October 1-5, 2009
Oct 01 02:31 States Should Lead Way On Health Care Oct 02 08:44 How Will They Spin This? Oct 03 09:35 Congressional Dems Show Anti-Democracy Roots Oct 04 01:30 Playing the Moral Equivalence Card Oct 04 07:12 Finally, Greta Gets An Answer Oct 05 07:18 Marquart Endorses Kelliher Oct 05 08:37 Bobby Jindal: Conservative Leader Oct 05 14:57 President Obama: Worse Than Jimmy Carter?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
States Should Lead Way On Health Care
In the 1990s, states led the way on welfare reform, with governors Tommy Thompson and William Weld leading the way. This decade, health care is the hot issue and Washington is screwing it up badly. Instead of letting the states be the testing grounds, DC is insisting on imposing their will on the states. Literally . It's time that states stepped in fixed things right.
One man working diligently on that is my adopted state representative Steve Gottwalt. Here's a few of Steve's observations on the DC health care mess:
It is very important to understand that pooling SPREADS costs and risk across a broader population, resulting in more predictable prices, but it does not LOWER overall health care costs. Lowering and controlling costs is critical to providing greater access to quality care. Pooling does nothing to help change behaviors of either providers or patients. It does nothing to incent greater personal responsibility for health and wellness. It does nothing to promote innovation leading to more cost-effective health care. It does nothing to lower the cost of any procedure.Driving costs down should be Congress's most important consideration in all this, not universal coverage. If you drop prices, access will improve. Dumping people onto Medicaid won't cut costs. It just hides the cost that the federal government picks up. In short, it's a shell game.
Pooling is simply a means of spreading the costs and risk to moderate price fluctuations across a broad population. Pooling is a very useful concept and mechanism, and should continue to be a significant part of our health care coverage system.
As for rising costs of insurance, the number one factor driving health care costs is utilization, the sheer amount of health care we are using. As baby boomers age into their top health care utilization years, many with chronic conditions we will not cure overnight, costs are rising dramatically. There is little we can do to change those demographic dynamics. Pooling might keep increases more even (fewer peaks and valleys), but it will not FLATTEN or LOWER the cost curve.
There's a certain amount of increasing health care costs that aren't avoidable; things like genetic diseases often aren't preventable. Still, wellness programs are a worthwhile thing because they promote healthier lifestyles.
This makes sense, too:
Our current payment system often encourages inappropriate utilization because it's always someone else paying most of the bill (insurance, employer, or government). This is why so many companies have returned to major medical policies that put the consumer directly in charge of health care purchases up to a certain amount (sometimes called "high deductible" plans). When they are the "payer," consumers make better and more careful health care decisions, and take better care of themselves overall.When I was growing up, it wasn't called health care. It was called hospitalization. The term co-pay didn't exist then. People led less sedentary lives then. It wouldn't be a bad thing to return to those habits again. It might change our habits.
Posted Thursday, October 1, 2009 2:31 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 01-Oct-09 07:11 AM
Two quotes, neither of them saying jack about theories of how any only-states-run policy trumps any nationally run option. Nor does your post text go there, Gary.
Where's the beef?
I think you've posted the thought more thoroughly earlier, that's fair to say, with quite more detail.
Could you add a few links back, if you have time? It might help. But for now, I don't see how a comment on pooling or on high-deductible extended care coverage fits your headline.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 01-Oct-09 11:07 AM
Somebody pointed out that simply allowing insurance to be sold across state lines (that is, eliminating all of those expensive state mandates) would tend to reduce the huge number of health insurance companies, creating stronger competition which would force more expensive insurers out and creating larger pools for the remaining ones. Sounds like a win-win and something that should be tried before deciding that we need to force ALL of the private insurers out of business.
I don't really object to "expanding Medicaid" as an approach. At least Congress would be expanding one already-botched program rather than building another, newer and more grandly botched one.
Comment 3 by Colin at 01-Oct-09 11:58 AM
I don't usually agree with articles on this site, but Steve Gottwalt is right. Pooling alone will not solve our medical costs. All other nations on Earth pay less than half of what Americans pay and it's not simply because of pooling. Partly, it's the insurance incentive to overutilize care as long as you're already paying so much for premiums and deductibles. Partly, it's the profit and administrative waste. Partly, it's our high obesity rate. Economically, it's the fact that prices are considered top secret to the person who makes the purchase decision.
