You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2009.
Newspapers and television continue to “report” that most people favor a “public option” for health care. It would appear that eventually, enough people will go along with (what they think is) the crowd who want a public option so that Senators and Congressmen will have polls to hide behind when they vote for this provision. The polls vary widely and you can find a poll to say most want or most don’t want a “public option.”
It is my guess that those who do want a “public option” feel that way because they believe it will be at a lower cost than their current insurance. I think they also assume that it will be as good a program as what they now have. I think both these assumptions are wrong.
First, I don’t think a “public option” will be cost effective. If it is, on the surface, the real costs will be hidden, much like the case with Medicare today. Medicare can be made to look good on paper if you don’t show the cost shifting that removes much of the cost and transfers it to private payers. By definition, government operations are supported by public money and laws written in their favor. In the short term, some people may receive medical care under a public option for a price lower than they would get in the private sector. In the long term, however, all taxpayers will pay the true cost of that care. As proposed now, the bulk of that cost will shift from the government programs to the private sector. The bulk of the taxes will be paid by those who earn the most. As time goes on, the high income individuals will not be able to support the costs and taxation will increase on the ‘middle class.’
I also believe that quality of care will go down. When there is little choice (like in Canada or Britain), there is little incentive to give better service than your competitor. When that is the case, you get horror stories about not just low quality care, but, neglect. I was recently sent an interesting report from England about the NHS. It is a fascinating, if disturbing, report. See it here.
I still go back to an old business school line: “Fast, Cheap, Good – Pick two.” If we are to believe the politicians, we can have faster, cheaper, and better care if we turn it over to government control. The evidence shows that you can’t have more than two of these things without the third suffering. If you have ever sold something to the government, you will have seen the tons of paperwork, the many special requirements, and the layers of bureaucracy that drive the price of an item higher than one could imagine. $84 hammers are real. The U.S. government buys them all the time. You can have one for about $25 at one of many competing companies who want to sell you one. My guess is that if we had a ‘public option” in hardware, we would also have the ability to buy $84 hammers and we would also have the joy of waiting through the four month procurement process.
I hope many of the people who believe that a “Public option” will be a less expensive option will look at the numbers or check the track record of those who want them to believe. I think they will change their minds.
(I apologize for not posting for the past week plus. My wife and I took a week of vacation and had little or no internet connection in Western British Columbia where we stayed. Had we had a better connection, I probably still wouldn’t have posted. Here is a piece that I wrote before we left. I should be back on schedule later this week.)
“Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.” President Obama, September 9, 2009
I do not want to “kill reform at any cost.” In fact, I am much in favor of reform. I do think that the way in which Mr. Obama and the Congress are going about reforming our medical care delivery system is badly flawed. I want us to reform medical care delivery by getting government less involved, not more involved. I want to see us have insurance companies competing by being allowed to offer policies that can cross state lines. I want to see most of the state mandates go away. These are both major cost drivers. I also want to see major tort law reform, and changes in the way we deal with Pharmaceutical companies. Mr. Obama knows that there are a lot of people who feel as I do that reform would be a good thing and they just don’t want reform of the type he is proposing. To me, what is “so cynical and irresponsible” is a President who is so bent on passing a bill that will allow government to control healthcare that he has stooped to “lie, plain and simple.”
“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.” – Barack Obama, September 9, 2009
To me, what amounts to ”scare tactics” is a President who says that healthcare reform is urgent and must be passed now our our economy will crumble. To me, what is bothersome is that the person who said, “Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points,” is guilty of exactly that.
“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.” – Barack Obama, September 9, 2009
I agree with Mr. Obama that the time for games has passed. The problem is that Mr. Obama and the members of his administration and Congress continue to play the same games. If Mr. Obama were serious, he would do something about the game playing. He has not. He continues to spread the misinformation he hopes Americans will believe so that he can get his signature legislation passed.
“Bogus claims?” Yes there are many bogus claims being thrown about. Unfortunately, many of them are coming from the White House.
