THE PRESIDENT…“There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: You lie! (Boos.)”
THE PRESIDENT: It's not true.
This interchange ended with the censure of Joe Wilson on the Senate floor, and continual denials that reform would include options for coverage for those here illegally.
It turns out it was a lie. This very coverage has been introduced by a cadre of Democrats no doubt doing the dirty work of the White House, so the President can continue to pretend as though he had no hand in this. Here is the report from the Washington Post this morning: “Fearful that they're losing ground on immigration and health care, a group of House Democrats is pushing back and arguing that any health care bill should extend to all legal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants some access, The Washington Times reported on Monday. The Democrats, trying to stiffen their party's spines on the contentious issue, say it's unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange. Legal immigrants, they say, regardless of how long they've been in the United States, should be able to get government-subsidized health care if they meet the other eligibility requirements.”
The inclusion of legal and illegal immigrants is being proposed by Rep Honda of California, and 20 of his fellow Democrats.
And if this fails - the plan truly is to legitimize their status in this country - even in the face of double digit unemployment for those here legally. Last month in Guadalajara, Mexico, President Obama said that he was "confident" he would get Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform that included a "pathway to citizenship" for illegal aliens."If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all," Obama said. "That's what I've said from the start. That's what I say tonight."
Who is lying? Who deserves censure? Not Joe Wilson - he deserves an apology!
Monday, September 28, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Baucus Committee confirms cut in Medicare Advantage Benefits.
Baucus Committee confirms cut in Medicare Advantage Benefits.
The Congress Daily confirmed on Wednesday the news that senior benefits under Medicare Advantage Plans would be cut. This confirmation came just a day after Humana was accused of misrepresenting and misleading its Medicare Advantage Policyholders.
"Baucus' mark requires Medicare Advantage plans to competitively bid federal payment rates in an attempt to eliminate overpayments for the private insurers to offer extra benefits traditional Medicare beneficiaries do not receive. The extra benefits will likely be cut under the overhaul.
Republicans claimed the Medicare Advantage cuts run counter to President Obama's assertions that Medicare benefits would not be cut. Democrats parsed their words to keep Obama's promise, arguing Medicare beneficiaries do not receive the extra benefits the private plans offer.
Private plans serve nearly a quarter of the 45 million Medicare beneficiaries. " It is time to stop the sin of lying through omission, and to stop others from telling the truth, A link to the entire article is found here:http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/hcp_20090923_4295.php
The Congress Daily confirmed on Wednesday the news that senior benefits under Medicare Advantage Plans would be cut. This confirmation came just a day after Humana was accused of misrepresenting and misleading its Medicare Advantage Policyholders.
"Baucus' mark requires Medicare Advantage plans to competitively bid federal payment rates in an attempt to eliminate overpayments for the private insurers to offer extra benefits traditional Medicare beneficiaries do not receive. The extra benefits will likely be cut under the overhaul.
Republicans claimed the Medicare Advantage cuts run counter to President Obama's assertions that Medicare benefits would not be cut. Democrats parsed their words to keep Obama's promise, arguing Medicare beneficiaries do not receive the extra benefits the private plans offer.
Private plans serve nearly a quarter of the 45 million Medicare beneficiaries. " It is time to stop the sin of lying through omission, and to stop others from telling the truth, A link to the entire article is found here:http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/hcp_20090923_4295.php
Saturday, September 26, 2009
One more Lie
HR 3200 has gone through the week largely unscathed - which is just more proof to me that no one cares what we the people think or want.It doesn’t take long to run into an “uh-oh” moment when reading the House’s “health care for all Americans” bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
Yes you read that correctly - The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:
“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers , and as people leave jobs or leave insurance plans, those plans will dissolve as those remaining will cause the plan to lose financial viability.
From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington’s coverage.
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, “fizzle out altogether.”
What wasn’t known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.
The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.
With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left’s expansion of the welfare state will be removed.
The public option won’t be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.
Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn’t be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans’ lives. And oh by the way - under this bill you can go to jail for not having insurance…..
Yes you read that correctly - The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:
“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers , and as people leave jobs or leave insurance plans, those plans will dissolve as those remaining will cause the plan to lose financial viability.
From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington’s coverage.
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, “fizzle out altogether.”
What wasn’t known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.
The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.
With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left’s expansion of the welfare state will be removed.
The public option won’t be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.
Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn’t be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans’ lives. And oh by the way - under this bill you can go to jail for not having insurance…..
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
More Chicago Strong Arm Politics - this time on Health Care
You are either at the table or on the menu according to lobbyists in Washington when it comes to health care. All of the major media have reported that earlier this month, Humana sent a one-page letter to its customers enrolled in its Medicare Advantage plans, which offer private options to Medicare beneficiaries. Humana noted that, because of spending cuts proposed by Democrats, "millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable." The company also urged its customers to contact their Representatives. Fairly tame you would think right? Not to Max Baucus.
Mr. Baucus took it as a declaration of war, and complained to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which ordered Humana to cease and desist. CMS claimed the mailer was "misleading and confusing" and told the company it has opened an official probe as to whether the mailer violated laws about how the insurers that manage Advantage plans are allowed to communicate with their customers, as well as other federal statutes.
"Please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings of our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions," CMS concluded, ominously. Humana could be fined or booted from Medicare Advantage altogether.
"It is wholly inappropriate for insurance companies to mislead seniors regarding any subject—particularly on a subject as important to them, and to the nation, as health-care reform," Mr. Baucus said in a statement yesterday, playing the role of Congressional censor. "The health-care reform bill we released last week strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits covered under the Medicare program—and seniors need to know that."
In fact, the Baucus draft legislation slashes $123 billion over the next decade from Medicare Advantage, which Democrats hate despite the fact that almost one-fourth of beneficiaries have chosen it over traditional fee-for-service Medicare. One reason seniors like it is because private insurers focus on quality and preventive care and try to manage benefits, as opposed to simply paying bills.