Just because pooling does not singlehandedly lower costs does not make it useless for lowering costs. In concert with other reforms like setting reimbursement rates, covering 100% of proven preventative costs, and standardizing payment systems, every industrialized country has made their large pools into tools for cost control.
It's clear Minnesota would do a much better job than Washington because lobbyists own Washington and have already hijacked reform. Our system would have to involve creating larger pools in addition to other reforms. Basic, preventative care should be handled without any paperwork other than checking state citizenship.
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 01-Oct-09 04:51 PM
Let's see: "partly is the incentive to over utilize.." which is caused by the fact that there is a third-party payer. This makes government insurance the most costly form, and in fact private insurance costs have been rising more slowly than Medicare and Medicaid.
"Partly, it's the profit and administrative waste...." But of course there are hardly any administrative costs at all involved in a government bureaucracy.
"Setting reimbursement rates" is asking for price controls. Medicare and Medicaid already do that to the extent that many doctors will not accept Medicare and Medicaid patients unless the patient also has supplemental insurance. Price controls don't work; never did.
"Covering 100% of proven preventative costs... " has been proven to cost more money than it saves. Besides, those sorts of decisions are best left to Dr. and patient not to some faceless bureaucrat and his book of rigid one-size-fits-all rules.
Yes the USA spends twice the percentage of our GNP as do nations with socialized health care systems, but that really doesn't mean much. If these other countries had our diversity of population with its attendant problems, their costs would be just as high IF they would give such care to their citizens but they DO NOT! Compare apples to apples, and US healthcare is about twice as good in terms of things like infant mortality and cancer survival rates. A Mayo study concluded that if government were to exit the healthcare "business" we could cut our health care costs by half. So, we could have healthcare twice as good for the same price, or we could go further down the government controlled road and have half the healthcare for twice the price. Seems like a no-brainer, but maybe there's a pill for that (invented in the US, of course).
How Will They Spin This?
Despite millions of jobs lost, Vice President Biden recently said that the stimulus bill was working better than he could've imagined. Now that another 263,000 jobs have been lost , how will the White House spin this news?
U.S. employers cut a deeper-than-expected 263,000 jobs in September, lifting the unemployment rate to 9.8 percent, according to a government report on Friday that fueled fears the weak labor market could undermine economic recovery.At this rate, the U.S. can't afford much more good news from the Obama administration. Let's remember that President Obama said that the stimulus was working as planned earlier this summer when he was in political trouble even though the stimulus wasn't working.
The Labor Department said the unemployment rate was the highest since June 1983 and payrolls had now dropped for 21 consecutive months.
Analysts polled by Reuters had expected non-farm payrolls to drop 180,000 in September and the unemployment rate to rise to 9.8 percent from 9.7 percent the prior month. The poll was conducted before reports, including regional manufacturing surveys, showed some deterioration in employment measures.
At this point, there's nothing that says that the Obama administration is trustworthy. Their stimulus bill hasn't improved the economy, though it's added tons of money to FY2009's record-shattering deficit.
During his address to the recent joint session of Congress, President Obama said that the health care reform bill he hoped to sign wouldn't add a single penny to the deficit. Nobody believed that, either.
At some point, the American people will be forced to ask whether they trust him with their economic future. At some point during a presidential debate, it wouldn't surprise me if the Republican nominee repeated Reagan's old line of "There you go again." At that point, it wouldn't surprise me if they'd answer with an emphatic no.
Posted Friday, October 2, 2009 9:04 AM
Comment 1 by Nordeaster at 02-Oct-09 10:31 AM
Never in Joe Biden's wildest dreams would things be working so well.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 02-Oct-09 01:47 PM
Joe must have some pretty wild dreams, but nothing compared to The One's waking flights of fancy.
