A few comments on the health care bill.

It is really difficult to comment on the current health care bill being massaged and sculpted by the senate finance committee. It is still very much so under construction, or destruction depending on your outlook. I am glad the finance committee was able to defeat the public option. Maybe they were paying attention to the voters concerns at all those town hall meetings in August.
On the other hand, I don't see where this so called private co-op (with a $6b government subsidy as "seed money") is a big improvement. It sure looks like this co-op is going to be another government sponsored extortion, excuse me, enterprise. This frightens me because it seems like the health care equivalent of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the housing industry. Do the American Taxpayers need to finance another nightmare for another industry important to the American economy? I think not.
What really burns me up is the congressmen's statement that the insurance business needs to have their feet held to the fire. If this isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I cannot imagine what would be.
Here's a few suggestions for all our congress men and women to help them get through this.

1. Leave your egomania out of the decision making process. The voters did not elect you so you can create a legacy or make history at their expense. The voters elected you to represent their interests in congress, not visa versa.

2. Stop calling anyone who disagrees with your ideas Nazis and astroturf. There are still WWII veterans around who would take great offense at you referring to their sons and daughters as nazis just because they do not believe the public option is a gift from heaven above via yourselves.

3. Start using page limits on legislation. Remember the acronym KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.

4. Accomplish some real positive health care reform. Put a limit on medical malpractice lawsuit awards. Too many doctors are practicing too much defensive medicine. They order tests and other procedures that are not medically necessary just to protect themselves from lawsuits.

Well, this is enough for now. If I go on any further I might be made an honorary member of congress. (What irony indeed)

A few more thoughts on healthcare overhaul (aka nationalized medicine)

There is an old saying," if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The USA has the best healthcare delivery system on this planet. It is not broken but nonetheless fearless leaders in DC, mainly liberals and democrats, want to overhaul it. An overhaul is not needed. The problem every American has with our healthcare system is the drastic increases in its costs. This is what needs fixing. Unfortunately, our politicians are only good at taxing Americans and then giving some of it back to bribe us to vote for them. This is why there is so much stress and disagreement coming out on the healthcare issue. American voters are justified in their fear of what the warlocks and witches of congress will conjure up as an "overhaul" of our health care system. Americans need to deluge their congressional representatives with their viewpoints on healthcare. Eventually they will listen or be voted out of office.

The lack of universal healthcare coverage is the lamest excuse Big Brother Government Healthcare advocates use in this debate. They harp on the fact that the USA is the only "developed " country on earth without it. Two questions come to mind when I hear this. First,"and your point is . . ?" and second "So Frigging What??!!!" When I was growing up, I used this argument to try to get my parents permission to do something. The conversation would go like this. Me," can I do such and such, all the other kids at school can do it." My parents response, " if all the other kids at school jumped out of an airplane without a parachute, would you do it too?" Needless to say, we did not have very many of these conversations.

Another phrase I am tired of hearing from politicians is "the need to create a level playing field." This is usually given as an excuse for whatever legislation they want taxpayers to fund whether we want to or not. Well, I just found a website dedicated to all you level playing field fans. For a glimpse of level playing field Utopia, click here.

Congress attempts to rewrite preventive care study

The September 1, 2009 issue of the Washington Post reports a study of the cost effectiveness of preventive care is not going to generate the savings that have been promised by advocates of Obamacare. Entitled "Using clinical information to project health care spending," the study was published on the website of the journal of health policy research "Health Affairs." Michael J. O'Grady , one of 4 authors of the study, had this to say about the study. "There's no free lunch here. Prevention will not pay for everything. But it's not as expensive as it looks at first blush"

How did Obamacare supporters in Congress react to this. They have already requested the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan agency established by Congress to provide impartial evaluations of the cost effects of proposed legislation, to revise their studies to support their position. Donna Christensen, (D-US Virgin Islands) introduced a bill which would allow congressional leaders to request the CBO to alter their research methodology to a longer time period in hopes it would show more beneficial cost savings. I wonder what the Obamacare fans would say if the 25 year time frame still did not generate the savings they say preventive care will cause.

I say preventive care should be a major part of any health care reform. It doesn't matter to me if it generates savings or not, it will improve the quality of life for the chronically ill. The Hippocratic Oath requires Medical Doctors to do no harm or injustice to their patients. This is what preventive care is all about, providing the best care possible for the ill. The Obamacare fans seem to want their cake, eat it and lose weight at the same time.