To me, it is time to stop playing games. Leadership starts at the top. If that is what Mr. Obama wants, he needs to act responsibly and stop playing his own games. I have little faith that will happen. You will know he has stopped playing games when you hear Mr. Obama say that the real reason for the rush to pass “health care reform” was political opportunism – hurrying before people realized the potential consequences and taking advantage of his honeymoon with Congress and the public. You will know he has stopped playing games when you hear Mr. Obama say that his goal is for the government to run all healthcare and make all citizens dependent upon the government for their care. He won’t say this because, though it is true, it would scare off too many citizens who still feel a bit of self reliance.
When Republicans in particular and a large majority of citizens in general criticized Hillary Clinton’s Health Care Reform plans in 1993, was that racist or sexist? Or, is it possible that many people just disagreed with the First Lady? I think some were sexist, but, I think the vast majority didn’t like what she was proposing to do.
When Democrats stood and booed and waved papers at George W. Bush when he gave his State of the Union Address to Congress in 2005, was that racist or just because they disagreed with his policies? I think they just disagreed with what he was saying.
When Republicans booed President Clinton at his State of the Union Addresses in 1995, 1997, and 1998, was that racist? Again, I think it was because they disagreed with what he was saying.
If 24 out of 25 voters who happen to be Black voted for Mr. Obama, was that because they are racists? I’m sure some are, but, I think the vast majority just liked the prospect of President Obama more than they like the idea of a President McClain.
When ACORN is proven to have employees of poor ethical standards and people ask that they no longer receive taxpayer’s support, is that racist? I actually think it is the rational thing to do and has nothing to do with race.
Had John Kerry been elected President he would have owed a lot to his mentor Edward Kennedy. Would he have repaid that debt by sponsoring health care reform measures like what we see proposed today? Would as many people be against those proposals? I think so.
Am I right to believe that Democrats will continue to use the race card because it has proven an effective tool to silence critics? That is what I believe.
Interesting side note: I wrote this post 24 hours ago but hesitated to post it. I’m sure it was because of a combination of political correctness and fear of being labeled racist…..very sad.
A year ago, in my “About” statement, I said that I thought we had a choice between “Fair” and “Free.” Will we be free to pursue our dreams or will we be restricted in what we do in order to make certain that no one is discriminated against or subjected to “unfair” treatment? I still think we face that choice and it was brought home to me by a recent reading of the Obama Administration’s new proposal to Congress for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
In case you hadn’t noticed through the smoke screen of the “Health Care Debate,” Mr. Obama has proposed the creation of a new agency, a HUGE new agency. It would, without replacing them, add further structure (more bureaucrats) and new layers of regulation and enforcement to the financial sector. The proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) would absorb many of the mandates (those related to consumer protection) of the:
Controller of the Currency; the Office of Thrift Supervision; FDIC; Federal Trade Commission; National Credit Union Administration; etc.
It would turn over investigation and enforcement of the following consumer laws to this new agency:
(A) the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act (12 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.);
(B) the Community Reinvestment Act (12 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.);
(C) the Consumer Leasing Act (15 U.S.C. 1667 et seq.);
(D) the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.);
(E) the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.);
(F) the Fair Credit Billing Act (15 U.S.C. 1666-1666j);
(G) the Fair Credit Reporting Act except with respect to sections 615(e), 624, and 628 (15 U.S.C. 1681m(e), 1681s-3, 1681w); 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23;
(H) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.);
(I) the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, subsections 43(c) through (f) (12 U.S.C. 1831t(c)-(f));
(J) the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, sections 502 through 509 (15 U.S.C. 6802-6809);
(K) the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (12 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.);
(L) the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1639);
(M) the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. 2601-2610);
(N) the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act (12 U.S.C. 5101-5116);
(O) the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.); and
(P) the Truth in Savings Act (12 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.).
It would also enforce the terms of a myriad of other controlling laws and regulations, like the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, and the Investment Company Act of 1940.