Congressional Dems Show Anti-Democracy Roots
Thanks to Jim at Gateway Pundit, we now have proof of the Far Left's anti-democracy beliefs . Jim posted a letter that six Democrats sent to Honduras. Here's the text of that letter:
His Excellency Jose Angel SaavedraThat bunch doesn't listen to our Constitution. Why should we trust their opinion of another country's constitution? Mary Anastacia O'Grady's reporting for the WSJ outlines the constitutionally approved method for amending the Honduran constitution:
President of the Congress of Honduras
Your Excellency:
It is with profound respect that the undersigned members of the U.S. Congress write to you and the members of the Honduran Congress to share our views on the difficult events currently underway in your country. We understand that you have received visitors from our Congress who represent the minority party, the Republican Party, who have expressed views that differ markedly from those of President Obama's administration and the Democratic majoritly party in the U.S. Congress. What unites the persons signing this letter is that we are all members of the majority Democratic Party, we support the Obama Administration's efforts in Honduras, and that we each have a deep and longstanding interest and admiration for Latin America and for Honduras.
We believe that the coup against President Zelaya was unconstitutional...
The United States government has one position, which has been a repeated call for dialogue between both sides, and support for the San Jose Accords, as proposed by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. We will continue to encourage the U.S. administration to work multilaterally with our allies in the region. Should the de facto government continue to stall, we will encourage our government to not recognize your upcoming elections.
We know full well the weight of your task in this fast-moving scenario,, as your Constitutional responsibilities are very similar to ours. We thought it important that you be aware of our views on these critical issues since you are the authors of the laws that govern your country and guardians of the rule of law in Honduras. Count on us to assist in any way we can.
Sincerely,
James P. McGovern, Bill Delahunt, Janice D. Schakowsky, Sam Farr, Gregory W. Meeks, Xavier Becerra
While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.Clearly, Zelaya didn't follow the constitutionally mandated procedure. If he had, the Honduran Supreme court wouldn't have ordered his removal. This AOL News article has the original story:
He insisted Zelaya's ouster was legal and accused the former president himself of violating the constitution by sponsoring a referendum that was outlawed by the Supreme Court. Many saw the foiled vote as a step toward eliminating barriers to his re-election, as other Latin American leaders have done in recent years.This is consistent with what we know through Ms. O'Grady's reporting. Honduran presidents don't have the constitutional authority to unilaterally change the Honduran constitution, which is precisely what President Zelaya was attempting to do. If Democrats were interested in Democracy, they would've known this. In this instance, they aren't interested in Honduras's constitution.
Later in Jim's post, he notes this about Rep. McGovern:
Last year US Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass) was suspected of offering Colombian Marxist FARC terrorists assistance while at the same time he was undermining the Colombian government.You'd be wrong if you thought that this was the only connection with South American leftists. Here's a 'golden oldie' from Rep. Delahunt's past:
The evidence was discovered on the computer of FARC rebel leader Raul Reyes after his death in March at an Ecuadorean FARC camp. Interpol confirmed the the computers were not tampered with or the documents manufactured by the Colombian government.
While most of Congress was spending an August recess tending to local constituents, Representative William D. Delahunt was in Caracas, sitting down to a four-hour, one-on-one dinner conversation with President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, one of the Bush administration's most ardent critics.This meeting took place in November, 2005. Less than eight months after Delahunt's meeting, the price of a gallon of gas hit $4 a gallon in the U.S. At the same time Massachusetts voters got a steal of a deal on home heating oil, Delahunt was opposing a Bush administration proposal to open up the OCS for drilling. That drilling would've yielded millions of metric tons of natural gas. So would've opening up ANWR, where huge reserves of natural gas still exist.
That meeting, unusual for a sitting member of Congress and a head of state so critical of the White House, sparked negotiations that led to the official announcement scheduled for today: A US subsidiary of a Venezuelan-owned company will provide 12 million gallons of discounted home heating oil to Massachusetts consumers and organizations serving the poor.
Rather than betray his environutter allies, Rep. Delahunt chose to deal with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. Nothing in his statements up till now says that he's opposed to the Chavez government's trampling of that nation's free speech rights.
It's interesting that nobody in this group was outraged during the Iranian uprising after that country's fraudulent elections. Freedom's advocates around the world decried the violence and the fraudulent elections. This group, not so much.
The Democrats' roots in 'realism' is really a cover for their nonchalant attitude towards dictators. They have a long history of supporting dictators in the name of regional stability while oppressed people suffer mightily.