A new study from America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group, finds that seniors on Advantage in California spent 30% fewer days in hospitals over fee-for-service patients, based on federal data. These cuts—as Humana correctly noted— could mean that seniors may lose this coverage.
Mr. Baucus doesn't want seniors to be educated about these facts, and obviously he's willing to use his enormous power to punish any private company that doesn't his version of reality. Yesterday, the agency barred all Advantage insurers from providing similar information to their beneficiaries.
This episode neatly shows how all U.S. health care will operate if Mr. Baucus's bill becomes law. They'll have no choice but to support administration policies or the political class will pull out the tire irons and dump their bleeding bodies in the Chicago River.
Humana made the mistake of trying to tell seniors the truth about what will happen to their coverage, after months of supporting health care reform in the hopes they would stay at the table when all those new bodies came in to the insurance market and now they better hire a good team of lawyers. Mr. Baucus and the Obama Administration are out to make Humana an object lesson to the rest of the business class, and that means they won't stop until Humana cries uncle or is ruined.
Mr. Baucus took it as a declaration of war, and complained to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which ordered Humana to cease and desist. CMS claimed the mailer was "misleading and confusing" and told the company it has opened an official probe as to whether the mailer violated laws about how the insurers that manage Advantage plans are allowed to communicate with their customers, as well as other federal statutes.
"Please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings of our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions," CMS concluded, ominously. Humana could be fined or booted from Medicare Advantage altogether.
"It is wholly inappropriate for insurance companies to mislead seniors regarding any subject—particularly on a subject as important to them, and to the nation, as health-care reform," Mr. Baucus said in a statement yesterday, playing the role of Congressional censor. "The health-care reform bill we released last week strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits covered under the Medicare program—and seniors need to know that."
In fact, the Baucus draft legislation slashes $123 billion over the next decade from Medicare Advantage, which Democrats hate despite the fact that almost one-fourth of beneficiaries have chosen it over traditional fee-for-service Medicare. One reason seniors like it is because private insurers focus on quality and preventive care and try to manage benefits, as opposed to simply paying bills.
A new study from America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group, finds that seniors on Advantage in California spent 30% fewer days in hospitals over fee-for-service patients, based on federal data. These cuts—as Humana correctly noted— could mean that seniors may lose this coverage.
Mr. Baucus doesn't want seniors to be educated about these facts, and obviously he's willing to use his enormous power to punish any private company that doesn't his version of reality. Yesterday, the agency barred all Advantage insurers from providing similar information to their beneficiaries.
This episode neatly shows how all U.S. health care will operate if Mr. Baucus's bill becomes law. They'll have no choice but to support administration policies or the political class will pull out the tire irons and dump their bleeding bodies in the Chicago River.
Humana made the mistake of trying to tell seniors the truth about what will happen to their coverage, after months of supporting health care reform in the hopes they would stay at the table when all those new bodies came in to the insurance market and now they better hire a good team of lawyers. Mr. Baucus and the Obama Administration are out to make Humana an object lesson to the rest of the business class, and that means they won't stop until Humana cries uncle or is ruined.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Chicago's South Side Solution for Health Care
Michelle Obama took up the cry for health care reform in a speech on Friday. “If we want to ensure women have opportunities that they deserve, if we want women to be able to care for their families and pursue things they could never imagine, then we have to reform the system."
Women play a unique and increasingly significant role in families, she said, with eight in 10 mothers reporting they are the ones responsible for choosing their children's doctors. More than 10 percent of women in this country are caring for a sick or elderly relative”. She went on to say: “ There will always be folks who will want things to stay just the way they are," Obama said. "I am here today standing before you as the First Lady of the United States of America because you all didn't settle for the world as it is... Health care is the next step." Her commitment to the most disadvantaged among us must be the result of some change of heart since she certainly demonstrated something different while working for the prestigious University of Chicago Medical Center. Shortly after Barack Obama joined the U.S. Senate in 2005, the medical center promoted Michelle Obama to vice president of community and external relations, and more than doubled her salary.
Mrs. Obama first hatched the UCMC program as the "South Side Health Collaborative. The program placed counselors in the emergency room where Chicago's inner city residents soon began hearing that UCMC's patient dumping program would "dramatically improve health care for thousands of South Side residents" and that the medical center was generously willing to provide "a ride on a shuttle bus to other centers." Likewise, the people who ran the community hospitals to which these unwanted patients were being shuttled began to read claims in local media to the effect that the Urban Health Initiative was good for them as well. Dr. Eric Whitaker, the Blagojevich crony who succeeded Mrs. Obama as Director of the program, repeatedly assured gullible reporters that the impact on these hospitals would be positive: "The initiative actually is improving their bottom lines." The CFOs of those hospitals were no doubt relieved to learn that treating Medicaid and uninsured patients is profitable
The program was so successful in getting rid of unwanted patients that she expanded it, gave it a new name, and hired none other than David Axelrod to sell the program to the public. According to the Sun-Times, "Obama's wife and Valerie Jarrett, an Obama friend and adviser who chaired the medical center's board, backed the Axelrod firm's hiring." Axelrod helped the future First Lady formulate a public relations campaign in which the "Urban Health Initiative" was represented as a boon to the community actuated by the purest of altruistic motives. Even many members of UCMC's medical staff believe the program is nothing more than an "attempt to ensure that the hospital retains only affluent patients with insurance" according to the Washington Post.
Even staunch Obama supporters like Toni Preckwinkle, a former teacher who represents Chicago's 4th Ward and who was an Obama delegate at the Democratic National Convention have trouble with the UCMC model. "It's hard to know whether this is motivated by the interests of the patients or by the financial interests of the medical center." Asked her personal conclusion, by the Chicago Tribune Preckwinkle paused. "They have decided they need to have as many paying patients as possible," she said. "That's all I'm going to say."