We are told that the sole purpose of this Act is to protect consumers while leveling the playing field for all. I am always leery when I hear that a law will “level the playing field.” That normally means one person will be restricted (lose freedoms) so that another person can be treated more fairly (be given competitive advantages). Mr. Obama’s surrogates are saying this will bring competition to the credit card business so that consumers will have better choices. It may just be that Mr. Obama has a better sense of humor than I thought, but, how can that be anything but a joke when there are over 6000 credit card issuers in the U.S. right now. And, by regulating them more, we will see more competition?
I am also concerned that the Agency will be guided by a Board of 5 members, four appointed by the President for 5 years (Senate consent) plus the Director of the National Bank Supervisor (another new position and new agency yet to be codified in the Law). It appears to me that this will put appointed bureaucrats in complete control of the country’s financial system and the controlling parties will be selected by a Democrat President and a Democrat controlled Congress. Though their purpose may seem to be to help protect consumers, it certainly has the look of a takeover of our financial institutions – step two, after buying the banks and financial firms with TARP money.
Though I have scanned all and read much of the 152 page Act sent to Congress by Mr. Obama earlier in the week, I still have MANY QUESTIONS.
Why doesn’t this new agency replace any of the the agencies it will now oversee and control?
How much will this cost us? The Bill mentions that the new Agency will get personnel transferred from each of the existing agencies it will oversee/overlap with, but I see no limitations on its size or cost. The direct cost of another huge agency will likely run into the $ Billions each year. But what will be the cost of all the new regulation and enforcement to consumers?
If we do have a serious problem with financial institutions, is this the best fix?
Why does almost every solution coming out of Washington, D.C. require a new agency?
I hope there are some reporters out there who will investigate this proposed law and that someone in the media will start telling us more about it. I fear that under the cover of the war over health care, this will just slide by and we will soon be funding a new agency to the tune of Billions of Dollars a year and indirectly through more Billions in compliance costs.
Steven at the Scalduggery blog recently wrote a post about Measuring Freedom. It tied in nicely with some questions that I posted in “What is Wrong with European Socialism.” He referenced a post at the American Spectator (What’s your Metric) . The American Spectator post does a better job than I did of focussing on the question at hand. What is your measure of Freedom?
My questions were all pointed in that direction. I was curious how our lives would change if the government took over healthcare, etc., etc. What I really should have asked is: What is Freedom and how do we know when we gain or lose some of it? I don’t know the answer or at least, I can’t give you the perfect definition. I also don’t know how to measure it, or better said, haw to describe how to measure it. I do, however, feel when I have less of it. Here are some examples that may help you tell me what my metric should be. How should I measure FREEDOM?
1. I like the fact that freedoms are always accompanied by responsibilities. That is the theme of this entire exercise/this blog. The more responsibilities I have is probably related to the number of Freedoms I enjoy.
2. I feel that I am losing freedoms when I don’t do something and my reason is ‘there is too much liability.’
3. I know I have lost some freedom when I discover I can’t just build my barn. I have to get planning commission approval, building permits, electrical permits, sewage permits, permission to dig on my property, permission to take down some trees to make way for the barn, etc., etc., etc.
4. I know I have lost some of my freedom when I take the time to think, “Is it legal to do this?” My moral compass is pretty decent and if something seems perfectly alright to me and yet I wonder if it may be illegal, it must be that something I should be free to do, may not be so.
5. I think one of my measures of Freedom lost is paperwork. Each time I consider the amount of paperwork required to do something and how much of it is demanded by government regulation, insurance requirements, or fear of liability, I know I am less free. For example, When I was just out of the Air Force and selling real estate in Northern Virginia in 1973/4, we had a one page, single side sales contract. Today that contract is something like 11 pages.
What is your measure of Freedom gained or lost?