This letter is just the latest proof of that.
Posted Saturday, October 3, 2009 9:45 AM
No comments.
Playing the Moral Equivalence Card
In the aftermath of Joe Wilson's 'outburst', Democrats decried the Republicans' incivility. Now that Alan Grayson has lied outright, they're playing the moral equivalence card :
Both sides believe the party that represents them isn't forceful enough, that it rolls over for its opposition, no matter how malicious that opposition might be. And when they find someone who's willing to say what they think needs saying, even if that thing isn't really true, even if it involves yelling at the president or accusing opponents of wanting people to die quickly, they can be energized pretty quickly. If that person is, like Wilson and Grayson, unwilling to give in when the other side starts howling, well, that only adds to their new aura.This is totally repulsive if you care about the facts. When Joe Wilson said that President Obama lied, he was speaking out about the fact that the Democrats' bills did nothing to prevent illegal immigrants from participating in the Democrats' takeover of the health care system. When Rep. Grayson said that the Republicans' health care plan was to "die quickly", he knew that statement to be provably false. He knew it because the Republicans' solutions website talks about the House GOP solutions on page 2. Here's part of their solution:
The Republican plan implements comprehensive medical liability reform that will reduce costly, defensive medicine practiced by doctors trying to protect themselves from overzealous trial lawyers. Additionally, it provides Medicare and Medicaid with additional authority and resources to stop waste, fraud, and abuse that costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year.If you can't find this website, then you're a blithering idiot who isn't qualified to represent people in Congress, in a state legislature or anywhere. If he didn't know about that, then he certainly should've known about Paul Ryan's Patients' Choice Act, which was introduced months ago.
To lower the costs of health care, the Republican plan increases fairness in the tax code by extending tax savings to those who currently do not have employer-provided coverage but purchase a health plan on their own. This provision would provide an "above the line" deduction that is equal to the cost of an individual's or family's insurance premiums. The plan also provides immediate substantial financial assistance, through new refundable and advanceable tax credits, to low- and modest-income Americans so all Americans have access to health coverage.
Shortly after President Obama's speech, the GOP said that H.R. 3200 did include coverage for illegal immigrants. President Obama's allies argued that President Obama would be submitting his own legislation, thereby technically refuting Wilson's accusation. President Obama still hasn't submitted this mythical legislation. (I'm not holding my breath on that happening, either.) Until President Obama proposes legislation that forbids covering illegal immigrants, I'll just say that Joe Wilson was right.
To be fair, Sen. Baucus's bill was 'fixed' to include a provision that had some teeth to it. On the other hand, House Democrats are pushing for coverage of illegal immigrants :
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.Instead of giving health insurance to illegal immigrants, perhaps we deport them instead? Obviously, that thought hasn't been given serious consideration. So much for Joe Wilson being wrong.
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.
"Legal permanent residents should be able to purchase their plans, and they should also be eligible for subsidies if they need it. Undocumented, if they can afford it, should be able to buy their own private plans. It keeps them out of the emergency room," said Rep. Michael M. Honda, California Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.
Until Rep. Grayson shows me irrefutable proof that his statements are factual, I'll continue calling him a liar. To borrow Michael Dukakis' phrase, if it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, I'll call it a duck.
Posted Sunday, October 4, 2009 1:39 AM
No comments.
Finally, Greta Gets An Answer
Since February, Greta van Susteren has been asking politicians and pundits alike why Congress refuses to read the bills that they're voting on. Finally, Tom Carper admitted why they're refusing to read the bills:
Sen. Thomas Carper (D.-Del.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not "expect" to read the actual legislative language of the committee's health care bill because it is "confusing" and that anyone who claims they are going to read it and understand it is fooling people.As King pointed out here , this isn't the first time Sen. Carper has admitted he doesn't read the bills before voting on them:
"I don't expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life," Carper told CNSNews.com.
Carper described the type of language the actual text of the bill would finally be drafted in as "arcane," "confusing," "hard stuff to understand," and "incomprehensible." He likened it to the "gibberish" used in credit card disclosure forms.
