.e. real congressional districts. Channel 12 reports that it appears most of the phantom funds were paid to the intended receivers, they just made a little error in reporting the district number.
I am certain this can be corrected sooner or later. Maybe the stimulus reports should only be done by states and not districts. After all transparency means the ability to see something clearly. Phantom means invisible.
If we, the American people, will have accounting problems with the $787 billion stimulus spending, what problems will we encounter if Obama/Pelosi care gets enacted? The senate finance version was about 1000 pages, the house version 1990 pages. We cannot afford the printing costs of these proposed bills. What will happen when if it is passed and employers, insurers and health care providers have to figure out how to cope with it? I am thinking, if the government cannot do better than this with the stimulus, we may have a health care revolution in the near future.
This amazes me since there are only 435 congressional districts in the USA. I am not an accountant or auditor, but it seems to me that if X amount of funds were paid to phantom districts then there should also be X amount of funds missing from the total paid to the non-phantom i.e. real congressional districts. Channel 12 reports that it appears most of the phantom funds were paid to the intended receivers, they just made a little error in reporting the district number.
I am certain this can be corrected sooner or later. Maybe the stimulus reports should only be done by states and not districts. After all transparency means the ability to see something clearly. Phantom means invisible.
If we, the American people, will have accounting problems with the $787 billion stimulus spending, what problems will we encounter if Obama/Pelosi care gets enacted? The senate finance version was about 1000 pages, the house version 1990 pages. We cannot afford the printing costs of these proposed bills. What will happen when if it is passed and employers, insurers and health care providers have to figure out how to cope with it? I am thinking, if the government cannot do better than this with the stimulus, we may have a health care revolution in the near future.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Poll shows (kinda sorta) increased support for public option.
The WashingtonPost.com ran an article today about a poll that shows increased public support for a public option in the health care overhaul debate. Seniors and independents raised support for the infamous public option to a spellbinding 57%. Of course, there are a few caveats that will not fit into a headline or sound bite.
First, the public option has to be administered by the states, not the federal government. Second, only people without access to affordable private or employer provided plans can participate in the public option. Since the public option provisions all call for federal subsidies as "seed money" I doubt that the states will really run these programs. Too many state administered programs are vying for federal funds and subsidies as it is, what will be different about this one?
And now for the $64,000 question. What is affordable insurance? It will probably be a percentage of annual income. But what percent is a very big and very loaded question.
My prediction is if the public option is voted into law, these provisions will not be respected by congress. Congress will get its way on a short term basis and find themselves facing another republican or better yet independent revolution in 2010 or 2012 at the latest.
First, the public option has to be administered by the states, not the federal government. Second, only people without access to affordable private or employer provided plans can participate in the public option. Since the public option provisions all call for federal subsidies as "seed money" I doubt that the states will really run these programs. Too many state administered programs are vying for federal funds and subsidies as it is, what will be different about this one?
And now for the $64,000 question. What is affordable insurance? It will probably be a percentage of annual income. But what percent is a very big and very loaded question.
My prediction is if the public option is voted into law, these provisions will not be respected by congress. Congress will get its way on a short term basis and find themselves facing another republican or better yet independent revolution in 2010 or 2012 at the latest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