Edward Novak, president of Chicago's Sacred Heart Hospital, declined to discuss the center's initiative in particular but dismissed as "bull" attempts to justify such programs as good for patients. "What they're really saying is, 'Don't use our emergency room because it will cost us money, and we don't want the public-aid population,' " Novak said.
Women play a unique and increasingly significant role in families, she said, with eight in 10 mothers reporting they are the ones responsible for choosing their children's doctors. More than 10 percent of women in this country are caring for a sick or elderly relative”. She went on to say: “ There will always be folks who will want things to stay just the way they are," Obama said. "I am here today standing before you as the First Lady of the United States of America because you all didn't settle for the world as it is... Health care is the next step." Her commitment to the most disadvantaged among us must be the result of some change of heart since she certainly demonstrated something different while working for the prestigious University of Chicago Medical Center. Shortly after Barack Obama joined the U.S. Senate in 2005, the medical center promoted Michelle Obama to vice president of community and external relations, and more than doubled her salary.
Mrs. Obama first hatched the UCMC program as the "South Side Health Collaborative. The program placed counselors in the emergency room where Chicago's inner city residents soon began hearing that UCMC's patient dumping program would "dramatically improve health care for thousands of South Side residents" and that the medical center was generously willing to provide "a ride on a shuttle bus to other centers." Likewise, the people who ran the community hospitals to which these unwanted patients were being shuttled began to read claims in local media to the effect that the Urban Health Initiative was good for them as well. Dr. Eric Whitaker, the Blagojevich crony who succeeded Mrs. Obama as Director of the program, repeatedly assured gullible reporters that the impact on these hospitals would be positive: "The initiative actually is improving their bottom lines." The CFOs of those hospitals were no doubt relieved to learn that treating Medicaid and uninsured patients is profitable
The program was so successful in getting rid of unwanted patients that she expanded it, gave it a new name, and hired none other than David Axelrod to sell the program to the public. According to the Sun-Times, "Obama's wife and Valerie Jarrett, an Obama friend and adviser who chaired the medical center's board, backed the Axelrod firm's hiring." Axelrod helped the future First Lady formulate a public relations campaign in which the "Urban Health Initiative" was represented as a boon to the community actuated by the purest of altruistic motives. Even many members of UCMC's medical staff believe the program is nothing more than an "attempt to ensure that the hospital retains only affluent patients with insurance" according to the Washington Post.
Even staunch Obama supporters like Toni Preckwinkle, a former teacher who represents Chicago's 4th Ward and who was an Obama delegate at the Democratic National Convention have trouble with the UCMC model. "It's hard to know whether this is motivated by the interests of the patients or by the financial interests of the medical center." Asked her personal conclusion, by the Chicago Tribune Preckwinkle paused. "They have decided they need to have as many paying patients as possible," she said. "That's all I'm going to say."
Edward Novak, president of Chicago's Sacred Heart Hospital, declined to discuss the center's initiative in particular but dismissed as "bull" attempts to justify such programs as good for patients. "What they're really saying is, 'Don't use our emergency room because it will cost us money, and we don't want the public-aid population,' " Novak said.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Party of Unification - Focused on Division
Its time to stop already. No one cares anymore that Joe Wilson was not polite, and no one with half a brain believes it was racially motivated. There is absolutely no objective data available to support that position. There is less division along race lines than there EVER has been. Were that not so the Presidential election would have seen the same kind of opposition and division. This is smoke and mirrors, intentionally designed to keep everyone talking about racism accusations rather than the issues.
Issues like the Baucus plan released yesterday which even other Democratic Senators are saying will levy a huge tax on the middle class. (SenatorWarnsHugeTaxHike) They sure don’t want focus on the facts as reported by The Hill that: “The new costs would be fully offset by reductions in Medicare spending and by generating new revenue from an excise tax on health insurance companies that sell plans that cost more than $21,000 for families and more than $8,000 for individuals. Insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical-device makers, clinical laboratories and hospitals would also pay fees.” Let me see if I can get that one straight, the costs for the plan to provide care would be fully covered by increased costs to those providing services, reducing the services provided? Does that really make sense to ANYONE? No wonder Snowe bailed on that one.
They want the focus off the fact that- with Olympia Snowe refusing to support the bill, and the reconciliation process not likely given the death of Senator Kennedy and the illness of Senator Byrd - David Axelrod has called in favors in Massachusetts. The Mass State Senate will debate today whether to vote to change State Law back to allow the appointment of a Senator until a special election can be held in January. Remember that they changed this bill during the Kerry campaign while a Republican was Governor to insure that Kerry’s seat would not be filled with a Republican appointee.
They want to water down the focus on ACORN and the cloud of scandal hanging over it right now, or the fact that our current President has been an ardent supporter. The scandal has intensified to the point where ACORN has announced it will undergo an “Independent Review”. The Independent Review will be performed by individuals selected by the ACORN advisory board according to ACORN’s website. That advisory board includes : John Podesta, President and CEO, Center for American Progress; Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Board Member, RFK Foundation, former MD Lt. Governor; Andrew Stern, International President, Service Employees International Union; Henry Cisneros, Executive Chairman, Cityview; along with a few others including major financial supporters of ACORN projects. How objective and independent will a review board picked by the SEIU be?
They want no attention on the latest Rasmussen Poll. The poll released on Monday revealed that although Health care reform had rebounded after President Obama’s speech to Congress - one week later, opposition to his health care reform plan has reached a new high of 55%. The latest Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll shows that just 42% now support the plan, matching the low first reached in August.