The Senate Finance Committee considered for two hours today a Republican amendment, which was ultimately rejected, that would have required the "legislative" language of the committee's final bill, along with a cost estimate for the bill, to be posted online for 72 hours before the committee voted on it.Here's King's reaction to Sen. Carper's statement:
Instead, the committee passed a similar amendment, offered by Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.), to put online the "conceptual" or "plain" language of the bill, along with the cost estimate.
Usually, the Senate Finance Committee considers "conceptual" language because the actual legislative language in a bill is filled with jargon and references to existing legal code that can make it nearly impossible to follow.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) described his attempts at reading the legislative language of a bill: "You read it and say, 'What did that say?'" The committee, he said, uses "plain language so that even I can understand" a bill.
I wouldn't accept that excuse from my students. Why do Delaware voters accept it from Carper?I'd say that the state that kept sending Joe Biden back to the Senate time after time is capable of a great many things, although exercising even modest amounts of common sense isn't part of that great many things.
There's quite a controversy surrounding the writing of bills:
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who sits on the committee, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that the panel was just following its standard practice in working with a "plain language description" of the bill rather than an actual legislative text.There's no way I'll trust legislation without reading the specific language. There's a reason why "The devil's always in the details" became a time-tested cliche.
"It's not just conceptual, it's a plain language description of the various provisions of the bill is what the Senate Finance Committee has always done when it passes legislation and that is turned into legislative language which is what is presented to the full Senate for consideration," said Bingaman.
But Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who also serves on the committee, said the descriptive language the committee is working with is not good enough because things can get slipped into the legislation unseen.
"The conceptual language is not good enough," said Cornyn. "We've seen that there are side deals that have been cut, for example, with some special interest groups like the hospital association to hold them harmless from certain cuts that would impact how the CBO scores the bill or determines cost. So we need to know not only the conceptual language, we need to know the detailed legislative language, and we need to know what kind of secret deals have been cut on the side which would have an impact on how much this bill is going to cost and how it will affect health care in America."
Besides, there isn't a logical reason to rush this legislation, though I'll agree that there's strong political considerations for rushing it. Even after the bill is signed, the tax increases are the only things that start this year. The rest of it, coincidentally, won't start until 2013.
Politically speaking, it's important to vote on this legislation before the "arcane" language is inserted. If the American people read the bill's specifics, they'd be furious at what was being done to them.
If Mr. Carper isn't interested in reading the real bill, isn't he just President Obama's rubber stamp? That doesn't sound like checks and balances.
Posted Sunday, October 4, 2009 7:17 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 05-Oct-09 12:16 PM
I'm glad to read you read every word of every bill and of every proposed amendment, since you are no glass house stone thrower!
Say that that's so, Joe.
I did not read that pile.
I am no hound for punishment.
I also am not critical of those openly saying "I never read all that stuff" and that only a fool would.
That's sensible.
Marquart Endorses Kelliher
Rep. Paul Marquart has endorsed Speaker Kelliher's candidacy for governor , saying that she'd be a great governor for rural Minnesota:
As a rural legislator, I am strongly endorsing Speaker Kelliher to be our next governor because of her outstanding record of achievement for rural Minnesota.Those are all nice platitudes but they don't match up with Speaker Kelliher's support of Ann Lenczewski's disastrous 'reform' of the Green Acres property tax system, which had the potential to destroy family farms.
As the leader of the Minnesota House of Representatives, Speaker Kelliher has faced heat on the "bread and butter" issues facing rural Minnesota and delivered results that benefit our senior citizens, families, farmers, students and veterans.
Speaker Kelliher's unwavering commitment to rural Minnesota is no surprise to me. Her strong values and work ethic were nurtured growing up on a dairy farm near Mankato in rural Minnesota. She is Minnesota's first Speaker of the House to have been county dairy princess and was a 4-H state president. Now that's rural!
You can't be pro-farmer if you support legislation that would destroy family farms.
In this time of big challenges, Speaker Kelliher not only has the focus and leadership skills to move this state into prosperity, she has the capacity to bring people together in order to create a positive, shared vision for our great state. She is committed to creating a state government that works and gets results. Speaker Kelliher would be a great governor for rural Minnesota and for all Minnesotans.What Rep. Marquart calls bringing people together "to create a positive, shared vision", some people would call threatening rural legislators like Mary Ellen Otremba . Speaker Kelliher reportedly threatened to take Rep. Otremba's chairmanship of the Agriculture, Rural Economies and Veterans Affairs Committee if she didn't vote to override Gov. Pawlenty's veto of the 2008 Transportation Bill.