“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.” - President Obama, September 9, 2009
It is said that leadership starts at the top, not the bottom. If that is so, then Mr. Obama should be displaying the behavior he wants all his critics to display. For example, he says that, “The time for games has passed.” That would mean Mr. Obama should stop playing games. From the start of the healthcare push, Mr. Obama has been playing a game. He has refused to give specifics and claims to be leaving the crafting of the bill where it belongs, in Congress. Since Congress is charged with developing legislation, he is right to do this. However, he then makes claims about the plan with all the power of the Presidency behind those claims. Then, when it turns out those claims are untrue or unpopular, his game allows him to lay blame at the foot of Congress.
Last night’s speech was billed as a chance for Mr. Obama to clear the air and get specific about what he feels we should do to reform healthcare. Instead, he danced around the issues that most worry the public, or, he made claims that will be ultimately deniable when Congress does something counter to those claims. For example, during the August Congressional Recess, most members of Congress heard concerns from constituents of all stripes. What they heard loud and clear was, “Don’t take my doctor, my insurance from me.” In response to this, last night, Mr. Obama said, “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.” Technically that may be true. But, it is a game. Every analysis I have read agrees that as written, this bill’s end result will be very large numbers (as in Millions) of Americans having to change medical providers. It is all part of his game.
Monkey see, monkey do, Mr. President. You want games to stop. Stop playing the game and level with the people.
Joe Wilson was wrong to blurt out, “You lie.” during President Obama’s speech last night. He was not wrong in what he said. The only bill we have been able to see, HR 3200, does not prevent illegals from utilizing the services enumerated in the bill. He was wrong in that what he did was both impolite (you should never interrupt) and it was an affront to the office of the President. Congressman Wilson may not like the President or his policies (or he may like the President and just doesn’t like his policies) but the Office of the President as represented by Mr. Obama should be treated with more respect….both by Mr. Wilson and by Mr. Obama.
Just as Mr. Wilson was wrong in what he did, so was Mr. Obama. Lying and intentionally misleading the public should both be below the occupant of the Presidency. Saying, “”I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period“ is, in the very kindest light, a highly misleading statement. Saying that “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.” is, at best, a major exaggeration. The President was inaugurated only 232 days ago. Between Cap and Trade and the “Stimulus Bill”, the Congress has had less than half a year to “work” on healthcare. The results show they have done far less work than that.
I don’t condone Mr. Wilson’s outburst. I do believe that Mr. Obama’s disrespect for his office will lead to more of this.
When I originally started this blog, I said that my intent was to ask more questions than I answered. Here is a toast to that intent.
The current proposed bill in Congress regarding healthcare takes our country further in the direction of the current European version of Socialism than anything we have done since the New Deal. Lots of folks believe this will spell the end to the freedoms that we enjoy and that we will no longer be the place where people are free to do most anything they want without government interference. The result is that a very large part of the U.S population is VERY wary of the pending healthcare legislation. Should they be? How bad is the current version of European Socialism?
Here are some questions I have asked myself that help me to understand just how important, or not, is the debate about socializing medicine in the U.S.:
Is life less free in Germany or England or Sweden than in the U.S.A.?
What things can our fellow humans in those countries not do that we can?
Are the English (or Swedes or Germans, etc.) less free to start a business than we are? Why?
Is their society more civil than ours? Or, less? In what ways?
Is their society less innovative than ours? Or, less? In what ways?
Does socialized medicine allow the political class to have more control over the lives of the rest of the society?
Does “universal healthcare” substitute minimal care for all in place of excellent care for most and emergency care only for a few?
If this (modern European socialized medicine) is the model that Congress wants us to follow, why is there so little discussion of the questions above?
Speaking to the National Association of Food Producers, last Thursday, President Obama said, “To say it as plainly as I can, food care reform is the single most important thing we can do for America’s long-term fiscal health. That is a fact.” ”It is urgent,” he said, “that we act to rid our country of this problem as soon as possible.”