And they sure don’t want the focus on the people who surround this administration including the czars and people like Arne Duncan. Arne Duncan like Obama and Ayers, is an alumnus of the Chicago political machine. Arne Duncan made news last year with his plan for Pride Campus, a proposal for a Chicago public school that would be "deliberately welcoming of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) teens." Pride Campus, which would have curriculum focused on teaching "the history of all people who have been oppressed and the civil rights movements that have led to social justice and queer studies." The gay-friendly school, to be called "Pride Campus," was quietly put on hold after Duncan's appointment as secretary of education was announced.
I agree - it’s much better to keep us focused on racism and incivility rather than all this other petty stuff…………...
Issues like the Baucus plan released yesterday which even other Democratic Senators are saying will levy a huge tax on the middle class. (SenatorWarnsHugeTaxHike) They sure don’t want focus on the facts as reported by The Hill that: “The new costs would be fully offset by reductions in Medicare spending and by generating new revenue from an excise tax on health insurance companies that sell plans that cost more than $21,000 for families and more than $8,000 for individuals. Insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical-device makers, clinical laboratories and hospitals would also pay fees.” Let me see if I can get that one straight, the costs for the plan to provide care would be fully covered by increased costs to those providing services, reducing the services provided? Does that really make sense to ANYONE? No wonder Snowe bailed on that one.
They want the focus off the fact that- with Olympia Snowe refusing to support the bill, and the reconciliation process not likely given the death of Senator Kennedy and the illness of Senator Byrd - David Axelrod has called in favors in Massachusetts. The Mass State Senate will debate today whether to vote to change State Law back to allow the appointment of a Senator until a special election can be held in January. Remember that they changed this bill during the Kerry campaign while a Republican was Governor to insure that Kerry’s seat would not be filled with a Republican appointee.
They want to water down the focus on ACORN and the cloud of scandal hanging over it right now, or the fact that our current President has been an ardent supporter. The scandal has intensified to the point where ACORN has announced it will undergo an “Independent Review”. The Independent Review will be performed by individuals selected by the ACORN advisory board according to ACORN’s website. That advisory board includes : John Podesta, President and CEO, Center for American Progress; Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Board Member, RFK Foundation, former MD Lt. Governor; Andrew Stern, International President, Service Employees International Union; Henry Cisneros, Executive Chairman, Cityview; along with a few others including major financial supporters of ACORN projects. How objective and independent will a review board picked by the SEIU be?
They want no attention on the latest Rasmussen Poll. The poll released on Monday revealed that although Health care reform had rebounded after President Obama’s speech to Congress - one week later, opposition to his health care reform plan has reached a new high of 55%. The latest Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll shows that just 42% now support the plan, matching the low first reached in August.
And they sure don’t want the focus on the people who surround this administration including the czars and people like Arne Duncan. Arne Duncan like Obama and Ayers, is an alumnus of the Chicago political machine. Arne Duncan made news last year with his plan for Pride Campus, a proposal for a Chicago public school that would be "deliberately welcoming of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) teens." Pride Campus, which would have curriculum focused on teaching "the history of all people who have been oppressed and the civil rights movements that have led to social justice and queer studies." The gay-friendly school, to be called "Pride Campus," was quietly put on hold after Duncan's appointment as secretary of education was announced.
I agree - it’s much better to keep us focused on racism and incivility rather than all this other petty stuff…………...
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
National Registration - Closer than you think?
Unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, just can't be achieved," Obama said in his address last week to Congress. "That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."
So - how would we manage the requirement? We manage the requirement for auto insurance through vehicle registration - would not a health insurance mandate require some form of national registration? How do we determine who is not covered, unless we have a way to determine exactly who should be covered?
In a 1994 report released as a discussion of the previous reforms proposed by Hilary Clinton the Congressional Budget Office said: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,".
Interestingly, the closest thing the CBO could find to mandatory health insurance was the draft.
"Federal mandates that apply to individuals as members of society are extremely rare. One example is the requirement that draft-age men register with the Selective Service System. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is not aware of any others imposed by current federal law," the report said.
In light of the 1994 report, There is only one sure way to avoid a health insurance mandate follow those who fled the draft: Fleeing to Canada
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Snake Oil for America?
Krauthammer of Obama following his Health Care Reform Speech: “He sounded smooth and polished and strong and convincing…and what he was selling was snake oil.”
It looks like the American people are standing in line to buy it. The most recent Rasmussen poll indicates that support for the plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats has risen to 47%, following the President’s speech on Wednesday. That number is up from 43% at the end of August and from 44% earlier this week. For the first time in weeks opposition to the plan has fallen below 50% to 49%.
This increase occurred even though: 46% say the quality of care will get worse, 47% say passage of the plan will make the cost of health care go up instead of achieving the stated goal of lowering costs and (even though the President and authors of the bill say differently) 52% of those with insurance say it’s likely that they will have to change their current health care coverage after passage of any congressional health care reform.
So we believe he is lying about rationing, taxpayer-funded abortion, about access to government health care by illegal aliens, and about the monstrous cost of this socialist program – and still we are buying into it. Krauthammer really took issue with Obama’s plan for funding this program:
“When he talked about what would be in his bill and how he would not end up with a dime of deficit, he said it will cost almost $1 trillion dollars and the majority of it, more than half, will come from — what? From removing waste, fraud, and abuse from Medicare. Now, that’s an insult to the intelligence of the American people. That phrase was a joke when it was used by Richard Nixon in 1971!”
Krauthammer goes on to point out the rather obvious question: if there’s all this fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare now (which there definitely is–as there is in most government programs), why not clean it up now? Could it perhaps be that you don’t really want to clean it up? Could it be that deep-down you know that like all socialist programs, human nature makes it almost impossible to really clean up?
And if that’s true of Medicare–which it is–what kind of moron would believe for a second that any government health care system would be better?
It seems to this writer that the American people are ready to mortgage the futures of their children to buy up the snake oil. We have responded to rhetoric. Rhetoric crafted and delivered by a man knowledgeable in the building block approach to societal change, and a man who admitted in an interview last night with 60 Minutes that he plans to be president for a “while”, and so is invested in the success of health care reform. This president (unless he plans to serve more than the permitted 2 terms) would never bear the consequence of failure. The current legislation is not planned to take effect until 2013, which would be his final term. The consequences of failure will belong to us, our children and our grand children
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Tort Reform – Best Public Option Yet
Tort reform is a policy no-brainer. Experts on left and right agree that defensive medicine—ordering tests and procedures solely to protect against Joe Lawyer—adds enormously to health costs. The estimated dollar benefits of reform range from a conservative $65 billion a year to perhaps $200 billion. In context, Mr. Obama's plan would cost about $100 billion annually. That the president won't embrace even modest change that would do so much, so quickly, to lower costs, has left Americans suspicious of his real ambitions
The only folks not on board are a handful of powerful trial lawyers, and a handful of politicians who receive a generous cut of those lawyers' contingency fees. The legal industry was the top contributor to the Democratic Party in the 2008 cycle, stumping up $47 million. The bill is now due, and Democrats are dutifully making a health-care down payment
Mr. Obama is instead directing his secretary of health and human services to move forward on test projects even though tort reform has already reduced costs in both Texas and California. Since the Secretary of Health and Human Services is Kathleen Sebelius, who spent eight years as the head of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association - many of us are questioning just how committed to tort reform this President is.
Friday, September 11, 2009
From Acorn & Alinsky to the Presidency
After graduation from Columbia College Barack Obama moved to Chicago to take a job with the Developing Communities Project(DCP) an organization founded and based on the thinking of Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky was a native of Chicago widely regarded as the father of Community organizing. The agitator's job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the "realization" that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent "self-interest" in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease.
It was during this time period that he was first introduced to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). He taught community organizers for ACORN - a controversial leftist group active nationwide that has pled guilty to voter fraud, and which is under intense scrutiny for reported illegal activities in Baltimore.
Obama left DCP after three years and returned to college. After his graduation from Harvard he returned to Chicago to work for Project Vote. Project Vote is an organization funded and controlled by ------ ACORN with a board of directors drawn from ACORN leadership. The Chicago group's slogan-"It's a Power Thing" coupled with funding from labor unions, the Clinton/Gore campaign and the influential religious communities of inner city Chicago registered more than 150,000 minority voters in 1992.
Obama left Project Vote and went to work for a Chicago law firm where he met Marilyn Katz, who gave him entry into another activist network: the foot soldiers of the white student and black power movements that helped define Chicago in the 1960s. Marilyn Katz is a former leader of Students for A Democratic Society (SDS) a radical Anti Vietnam war group which organized violent protests during the Vietnam era. This was also the time when Obama developed his relationships with William Ayers, and Benardine Dohrn unrepentant members of the radical Weather Underground that bombed the United States Capitol and the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. Ayers and Obama worked to reform the city’s education system. appearing together on academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss the juvenile justice system, an area of mutual concern. According to a New York Times Article “Mr. Obama further expanded his list of allies by joining the boards of two well-known charities: the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation.
These memberships have allowed him to help direct tens of millions of dollars in grants over the years to groups that championed the environment, campaign finance reform, gun control and other causes supported by the liberal network he was cultivating. Mr. Brazier’s group, the Woodlawn Organization, received money, for instance, as did antipoverty groups with ties to oralinsky.ganized labor like Chicago Acorn, the Woods Foundation bord of directors is also comprised largely of ACORN Leadership.
In 1995 Obama threw his hat in the political ring, running for the State Senate of Illinois with the endorsement of groups like Chicago Acorn - and the rest is history. But whose history and legacy are being recorded? ACORN’s?
It was during this time period that he was first introduced to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). He taught community organizers for ACORN - a controversial leftist group active nationwide that has pled guilty to voter fraud, and which is under intense scrutiny for reported illegal activities in Baltimore.
Obama left DCP after three years and returned to college. After his graduation from Harvard he returned to Chicago to work for Project Vote. Project Vote is an organization funded and controlled by ------ ACORN with a board of directors drawn from ACORN leadership. The Chicago group's slogan-"It's a Power Thing" coupled with funding from labor unions, the Clinton/Gore campaign and the influential religious communities of inner city Chicago registered more than 150,000 minority voters in 1992.
Obama left Project Vote and went to work for a Chicago law firm where he met Marilyn Katz, who gave him entry into another activist network: the foot soldiers of the white student and black power movements that helped define Chicago in the 1960s. Marilyn Katz is a former leader of Students for A Democratic Society (SDS) a radical Anti Vietnam war group which organized violent protests during the Vietnam era. This was also the time when Obama developed his relationships with William Ayers, and Benardine Dohrn unrepentant members of the radical Weather Underground that bombed the United States Capitol and the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. Ayers and Obama worked to reform the city’s education system. appearing together on academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss the juvenile justice system, an area of mutual concern. According to a New York Times Article “Mr. Obama further expanded his list of allies by joining the boards of two well-known charities: the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation.
These memberships have allowed him to help direct tens of millions of dollars in grants over the years to groups that championed the environment, campaign finance reform, gun control and other causes supported by the liberal network he was cultivating. Mr. Brazier’s group, the Woodlawn Organization, received money, for instance, as did antipoverty groups with ties to oralinsky.ganized labor like Chicago Acorn, the Woods Foundation bord of directors is also comprised largely of ACORN Leadership.
In 1995 Obama threw his hat in the political ring, running for the State Senate of Illinois with the endorsement of groups like Chicago Acorn - and the rest is history. But whose history and legacy are being recorded? ACORN’s?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
A question of Semantics?
Ahhh I see - the point here is that the law is not specifically DESIGNED to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants, it is simply an ancillary benefit. Now I am catching on to the way this game is played.
From the Washinton Post Today:
“Mr. Obama blamed "unyielding partisanship" in the political process for talking about "everything from this ridiculous idea that we were setting up death panels, to false notions that this was designed to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants, then this broader notion of a government takeover of health care."
This is the final report related to the bill sponsored by Illinois Senator Barack H. Obama, and which seems to have served as the basis for the current bill.
From page 7 of the Navigant Consulting Report:
State of Illinois Adequate Health Care Task Force; Created by P.A. 93 0973 Final Report; January 26, 2007
“All Illinois residents, including undocumented immigrants and non-residents enrolled in Illinois colleges and universities, must obtain qualified health insurance coverage or pay a penalty. The mandate is enforced through the state income tax system, but the penalties are not applied to people with no income tax filing obligation and hardship exemptions are available.
From the Washinton Post Today:
“Mr. Obama blamed "unyielding partisanship" in the political process for talking about "everything from this ridiculous idea that we were setting up death panels, to false notions that this was designed to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants, then this broader notion of a government takeover of health care."
This is the final report related to the bill sponsored by Illinois Senator Barack H. Obama, and which seems to have served as the basis for the current bill.
From page 7 of the Navigant Consulting Report:
State of Illinois Adequate Health Care Task Force; Created by P.A. 93 0973 Final Report; January 26, 2007
“All Illinois residents, including undocumented immigrants and non-residents enrolled in Illinois colleges and universities, must obtain qualified health insurance coverage or pay a penalty. The mandate is enforced through the state income tax system, but the penalties are not applied to people with no income tax filing obligation and hardship exemptions are available.
Baby Steps to Socialized Medicine
According to the New England Journal of Medicine - Proposals for a global payment system in Massachusetts and Accountable Care Organizations within Medicare may be first steps toward ending or limiting the scope of fee-for-service medicine. It is likely that an increasing number of health care organizations will voluntarily adopt global payment systems, and the Massachusetts report may well spur such efforts. It is too soon to say, however, whether a mandatory transition to global payments is ready for prime time
Since Massachusetts enacted reforms in 2006, the proportion of residents lacking health insurance has decreased to an estimated 2.6% — the lowest of any state. However, there are continuing concerns about quality and access, and health care costs per capita remain among the highest in the United States.( so much for universal coverage reducing cost) A special commission has therefore proposed that Massachusetts effectively end fee-for-service medicine, and replace it with a system of global payments that combines the approaches of risk-adjusted capitation and pay for performance with a strong focus on primary care.
The Massachusetts commission recommended that within 5 years “global payments with adjustments to reward provision of accessible and high quality care become the predominant form of payment to providers.” The use of such payments would be linked to the formation of “accountable care organizations” (ACOs). It also recommended that government, payers, and providers “share responsibility” for the transition by providing the necessary infrastructure and legal and technical support. Although a new independent state board would guide the transition and formulate the methods for determining payment amounts, the board would not have the authority to set the payments. The “market . . . consistent with the methodology established by the oversight entity” would determine the amounts.The recommendations apply to all payers (including the state and federal governments). They resemble recent proposals for reforming Medicare through the formation of ACOs as well as pilot programs that are being considered for inclusion in national health care reform. According to the Massachusetts commission, ACOs would be “composed of hospitals, physicians and/or other clinician and non-clinician providers working as a team” and would “accept responsibility for all or most of the care that enrollees need.” They could be incorporated entities or merely contractual networks. The changes, however, could not take place without new legislation and a waiver of current federal payment rules. And there is no certainty that the desired improvements in care, cost savings, and patient satisfaction would actually materialize.
Since Massachusetts enacted reforms in 2006, the proportion of residents lacking health insurance has decreased to an estimated 2.6% — the lowest of any state. However, there are continuing concerns about quality and access, and health care costs per capita remain among the highest in the United States.( so much for universal coverage reducing cost) A special commission has therefore proposed that Massachusetts effectively end fee-for-service medicine, and replace it with a system of global payments that combines the approaches of risk-adjusted capitation and pay for performance with a strong focus on primary care.
The Massachusetts commission recommended that within 5 years “global payments with adjustments to reward provision of accessible and high quality care become the predominant form of payment to providers.” The use of such payments would be linked to the formation of “accountable care organizations” (ACOs). It also recommended that government, payers, and providers “share responsibility” for the transition by providing the necessary infrastructure and legal and technical support. Although a new independent state board would guide the transition and formulate the methods for determining payment amounts, the board would not have the authority to set the payments. The “market . . . consistent with the methodology established by the oversight entity” would determine the amounts.The recommendations apply to all payers (including the state and federal governments). They resemble recent proposals for reforming Medicare through the formation of ACOs as well as pilot programs that are being considered for inclusion in national health care reform. According to the Massachusetts commission, ACOs would be “composed of hospitals, physicians and/or other clinician and non-clinician providers working as a team” and would “accept responsibility for all or most of the care that enrollees need.” They could be incorporated entities or merely contractual networks. The changes, however, could not take place without new legislation and a waiver of current federal payment rules. And there is no certainty that the desired improvements in care, cost savings, and patient satisfaction would actually materialize.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Big Pharma Plays Nice -- Is this Why?
On Wednesday last week the Justice Department Announced the Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History. The culmination of an investigation undertaken by the Bush Administration resulted in a landmark fine to be paid by a company that is no newcomer to wrong doing. As part of the terms which did away with criminal liability Pfizer agreed to create and adhere to yet another Corporate Integrity Program. Pfizer was operating under a previously ordered plan during the same perios this wrong doing occurred.
From the DOJ Press Release of 09/03/2009:
Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing
WASHINGTON – “American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (hereinafter together "Pfizer") have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.
Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. Bextra is an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled from the market in 2005. Under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company must specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for so-called "off-label" uses – i.e., any use not specified in an application and approved by FDA. Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns. The company will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. Pharmacia & Upjohn will also forfeit $105 million, for a total criminal resolution of $1.3 billion.
In addition, Pfizer has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug – and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programs. The civil settlement also resolves allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe these, as well as other, drugs. The federal share of the civil settlement is $668,514,830 and the state Medicaid share of the civil settlement is $331,485,170. This is the largest civil fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company.”
So - Did Pfizer submit to strong arm tactics by the Obama administration, agreeing to support Health Care reform in order to stay in business? I don’t know - but it seems likely.
From the DOJ Press Release of 09/03/2009:
Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing
WASHINGTON – “American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (hereinafter together "Pfizer") have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.
Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. Bextra is an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled from the market in 2005. Under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company must specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for so-called "off-label" uses – i.e., any use not specified in an application and approved by FDA. Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns. The company will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. Pharmacia & Upjohn will also forfeit $105 million, for a total criminal resolution of $1.3 billion.
In addition, Pfizer has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug – and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programs. The civil settlement also resolves allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe these, as well as other, drugs. The federal share of the civil settlement is $668,514,830 and the state Medicaid share of the civil settlement is $331,485,170. This is the largest civil fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company.”
So - Did Pfizer submit to strong arm tactics by the Obama administration, agreeing to support Health Care reform in order to stay in business? I don’t know - but it seems likely.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Light at the End of the Tunnel?
It has been said: “The light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight on the train about to run you over”. That American people might want to remember this whenever they hear President Obama’s statement “There is a light at the end of the tunnel” in a speech. Democrats continue to consider the use of reconciliation (simple majority in the senate) as the only way to get Health Care Reform passed, and even that will require the defection of at least one Republican. High on the list of potential defectors is that previous turncoat - Olympia Snowe. Mainers have little to lose in this - and as misery loves company may actually support her defection. Maine delved into its own health care experiment, attempting to expand health coverage aggressively, before Massachusetts passed its landmark coverage law in 2006. According to the Boston Globe the Massachusetts plan has more than doubled the cost to the state, while at the same time increasing costs to insured, get this “has not achieved universal Health Care”. In Maine the insurance marketplace has little private competition and premiums remain sky-high. Maine’s population is small, old, poor, and largely rural, and though the state has enacted strict rules preventing insurers from discriminating against sick people, it has not required individuals to buy insurance. A standard PPO plan for a family of four, with low deductibles, costs more than $20,000 a year. Get ready for the train to come rolling into the station, over your outcry and with a HUGE PRICE!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
The National Police Force? It Just Might Be Real
HR 675 is another example of the overreaching power grab being attempted by this administration. The information below was copied directly from this bill currently referred to committee for review.
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR POLICE OFFICERS, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS, AND GAME LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO EXECUTE WARRANTS, MAKE ARRESTS, AND CARRY FIREARMS.
(a) Authority- Chapter 81 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
‘Sec. 1585b. Law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense: authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms
‘(a) Authority- The Secretary of Defense may authorize any law enforcement officer of the Department of Defense--
‘(1) to execute and serve any warrant or other process issued under the authority of the United States;
‘(2) to make arrests without a warrant--
‘(A) for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of that officer; and
‘(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing the felony; and
‘(3) to carry firearms.
Obama promised in the video shown here a strong National Defense Force:
This bill specifically flies in the face of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Passed during the Reconstruction Era of the South this Act specifically prohibited the use of federal uniformed services (today the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property.
In the recent past, the Pentagon sent operatives to snoop on anti-war and patriot demonstrations —there is much reported surveillance of tea party and other “extremist” gatherings. In the not too distant future this bill would make it possible to send “civilians” with firearms and the power to arrest “rightwing extremists” who represent, according to the Department of Homeland Security and numerous federalized police agencies, “offense against the United States.” Folks- this is dangerous stuff. This bill cannot pass
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR POLICE OFFICERS, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS, AND GAME LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO EXECUTE WARRANTS, MAKE ARRESTS, AND CARRY FIREARMS.
(a) Authority- Chapter 81 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
‘Sec. 1585b. Law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense: authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms
‘(a) Authority- The Secretary of Defense may authorize any law enforcement officer of the Department of Defense--
‘(1) to execute and serve any warrant or other process issued under the authority of the United States;
‘(2) to make arrests without a warrant--
‘(A) for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of that officer; and
‘(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing the felony; and
‘(3) to carry firearms.
Obama promised in the video shown here a strong National Defense Force:
This bill specifically flies in the face of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Passed during the Reconstruction Era of the South this Act specifically prohibited the use of federal uniformed services (today the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property.
In the recent past, the Pentagon sent operatives to snoop on anti-war and patriot demonstrations —there is much reported surveillance of tea party and other “extremist” gatherings. In the not too distant future this bill would make it possible to send “civilians” with firearms and the power to arrest “rightwing extremists” who represent, according to the Department of Homeland Security and numerous federalized police agencies, “offense against the United States.” Folks- this is dangerous stuff. This bill cannot pass
Saturday, September 5, 2009
The South Secedes Again
From Virginia to Georgia Americans are questioning the constitutionality of any bill or law that expands the government’s sphere of influence into the personal lives of Americans specifically around health care. A high school government teacher challenged Senator Warner on just that question as reported in a CNS Article. Further Senators from the great state of Georgia are calling for a constitutional change in their state to protect their citizens rights.
Perhaps this is the first in a long line of those representatives who recognize the right of the PEOPLE to govern. Are you listening Senator Snowe? Blue Dog Dems? Anyone want to get re-elected?
Perhaps this is the first in a long line of those representatives who recognize the right of the PEOPLE to govern. Are you listening Senator Snowe? Blue Dog Dems? Anyone want to get re-elected?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Obama Praises Islam as 'Great Religion'
The current leader of the free world reportedly joined Cabinet secretaries, members of the diplomatic corps and lawmakers at a White House Dinner to pay tribute to what he called "a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress." White House dinners marking the holy month are nothing new. Former President George W. Bush held similar dinners during his eight years in office. The primary difference is that Muslim leaders felt that Muslim organizations that disagreed with the president on political and religious issues were not included. Apparently our current president is supportive of the system of laws in place in Muslim countries. I am struggling mightily with the statement “its commitment to justice and progress." Islamic law – Sharia- is the body of Islamic religious law, and is the framework within which those living in Muslim countries are judged.
Sharia - this system committed to justice and progress- consists in small part of the following
1. Attributes different legal rights to different groups.
2. Distinguishes between men and women,
3. Distinguishes between Muslims, Jews and Christians and other non-Muslims.
4. Requires non-Muslims to pay a tax if they want to live safely in Muslim states
5. Can refuse to protect non -Muslims even though it protects the Muslim citizens.
6. Values the life of non-Muslims at 50% of that of a Muslim under certain circumstances
7. Punishes under law the crimes of adultery, blasphemy, apostasy and homosexuality,
8. Punishes by amputation for the crime of theft, and flogging for fornication or public intoxication.
9. System of punishment is considered inhuman by the European Court of Human Rights.
Now if those are not the signs of an enlightened religion committed to justice and progress I don't know what are. I wonder how our elected officials - Barney Frank, John Edwards et al would fair under number 7 and 8? The President’s wife and daughters? Women's rights are non existent in many of these countries. Is this man simply pandering to every power in the world? Does he really believe this?
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Who Pays For Health Care Reform?
Health Care reform no matter what form it takes is an expensive proposition. It is being reported today in almost every major news source that the Obama administration is considering a more hands on approach. One that has been described as more prescriptive of his ideas for health care reform by David Axelrod. This more prescriptive approach seems to be designed to take advantage of President Obama’s ability to sway the public by appealing with oratory and passion rather than logic and compassion. So what are the alternatives – and how will the great Financipator pay the bill?
First, Obama could take a step back. Obama could drop plans for the public option and/or insurance cooperatives and keep the requirements of: health insurance reform, an individual insurance mandate and government subsidies to individuals to purchase insurance. Preventing insurance companies from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions or charging higher rates based on medical condition would let people buy insurance when they get sick and give them no reason to buy it when they are healthy, making the whole system unsustainable. Advocates of this option admit that everyone would be forced to pay into the insurance market through a federal requirement, while those with lower incomes would be enabled to buy coverage with a subsidy.
Since the main public concern is spending this option doesn't fix anything. No matter how you figure it universal insurance coverage is expensive. Even squeezing the subsidies makes only marginal difference in the overall cost.
Second, Obama could abandon universal coverage and concentrate on health-care access for the poor and working class by expanding Medicaid. This option could be somewhat controlled because it expands an existing federal program. And because this option expands an existing federal health-care role instead of creating one, it may be less scary.
Again the question becomes who pays for it. Medicaid is not fully funded by the federal government. The cost for the Medicaid program is shared between the federal and state government. Longer term who would sustain it? The American people as a whole? Or the residents of a state - which could cripple economy of some states struggling to fund their Medicaid programs today.
Third, Obama could propose a plan that is seriously designed to reduce the COST of health care, rather than simply trying to find a way to nationalize the system. Serious looks at tort reform, the medical supply and pharmaceutical industries might be a start.
Instead this administration continues to press onward with proposals in which they have invested less time than the selection of the family dog. But - As we know winning is everything. There is no real desire to reform anything except the health care delivery system. Who will pay the bill? We will, our children will and generations to come will. This bill will be paid for with increased taxes and declining access to care. But hey - the Democrates won the election on change and they never claimed the change would make us happy!
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
But It Feels So Good
In order to pass by any method other than the reconciliation process Obamacare one will likely be replaced by Obamacare 2 - Obamacare light. There are certain key elements that will need to be changed in the existing proposals primarily the public option and end of life counseling.
The new bill will promise nothing but pleasure -- for now. Make health insurance universal and permanently protected. Tear up the existing bills and write a clean one -- ObamaCare 2.0 – which will include health-insurance regulation that prohibits (a) denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, (b) dropping coverage if the client gets sick, and (c) capping insurance company reimbursement.
What's not to like? If you have insurance, you'll never lose it. Nor will your children ever be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.
The regulated insurance companies will get two things in return. Government will impose an individual mandate that will force the purchase of health insurance on the millions of healthy young people who today forgo it. And government will subsidize all the others who are too poor to buy health insurance. The result? Two enormous new revenue streams created by government for the insurance companies.
And here's what makes it so politically seductive: The end result is the liberal dream of universal and guaranteed coverage -- but without overt nationalization. It is all done through private insurance companies. Ostensibly private. They will, in reality, have been turned into government utilities. No longer able to control whom they can enroll, whom they can drop and how much they can limit their own liability, they will live off government largesse -- subsidized premiums from the poor; forced premiums from the young and healthy.
It's the perfect finesse -- government health care by proxy. And because it's proxy, and because it will guarantee access to (supposedly) private health insurance -- something that enjoys considerable Republican support -- it will pass with wide bipartisan backing and give Obama a resounding political victory.
Isn't there a catch? Of course, there is. This scheme is the ultimate bait-and-switch. The pleasure comes now, the pain later. Government-subsidized universal and virtually unlimited coverage will vastly compound already out-of-control government spending on health care. The financial and budgetary consequences will be catastrophic.
However, they will not appear immediately. And when they do, the only solution will be rationing. That's when the liberals will give the FCCCER regulatory power and give you end-of-life counseling.
But by then, resistance will be feeble. Why? Because at that point the only remaining option will be to give up the benefits we will have become accustomed to. Once granted, guaranteed universal health care is not relinquished. Look at Canada. Look at Britain. They got hooked; now they ration. So will we.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)