You can't be pro-rural Minnesota if you threaten to 'demote' one of rural Minnesota's leading advocates.
Seriously, Speaker Kelliher has lost touch with her rural roots. She's part of the Twin Cities' corrupt infrastructure. She's fought for education formulas that have short-changed rural schools of the funding they badly need so that Twin Cities schools could get additional funding that can't be justified.
There's no question that Speaker Kelliher is a top-tier candidate on the DFL side. There's also no question that Speaker Kelliher has a record of supporting legislation that helps urban areas.
Finally, it can't be ignored that Speaker Kelliher has orchestrated two of the most disastrous budget sessions in recent Minnesota history. Last year, she was a non-factor in the budget deliberations. She became visibly worn down towards the end of session.
Couple that with her inability to put together a balanced budget and it's impossible to say that she's a great leader. Great leaders don't spend an entire summer in out-of-session hearings, racking up big per diem expenses , then whining that they didn't have the time to put a budget together.
I've never seen a great leader that was an unproductive whiner. That's what Speaker Kelliher's track record includes.
Posted Monday, October 5, 2009 7:30 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 05-Oct-09 12:12 PM
Gary, I have seen in Ramsey where I live more abusive or as much abusive use of green acres by land speculator owners, as by legitimate and actual family farmers. Al Pearson farms. The Hunt family admit their land is not the best for farming, but they farm. Pearson even did farming on another families Green Acres prior to its switchover to dense shared-wall housing deployment. Pearson is okay that way. Driving northwest along the Highway 10 corridor, you see the irrigation piping - where the real farmers show their stuff.
But the use of green acres for land speculator exploitation, Gary, do you actually think that proper?
And, if Sen. K aimed at the one but not the other, are you shading your wording a bit, or not? I am unfamiliar with her proposals so do candidly post, was her proposal over-broad, or carefully aimed to end abuse, as I would expect?
Bobby Jindal: Conservative Leader
After reading Gov. Bobby Jindal's op-ed in this morning's Washington Post, one can't help but admire his plain-spoken leadership on health care reform. Here's Gov. Jindal's initial shot at Washington, DC:
A majority of so-called Republican strategists believe that health care is a Democratic issue. They are wrong; health care is an American issue, and the Republican Party has an opportunity to demonstrate that conservative principles work when applied to real-world problems.First off, that "majority of so-called Republican strategists" need to be fired because they're worthless. It's great seeing conservative leaders calling out counterproductive parts of the GOP coalition. Now isn't the time for tip-toeing around. It's time for innovative leadership.
But memo to Washington: The debate on health care has moved on. Democratic plans for a government takeover are passe. The people don't want it . Believe the polls, the town halls, the voters. Only Democrats in Washington would propose new taxes on businesses and families in the middle of a recession, $900 billion in new spending at a time of record deficits, and increased taxes on health insurance and products to reduce health-care costs.
Washington is the only place in the country that doesn't realize that this debate is over. Democrats may march forward anyway, but they will do so without the people, and at their own peril.
Secondly, it's great to see a Republican call out the Democrats for ignoring the American people. The Democrats' leadership might well attempt to march their party off a cliff but that doesn't mean their health care plan is proof of effective leadership. Speaker Pelosi, the DNC and David Axelrod have essetially said that the TEA Party protesters and townhall meeting questioners are part of the angry mob wing of the GOP, that they're astroturfers.
That's their way of saying that these people shouldn't be paid attention to. That's certainly the Democrats' right but they ignore We The People at their own peril.
What's especially exciting is seeing Gov. Jindal's 10-point plan to improve health care:
Voluntary purchasing pools: Give individuals and small businesses the opportunities that large businesses and the government have to seek lower insurance costs.Gov. Jindal is right in calling for our own positive health care reform proposal. You can't defeat something with nothing, although I might have to adjust that thinking with health care reform. (It appears as though We The People will defeat the Democrats' disastrous reform proposals simply by highlighting the Democrats' ruinous policies.)
Portability: As people change jobs or move across state lines, they change insurance plans. By allowing consumers to "own" their policies, insurers would have incentive to make more investments in prevention and in managing chronic conditions.
Lawsuit reform: It makes no sense to ignore one of the biggest cost drivers in the system, the cost of defensive medicine, largely driven by lawsuits. Worse, many doctors have stopped performing high-risk procedures for fear of liability.
Require coverage of preexisting conditions: Insurance should not be least accessible when it is needed most. Companies should be incentivized to focus on delivering high-quality effective care, not to avoid covering the sick.
Transparency and payment reform: Consumers have more information when choosing a car or restaurant than when selecting a health-care provider. Provider quality and cost should be plainly available to consumers, and payment systems should be based on outcomes, not volume. Today's system results in wide variations in treatment instead of the consistent application of best practices. We must reward efficiency and quality.
Electronic medical records: The current system of paper records threatens patient privacy and leads to bad outcomes and higher costs.
Tax-free health savings accounts: HSAs have helped reduce costs for employers and consumers. Some businesses have seen their costs decrease by double-digit percentages. But current regulations discourage individuals and small businesses from utilizing HSAs.
Reward healthy lifestyle choices: Providing premium rebates and other incentives to people who make healthy choices or participate in management of their chronic diseases has been shown to reduce costs and improve health.
Cover young adults: A large portion of the uninsured are people who cannot afford coverage after they have "aged out" of their parents' policies. Permitting young people to stay on their parents' plans longer would reduce the number of uninsured and keep healthy people in insurance risk pools, helping to lower premiums for everyone.
Refundable tax credits (for the uninsured and those who would benefit from greater flexibility of coverage): Redirecting some of the billions already spent on the uninsured will help make non-emergency care outside the emergency room affordable for millions and will provide choices of coverage through the private market rather than forcing people into a government-run system. We should trust American families to make choices for themselves while we ensure they have access to quality, affordable health care.
I'm betting that America will rally to the GOP reform plan the minute that they read the specifics of our proposal. What's more is that we should feel obligated to outlining a positive vision for the American health care system. That's what leaders do. After all, leadership isn't only about criticizing your opponent.
Posted Monday, October 5, 2009 8:42 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 05-Oct-09 12:05 PM
Jindal would be a better (at least more representative) presidential choice than Pawlenty, given the mood of the GOP these days and how Jindal better reflects that, despite all the maneuvering TP is up to to redefine himself, while Molnau, whoever, is at the reins of Minnesota government these days while the itinerant follows his itinerary. Jindal seems to have more fire in the belly, vs. schemes and dreams in mind. It's an impression, and could be wrong, because different people read signs of things differently.
President Obama: Worse Than Jimmy Carter?
Finally, President Obama is waging war. Unfortunately, President Obama has decided to wage war against David Petraeus and Stanley McChristal . Here's their attack on Gen. McChrystal:
An adviser to the administration said: "People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naive or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."Gen. McChrystal replied forcefully:
In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.If I'm forced to choose between trusting Gen. Vice-President Joe Biden or Gen. McChrystal on national security matters, I'll choose Gen. McChrystal. It's important that we remind ourselves that Vice President Biden was the idiot who thought we had the authority to split Iraq into 3 separate countries. He pitched the Biden Option while Sen. McCain pitched the Surge. Obviously, the Surge worked, thanks to Gen. Petraeus's brilliant plan and Gen. Odierno's decisionmaking.
He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan". When asked whether he would support it, he said: "The short answer is: No." He went on to say: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."
Fast-forward to today. Here's how the Obama administration is treating Gen. Petraeus:
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the face of the Iraq troop surge and a favorite of former President George W. Bush, spoke up or was called upon by President Obama "several times" during the big Afghanistan strategy session in the Situation Room last week, one participant says, and will be back for two more meetings this week.Based on these reports, I'm left wondering whether the Obama administration wants to lose the war in Afghanistan. Obviously, they'll never admit it but their actions aren't giving people confidence that they're interested in winning. Their actions don't even say that it's a priority.
But the general's closest associates say that underneath the surface of good relations, the celebrity commander faces a new reality in Mr. Obama's White House: He is still at the table, but in a very different seat.