More observations on the economy

Second, one of the first causalities of Obamacare was the "public option" provision. This would have set up a government run and funded insurance plan open to anyone. Its proponents said that the provision would provide a little healthy competition to private insurers to "keep them honest." Private insurers are not saints, but they do not need politicians and bureaucrats to "keep them honest." Insurers today are the referees of this game we call a health care industry. Health care providers want to be paid well for all their training and services given to their patients. Patients want the best care possible with minimal out of pocket expenses. Employers want low premiums. Guess who has to come up with a way to appease these demands and stay on a budget. That's right, the insurers. Imagine, if you will, that the health care providers, consumers and employers were all guests at a dinner party. The host is the insurers. A large strawberry cheesecake is placed on the table for dessert. Each of the guests demanded one half of the cheesecake as their well earned slice. Do you still think the insurers are as greedy and evil as our politicians claim?

Also, the public option was a mandate, which is politico-speak for legal requirement. Option means choice. If the public "option" is required by law, it is not a choice or option. The politicians should have called it a public mandate. I think they were afraid the mandate would give away their real intent, to let the taxpayer subsidized "option" be chosen by so many people it would become a single payer system. Under a single payer system, who do you think will control the system. If you said the politicians, move to the head of the class.

Look back at the end of the first paragraph and the dinner party cheesecake dilemma. Now imagine the same situation except the government is the host instead of private insurers. How do you think the government would have handled the dilemma? Based on their past performances in similar situations, I believe they would have ordered 2 more cheesecakes and put the bill on a credit card billable to the American Taxpayers, present and future generations.

A few observations on the economy

I want to set a few facts straight here.  First,  President Obama is quite sincere when he says he will not raise our taxes by one cent.   The U. S. Constitution says that "All  bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."   US Presidents can and usually do propose legislation to Congress for their approval.   They can hit the campaign trail and try to raise voter support to their proposed bills.   They can hold press conferences  and media appearances to urge, support, cajole or whatever they believe necessary to get their proposed legislation approved by Congress.  They also have the right to veto any proposed bills and return them to Congress.   Congress then has the option to amend the bill to appease the President or hold a second vote in hopes of getting enough votes to override the veto.   Congress also has the option to let their proposed bills die on the vine.  

In summary, when our taxes go up in the future to cover all the funds given away in the name of economic stimulus and recovery, it will be the Congress that passes the legislation.  The President will only be able to veto the bills or sign off on them as law.  

More fact straightening to come soon.

A sign of REAL Hope from the health care front.

Quote of the Day:

"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius says, "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing. We need some choices, we need some competition." Kathleen Sebelius US Secretary of HHS. NY Times August 16, 2009.

Counterquote of the Day

"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error."
-- Robert Houghwout Jackson, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and Chief Judge at the War-Crimes Tribunal in Nuremberg

I am glad to hear the President and his health care reform comrades are finally starting to listen to Americans who live outside of the DC Beltway. Most Americans know that health care costs are climbing but they still want their current insurance (if they have it). Remember, when the New Deal gave us the Social Security Act, the social security tax was 1% of the first $3000.00 annual wages for then covered employees. Now workers pay 6.2% of the first $102,000.00 for social security and 1.45% for Medicare on all wages, the sky's the limit for Medicare. Despite these increases lots of people do not believe they will be able to depend on it at all. This is a major reason why American Voters are so concerned about a public option for health care. They believe it will open yet another door for more government intrusion in their personal lives and the American Economy.

Here is my suggestion for President Obama, Secretary Selebius, Speaker Pelosi et al.
Read Charles Krauthammer's article "Health care reform: a better plan" in the August 7, 2009 edition of the Washington Post. He believes tort reform is the first priority. He cites a Massachusetts Medical Society study that shows that 5 of 6 doctors report 1 of 4 procedures they order are purely for defense from lawsuits. Cut down on these wasteful tests and you will save lots of money that can be directed to more productive use.

Obama's unhatched chickens

We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors. AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare.
-President Barack Obama at Portsmouth, N. H. town hall meeting August 11, 2009

AARP has been working with Democrats and Republicans to fix our broken health care system. While the president was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate
-Tom Nelson, COO, AARP August 11, 2009 AARP Press Center

Well, can you blame AARP for not endorsing Obamacare at this time? There are 5 different health care "reform" bills under consideration in Congress now. Nobody knows what the final bill will contain or even if there will be a bill to vote on this year. Another reason for AARP withholding endorsement is many seniors concern that Medicare benefits will be cut to help pay for insurance on the currently uninsured. Since AARP is the largest lobby for Americans age 50 and up, to endorse any of the bills at this point would cause an uproar from their membership base. The best thing AARP can do for Americans at this point is advocate what lots of Americans want. They do not want a complete overhaul of the USA health care system in less than 12 months. Maybe if AARP reminded President Obama that he was elected for 4 years he might finally get the message and stop trying to push 1000+ pages of legislation through Congress overnight as if it is emergency legislation. It's not an emergency!!