Finally, after months of letting the Congress try to craft the Foodcare Reform Bill, Mr. Obama has decided to lay out the plan that he wants Congress to make into the law of the land. He has told Nancy Bellicosi, Speaker of the House, and Harry Dweeb, the Majority Leader in the Senate, that he expects an appropriate Bill on his desk prior to the Columbus Day Recess or he will ask that all Members of Congress remain in Washington until they finish their work. Here is Mr. Obama’s plan:
President Obama has called for Food care Reform in 2009 that upholds three core principles. It must:
- Reduce Costs
- Guarantee choice, including a public option
- Ensure Quality Food for All (Universal Foodcare).
Mr. Obama further explained that it was obvious that with Government Foodcare, we will be able to reduce food costs since we will grow and distribute food more efficiently than the private sector. The government doesn’t have all those evil rich CEOs that demand profits and who get paid unfair salaries. Fears that this means the government will be nationalizing farms and grocery outlets are unfounded according to the President. The President emphasized this saying, “no matter how we reform food care, we will keep this promise: If you like your grocer, you will be able to keep your grocer. Period. If you like your local baker, you will be able to keep your local baker. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that food care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.”
A public option (think of it as a mega grocery store called ObamaFoods) would bring competition to the market. Instead of the current situation where a few fat cats dominate the market and set the prices as high as they want, ObamaFoods would bring competition and lower prices. People would be free to choose to buy their food at ObamaFoods stores and would even get double credit there for their food stamps. Mr. Obama explained that, “…there is no intent here to eliminate private food stores and producers, just to keep the fat cats honest.”
Of course, Universal Foodcare is a God-given right for everyone and especially in a country as rich as ours, there is no reason why anyone should go hungry. We are so rich (almost 9 of 10 people in our country who want a job have one) that surely we can afford to buy food for those who can’t afford it (after paying their cable bill and boat payment). In 2008, it was estimated that 37 Million people (including non-citizen residents) fell below the poverty line ($21,203 for a family of four). It is our moral obligation to feed these people and to feed them well. With food stamps, you can barely get flour and sugar and salt and all those messy ingredients. We need to be able to let our hungry have their Ding Dongs and Twinkies already made, not force them to do all that messy cooking.
Reference articles on hungry Americans here and here.
Makes about as much sense as the current plans the Administration has for Healthcare, doesn’t it? And, don’t doubt that they are thinking about it. If $19 Billion went to Food Stamps programs in the “Stimulus Bill,” and ‘only’ $18 Billion went to Health Care, how far away can this program be?
If you have not emailed or called your Senators and Congress person, please do so now and tell them how you feel about socialized medicine. Thanks.
1. What is a Czar and what authority does Mr. Obama have to appoint a Czar of Lottery Standardization or a Antidiscrimination Czar for Lefthanders? Does the country really need 45 different Czars with unregulated power, answering only to the President?
2. If Social Security is the retirement security that you want, does that mean Government Controlled Healthcare is the health insurance you want? Put another way, if most people can’t imagine living off of their Social Security payments, do they think they will be able to (continue to) live with Government Healthcare?
3. If Healthcare is the most important issue to the U.S. Economy, (“To say it as plainly as I can, health care reform is the single most important thing we can do for America’s long-term fiscal health. That is a fact.”), why did it only get $18 Billion of the Stimulus Funds? That is less than 2.5% of the total. Temporary increases in Food Stamp programs got over $19 Billion. So, I guess Food Stamps are more important than Healthcare.
4. Once started, how many government programs do you recall that have closed their doors? How many have grown at a faster rate than the population?
5. Why have we still not seen any transcripts from the studies of Barack Obama at Occidental or Columbia? In fact, doesn’t it seem that we know almost nothing about this President? Does anyone know how he paid for college? If he had student loans, who paid those debts for him?
6. Why did UPS pay $6.1 Billion to buy their drivers out of the Teamsters Pension Plan?
7. Have you written to your Senators and Member of Congress to briefly tell them to vote against any more government control of healthcare in America?
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. … We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?” –George Orwell, “1984″
“The political lesson of Watergate is this: Never again must America allow an arrogant, elite guard of political adolescents to by-pass the regular party organization and dictate the terms of a national election.” - Gerald R. Ford (He is also the man who said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”)
Latest comments: