August 16, 2009
Aug 16 00:26 Proof That Support For ObamaCare Is Slipping Aug 16 01:31 What's the Rush? Aug 16 10:36 Thank You, Mr. Newt Aug 16 18:30 Tarryl's Vote Against Sensible Energy Policy Aug 16 19:20 The Public Option ISN'T Dead Yet
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Proof That Support For ObamaCare Is Slipping
Politico is reporting that Democrats are preparing to compromise on ObamaCare . The bad news for Democrats is that the compromises being considered won't eliminate the existing opposition to the various bills currently making their way through Congress. The awful news for Democrats is that Howard Dean is promising to recruit candidates to run in the primaries against anyone who doesn't vote for the so-called public option.
With August dominated by angry faces and raised voices at town hall meetings, influential Democrats began laying the groundwork for the fall, particularly with the party's liberal base, saying they may need to accept a less-than-perfect bill to achieve health reform this year.This has all the makings of calling a meeting of DNC superactivists, then putting them in a circular formation before handing out the weapons and ammunition. People are anything but happy. Many are disillusioned. Others are outright frustrated. In the winter of 2008, Democrats held a distinct enthusiasm gap over Republicans. In the summer of 2009, that intensity gap has swung 180 degrees.
"Trying to hold the president's feet to the fire is fine, but first we have to win the big argument," former President Bill Clinton said Thursday at the Netroots Nation convention, a gathering of liberal activists and bloggers who will prove most difficult to convince. "I am pleading with you. It is OK with me if you want to keep everybody honest...But try to keep this thing in the lane of getting something done. We need to pass a bill and move this thing forward."
"I want us to be mindful we may need to take less than a full loaf," he said after recounting the political troubles that followed his failed reform effort in 1994.
It won't be an easy sell. Even former national party chairman Howard Dean this week threatened Democrats who don't support the public insurance plan with the prospect of primary challenges, the first rumblings of what could devolve into a Democratic civil war over health care.
Here's what the Democrats' disillusionment sounds like:
Let's face the harsh reality: Obama has blown health care reform, big time. The opportunity of a lifetime has been squandered. The most recent revelations about backroom deals with Pharma and the other vendors of medical services drops the curtain on any hope of serious change in our costly and inefficient non-system. This is a painful admission to make. Not only does the country remain handicapped by grossly sub-par arrangements for health delivery, we also are burdened with a president who has been discredited as a progressive dedicated to a betterment of how we conduct public business.This Huffington Poster certainly has the right to be disappointed. He'd better prepare himself for greater disappointment, though, because this is just the beginning. Two of the things that aren't being satisfactorily addressed in the current legislation are tort reform and Medicare. Tort reform won't happen because Democrats are beholden to the trial attorneys lobby.
President Obama wanted Medicare cuts to pay for a significant chunk of whatever health care reform legislation emerged. That's what fired seniors up. That's what motivated them to turn out en masse at the Democrats' towhall meetings. Until Democrats do something to fix Medicare without simply cutting its budget, the Democrats' compromises won't mean a thing. If the Democrats try passing something with significant Medicare cuts, they'd better brace themselves for a disastrous 2010 election cycle.
That's before we start talking about another important group:
There is no guarantee, either, that progressive House and Senate members wouldn't make good on their promise to oppose a bill without a public insurance plan.At this point, Howard Dean is the progressives' greatest ally. He's also capable of self-destructive behavior. One thing that I've talked with a number of people about recently is what the Obama administration's strategy is to cobble together a coalition with enough Blue Puppies and enough progressives. At this point, I don't think that there is a strategy that can be deployed that gets to 218 in the House.
Meanwhile, John Murtha is saying that health care might not get to a final vote until January :
Speaking in Bentleyville, Pennsylvania, Murtha said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted a health-care bill passed before the current August recess. "She said we're going to have it before we left," Murtha said. "We said, 'No, no, we want some time to think about this.' We're taking some time to make sure it's done right. I don't know that we'll get something done before January, and even then we may not get it done. We're going to do it right when it's finally done."Despite all the negativity directed towards the Democrats' plans, this isn't a time for Republicans to get complacent. Now's the time to highlight the Patients' Choice Act, the bill being co-sponsored in the House by Paul Ryan and Devin Nunes and by Dr. Tom Coburn and Richard Burr in the Senate.
In fact, if I were advising Republicans, I'd advise them to hold lots of townhalls, tarting in October, highlighting the PCA. Holding high profile townhall meetings this fall will get people's attention. It'll also prove to people that Republicans are the party of inexpensively-priced solutions.
There's a saying now that a trillion is the new billion. People are making it sound like huge increases in the budget are inevitable. I'm rejecting that thinking. While I agree that big deficits are part of the future for awhile, I also think that it's entirely possible that people who are thirsting for inexpensive solutions to today's problems are willing to see significant cuts in federal spending.
That's why I think, if we run a smart campaign, we can put Democrats on the wrong side of this important issue. If our campaign message is that bigger government spending, whether it's local, state or federal spending, erodes our liberties, then we'll win lots of races in 2010. Part of that campaign requires us to cite specific examples of how government intrusion into our lives reduces the amount of decisions we're allowed to make. (Notice the wording I just used.)
It's important that we emphasize the fact that better results happen when we're making decisions for ourselves rather than entrusting things to bureaucrats. The level of distrust in DC is high. That's because Democrats have recently relied on provably false talking points too much.
The people attending the townhalls that the Agenda Media, the DNC and Nancy Pelosi are calling angry mobs and the like know more about what's in H.R. 3200 than do members of Congress. When Claire McCaskill said that President Obama doesn't want single-payer health care, people immediately replied that they'd seen the videos, one from 2003, the other from 2007.
When we put things in that context, why wouldn't people want to maintain control of as much decisionmaking as possible?
Public support for the current bill will collapse because it fails the cost-benefit analysis test. Political support for the current legislation will collapse because enough politicians will reject unity and pick re-election.
Posted Sunday, August 16, 2009 12:34 AM
No comments.
What's the Rush?
During his stop in Grand Junction, CO, President Obama made the best argument against rushing health care reform :
"Health care is really hard. This is not easy. I'm a reasonably dedicated student to this issue. I've got a lot of really smart people around me who've been working on this for months now," he said. "There is no perfect painless silver bullet out there that solves every problem, gives everybody health care for free. There isn't. I wish there was."If it's such a difficult issue, shouldn't we slow down and get it right the first time? If it's so difficult, shouldn't we have all sides having input into what the final legislation should look like?
People get it that the government option can't increase the number of people covered while reducing costs and without rationing. Jonah Goldberg's written a perfect explanation on why it won't work:
Imagine you're in charge of bringing pie to a company picnic. You're planning to provide dessert for 100 people. Then, your boss says you need to hand out pie to 150. Fine, you say, I'll make more pies. But, oh no!, you can't because you've also been told costs must go down. OK, then you can cut slices of the existing pies smaller so everyone can have a piece. Wait! You can't do that either because you're not allowed to ration (i.e., give less to more).Let's ask a simple question: If you aren't allowed to change how benefits are delivered, how can you cover more people without increasing cost or rationing care?
According to Obama, the health-care pie will be sliced into more pieces, of equal or greater size than available now, for less money, all because government is so much better than the private sector at managing large projects.
Here's the thing: I know it's possible if health care consumers are allowed greater flexibility with less government intrusion because it's currently being done. A friend of mine operates a chiropractic clinic. My friend only accepts payments directly from the consumer. Health insurance plans are rejected because of the red tape.
Another way to increase the consumer's flexibility is to eliminate the vast majority of mandates applied through state and federal governments. If people are allowed to sit down with a physician with an established budget, the consumer and the physician can figure out what coverages are most important to that consumer or that family and which coverages aren't as important.
Let's remember that every mandate government puts on us increases the cost of health care.
That's why I support the Patients' Choice Act, which is co-sponsored in the Senate by Tom Coburn and Richard Burr and co-sponsored in the House by Paul Ryan and Devin Nunes. Here's an important exchange I had with Rep. Ryan:
2. Shouldn't people, working in concert with their physician, have the option of putting together a customized health insurance policy?Simply put, the more flexibility consumers have, the more people have to compete for each health care dollar.
Yes ; that's a great idea and just the type of innovative thinking we don't want the federal government to squash. Patients have different needs, and that's exactly why health insurance shouldn't be run by the federal government. The government does not know what is best for patients. Patients and doctors should be able to make decisions together about the types of health plans that best suit their individual needs. That concept is exactly what motivated the Patients' Choice Act. We don't want the federal government taking over these decisions ; and we want to show people that there is another way that allows the individual to maintain control over these personal decisions.
Another thing that I can't emphasize enough, and I've already emphasized it, is how much prices drop whenever red tape is eliminated. Letting health care consumers and their physicians make decisions based on the custom-built health insurance policy they put together is a decision made with precision. Letting government dictate through a one-size-fits-all formula has all the precision of a bull in a china shop.
If President Obama and the Democrats were truly interested in improving on the best health care system in the world, they wouldn't have taken the path they're currently on. The reason why they didn't choose to improve flexibility is because they're more interested in controlling people.
That's why people are rejecting ObamaCare. It's important that we implement a system that increases competition and flexibility while reducing costs. That should be what conservatives should push the minute they return to Washington, DC.
Posted Sunday, August 16, 2009 1:36 AM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 16-Aug-09 06:39 AM
I don't want any federal operated system to come between me and my pilot. I want the freedom, competition and flexibility to offer him more to fly me to Phoenix when I want it, instead of worrying about others on the plane wanting to go to Omaha, as scheduled. And cost - get rid of those troublesome maintenance and safety intrusions the Government's making, and I will have a lower cost system - especially once those blood-sucking lawyers that show up whenever an airplane falls out of the sky, with their costly burden on the system. All that wrongful death paperwork clogging the courts to where people there work costly overtime to deal with that and keeping our world record prison population levels intact.
Yes, freedom, flexibility, competition and not getting between a passenger and his pilot will be the conservative answer.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 16-Aug-09 07:10 AM
Eric, I didn't say eliminate all regulation but you knew that. I'm not anti-government. I'm just anti-stupid government.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 16-Aug-09 07:22 AM
I think we're underestimating the difference between Obamacare and its opposite, a true free-market system. Costs should and will drop by up to 50% with a true free market, with no reduction in the quality of care (it should, in total, actually improve). with the lower cost, more people could actually afford to buy their own. Add a tax credit for the cost, and you've got a system where everybody CAN get insurance.
Comment 4 by eric zaetsch at 16-Aug-09 09:21 AM
Fair enough Gary. We both are anti-stupid government although we can carp back and forth about what's smart, what's stupid.
Anyway, headline, "What's the Rush?"
Well - what's the foot-dragging all about:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/28/kyl-pretends-notobstructing/
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 16-Aug-09 09:44 AM
Eric, I won't apologize for preventing a disaster. Don't mistake my intention to stop the disaster known as H.R. 3200 with being opposed to genuine health care reform. They aren't the same thing.
Thank You, Mr. Newt
Hours after writing about the Patients' Choice Act and the extra cost of government mandates, former Speaker Newt Gingrich highlights how the government forces people into paying for coverage it doesn't need . Here's the first example that he gives:
One key proposal is to mandate an "essential benefit package" for every private insurance policy sold in the United States. Currently, individuals and employers usually make these coverage decisions. This legislation creates a new federal Health Benefits Advisory Committee that would decide instead. For example, if you are a single male with no children, the legislation still requires you to have maternity benefits and well-baby and well-child care coverage. You don't want or don't need that coverage? Sorry, you have to pay for it anyway.Let's compare this centralized planning, government-knows-best health insurance policy with Paul Ryan's reply to my question:
2. Shouldn't people, working in concert with their physician, have the option of putting together a customized health insurance policy ?If polling was conducted to see which policy's principles were preferred, I'm betting that Paul Ryan's plan would trounce the government-centric plan that Mr. Newt highlights from H.R. 3200.
Yes ; that's a great idea and just the type of innovative thinking we don't want the federal government to squash. Patients have different needs, and that's exactly why health insurance shouldn't be run by the federal government. The government does not know what is best for patients. Patients and doctors should be able to make decisions together about the types of health plans that best suit their individual needs. That concept is exactly what motivated the Patients' Choice Act . We don't want the federal government taking over these decisions ; and we want to show people that there is another way that allows the individual to maintain control over these personal decisions.
I've said all along that this isn't about improving health insurance or health care in America, that it's about control freaks in Washington, DC doing their best to control more of our lives.
I've stated before that the qualified health benefits plan was to set the bar just high enough to force people out of their private health insurance and into the public option. This information just verifies that belief.
It's bad that the government is trying to intrude into life like that. Unfortunately, there's more planned intrusion:
Other planned agencies would give the federal government unprecedented and unaccountable control over your healthcare. The so-called Health Choices Administration and the National Health Insurance Exchange would set various standards for all health insurance policies. The president is also pushing for another new agency called the Independent Medicare Advisory Council. Described as a cost-control initiative,it would be made up of five government appointees who would, by determining Medicare reimbursement amounts, in essence decide what would be covered and what would not.Once they're established, bureaucracies take on a life of their own. They can implement regulations without further legislation being passed. H.R. 3200 is written in such a way as to give regulators the 'freedom' they need to meddle in our lives.
We must also equip individuals with information on healthcare cost and quality. Releasing the Medicare-claims history of doctors and hospitals (with patients' personal information removed) would give Americans more knowledge to choose the most efficient institutions, practitioners and the most effective treatments. Inexplicably, this taxpayer-funded data remain locked away.Talk about stupid restrictions. Why wouldn't you unlock this information with personal data removed? In my mind, there's only one reason for withholding that information: bureaucrats aren't motivated to help people become wise health care shoppers.
There are lots of great ideas out there that would improve our health care and health insurance systems that aren't included in any of the Democrats' legislation. It's time they explained why they didn't include greater innovation. Their legislation is the vehicle they're using to exert greater government control of our lives. If that's the best that the Democrats can do, I'll join millions of people nationwide in rejecting their 'offer'.
Posted Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:39 AM
No comments.
Tarryl's Vote Against Sensible Energy Policy
One of the frequent editorial contributors to the St. Cloud Times is Rolf Westgard. This morning, Mr. Westgard, an energy expert, uses his Your Turn editorial to criticize politicians who think that wind power can supply 20 percent or more of Minnesota's electrical needs. More than once, I've argued with Mr. Westgard but I totally agree with a couple of his statements. Here's one of Mr. Westgard's statements that I agree with:
Congress and many state legislatures, including Minnesota's, are exaggerating the potential for renewable energy, especially from wind, solar and biofuels.The DFL hasn't passed legislation that's lifted the moratorium on new nuclear power plant construction. It was passed 42-24 in the Senate but defeated 72-60 in the House. What's interesting is that Tarryl Clark voted to keep the moratorium intact . By keeping that moratorium intact, Tarryl voted to keep the myth alive that we can replace baseload energy production with alternative energy products. In my estimation, Tarryl's vote was politically motivated. She voted this way because she wanted to curry favor with the environmentalists. In my estimation, Tarryl's vote didn't have anything to do with responsible energy policy. The reason I think that is because Larry Haws, Larry Hosch and Al Doty all voted to lift the moratorium.
By assuming that wind can supply 20 percent to 25 percent of our electric power in the coming decade, or that farm fields can replace oil and gas fields, our representatives can avoid voting on hard choices. Those choices include carbon taxes, large investments in nuclear energy and public transit, and measures that would force unpopular life style changes.
Westgard dispels the myth that alternatives can replace current fossil fuel power plants with this paragraph:
Texas leads the nation in wind power with more than 8,000 MW of nameplate capacity, far more than the next leading states, Iowa (2,900 MW), California (2,600 MW) and Minnesota (1,758 MW).Texas produces more electricity via windfarms than the next 3 biggest states combined yert it only produces 1 percent of the electricity that Texas needs. Even if you factor in the population difference ( Texas' population is 24,000,000 people vs. 5,000,000 in Minnesota ), the best that Minnesota does in alternative energy as a percentage of total electricity needed is 5 percent.
The electric power industry uses the term "capacity factor" to rate fuel sources on the effective power each delivers as a percent of what it would produce if operating at capacity round the clock.
For 2009, ERCOT projects Texas will need 72,648 MW of capacity to meet peak summer demand. In its 2009 report, ERCOT is projecting that Texas wind power will have an 8.7 percent capacity factor or 708 MW, providing 1 percent of the state's need for 2009. ERCOT's forecast for 2015 shows wind rising to provide just 1.2 percent of Texas electric power during peak demand periods.
In light of this information, shouldn't Tarryl's vote be questioned? Voting against something that would be part of a sensible solution to our energy needs is stupid. She'd fit right in in DC. She's already trained to vote the way Speaker Pelosi wants her to vote.
Compare that with Michele Bachmann's record of supporting a true all-of-the-above energy policy and the difference is clear. Tarryl is willing to play politics with important votes even when the science is against her. Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann is supportive of an all-of-the-above policy because that's in this nation's best interests.
In other words, Tarryl voted against clean, low-priced electric production because she can't survive without the support of environmentalists. SIDENOTE: The DFL whined endlessly about Gov. Pawlenty making policy based solely on his national ambition. why isn't anyone besides me complaining that Tarryl's votes are based entirely on her political ambitions? Might it be that it just depends on whose ox is getting Gored?
Posted Sunday, August 16, 2009 6:30 PM
Comment 1 by Ben White at 16-Aug-09 06:46 PM
There is some important missing information in this post. Specifically, who is Tarryl Clark and why do we care? I understand she's a state legislator, but there are hundreds of them...
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Aug-09 07:15 PM
She's running against Michele Bachmann for the U.S. House seat in Minnesota's Sixth District.
Comment 2 by Tom Butz at 17-Aug-09 06:39 AM
Wind will never replace baseload. I want to clarify your capacity factor discussion. There is a huge difference when discussing the issue of the amount of wind generated at the peak hour and how much energy a wind unit can generate over an entire year. Capacity factor is defined as the percentage of hour in a year when generation is at the maximum output. Wind runs @ 30-40% CF. The amount of wind at time of system peak is far less than the CF and is in the range of 5-10%. Wind can't follow changes in load. Check out www.energysense.net for more information
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Aug-09 06:42 AM
Tom, Thanks for that information. I'll put energysense.net on my reading list for today.
Comment 3 by Sundog at 17-Aug-09 08:05 PM
While it's absolutely true that wind energy, by itself, isn't a baseload resource, the statement above that "the best that Minnesota does in alternative energy as a percentage of total electricity needed is 5 percent" is simply mistaken. You're mixing up "energy" with "capacity." When we talk about capacity, we're talking about "dispatchability" -- the ability to flip a switch and know that the generator will produce the energy we need. Wind is not a capacity resource -- it's a tremendous energy resource, however. Energy is the actual kilowatt-hours on the grid that get consumed by the end-user. Minnesota's Renewable Standard is an energy requirement -- 25% of the electric energy provided to Minnesota consumers is to come from renewable resources like wind, solar, biomass, small hydro (30% for Xcel Energy).
As wind energy penetration (the percentage of the overall energy supply) increases, additional capacity resources (dispatchable) need to be added to ensure the full peak load curve is satisfied. Natural gas peaking generation, energy storage or other resources are needed to help manage additional variability on the system -- not to add much in the way of energy (kilowatt-hours), but to ensure the peak capacity demands are satisfied.
The Public Option ISN'T Dead Yet
Conservatives and independents are rejoicing that the White House has waved the white flag on the public option. I'm not one of them because I'm convinced that the only thing that's happened is that the term public option has been retired. Here's why I think that:
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.When I read that HHS Secretary Sebelius said that it's likely that "there will be a competitor to private insurers", I knew that the Obama administration had gotten negative results from focus groups on that term. I'm betting that they've got a new term for public option that's gotten better focus group results.
Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate, especially in rural states such as his own.
With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates, but independent of the government. They would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims.
"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."
If we want to win this debate, it's important that we highlight the Democrats' next attempt at single-payer. It's also important that we insist that H.R. 3200 be scrapped, along with the Baucus bill and the Kennedy-Dodd legislation. The premise for the Democrats' health care reform legislation has been faulty from the outset.
They've talked almost exclusively about insuring everyone. To do that, their plans have sacrificed quality and affordability while ignoring innovation and flexibility. Why hasn't the Democratic Congress written legislation based on using the tax code for helping people buy their own insurance? Why hasn't the Democratic Congress written legislation that eliminates counterproductive mandates like letting people buy insurance from any company in the United States? Why have they written legislation that forces single men to buy health insurance policies that include maternity benefits and well-baby and well-child care coverage ?
There's no question but that the public option was disastrous policy. Nonetheless, that's only one piece of disastrous policy contained in the Democrats' health takeover legislation. It's important that we kill the other counterproductive portions of the Democrats' legislation.
The Devil's In The Details
Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, called the argument for a government-run public plan little more than a "wasted effort." He added there are enough votes in the Senate for a cooperative plan.Sen. Shelby, here's the advice I'll give you: Pay attention to the details. This Democratic majority is composed of control freaks. I suspect that they'll attempt to use co-ops as a vehicle to reintroduce the public option sometime in the near future. I don't have a problem with taking a look at the co-op option as long as we stay situationally alert.
"It's not government-run and government-controlled," he said. "It's membership-run and membership-controlled. But it does provide a nonprofit competitor for the for-profit insurance companies, and that's why it has appeal on both sides."
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Obama's team is making a political calculation and embracing the co-op alternative as "a step away from the government takeover of the health care system" that the GOP has pummeled. "I don't know if it will do everything people want, but we ought to look at it. I think it's a far cry from the original proposals," he said.
UPDATE: I'm in good company because Michelle Malkin isn't buying it , either. She's saying that we should " distrust and verify ." I agree, Michelle.
Originally posted Sunday, August 16, 2009, revised 17-Aug 7:01 AM
No comments.