No longer does the man who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have one of the biggest voices at National Security Council meetings, as he did when Mr. Bush gave him 20 minutes during hourlong weekly sessions to present his views in live video feeds from Baghdad. No longer is the general, with the Capitol Hill contacts and web of e-mail relationships throughout Washington's journalism establishment, testifying in media explosions before Congress, as he did in September 2007, when he gave 34 interviews in three days.
I've said before that the Obama administration's foreign policy reminded me of the Carter administration's foreign policy. I'm revising that to say that the Obama administration's foreign policy doesn't even meet the lowly standard established by the Carter administration.
The Obama administration has shown a hostility towards the military experts. What's worse is that they've done these things to appease their anti-war left fringe. Their actions say that they'd rather lose a war than ruffle their political allies' feathers.
That's a disgusting set of priorities.
Posted Monday, October 5, 2009 3:02 PM
Comment 1 by Eric Weber at 08-Dec-09 03:57 AM
Yes, you are sooooo discerning and sooooooooo RIGHT, Mr. Conservative wise-man! OBVIOUSLY, Obama just announced that he'll deploy an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, (on TOP of the 35,000 he's ALREADY deployed there this year), (in short, 65,000 troops already deployed or announced in his FIRST YEAR in office), all as part of a stunningly diabolical, counter-intuitive, and, ergo, absolutely BRILLIANT strategy to please and appease his "anti-war Left fringe," as you so astutely put it. Well, as a certified member of the "anti-war left fringe", I can tell you that I, along with every other old-school Democrat I know, am so "pleased and appeased" that I can hardly stop crying. In short, Dear Author, you are an ignorant FOOL who obviously doesn't know JACK about this President, or about how he's really perceived by the Democratic Left.
I'd suggest that you go find something you're actually GOOD at, Sir. Useful political-analysis is the realm of those with much better intuition and overall mental-caliber than you've just demonstrated.
But Boy, as totally wrong as your "analysis" has just been proved to be, you sure said it with great confidence and AUTHORITY! Well done!
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Dec-09 07:33 AM
Eric, Tell me when you've heard President Obama talk about defeating the Taliban & al-Qa'ida. Or tell me that he would've done this if Gen. McChrystal's request hadn't gotten leaked to the press. Tell me why it took him 3 months to make a decision on whether to deploy the troops. Let's note that 3 months after 9/11, the Bush administration had defeated the Taliban 'government'.
As for you being part of the Appeasement Left, yeys, I know that you're pissed off at President Obama. As soft as he is, bowing to one world leader after another, that still isn't good enough for you. I GET that. Perhaps you can explain why you think President Obama's policies are wrong from the opposite direction, why he needs to be a bigger appeaser than he already is.
Comment 2 by Eric Weber at 08-Dec-09 01:14 PM
Well, Gary, you just brilliantly made and solidified the point I was making in my first comment about how dillusional and willfully uninformed you Cons are.
To wit:
"Eric, tell me when you've heard Pres. Obama talk about defeting the Taliban or Al Qaeda?
Uhmmmmm... Let me think.... Oh yes, why, it was just LAST WEEK, in a PRIME TIME speech from West Point, you know, the one in which he annonced the deployment of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and spent the rest of his 35 minutes talking about NOTHING ELSE BUT the need to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda? That speech was broadcast on EVERY cable AND network channel, so, I'm really not sure how you missed it. Oh yes, and then there was his whole 18 month long campaign for the Presidency, wherein he mentioned HUNDREDS of times his intent to phase out of Iraq and re-focus our military on beating the the bad guys in Afghanistan. Did you miss that too? Wow, you really don't get out much, do you?
As for THIS self-evidently preposterous claim,"Lets note that 3 months after 9/11, Bush had defeated the Taliban government." Is that so? Is that why we still have troops there now, and had them there throughout the entirety of Bush two terms? The Taliban have simply gone "underground". They are not really defeated now, and they certainly weren't defeated in "three months by Bush." If you want to belive that, fine. That makeas you about as well informed as the average Fox news viewer. But just FYI, in case you didn't know, merely STATING such delusions doesn't magically make them so. Bush tried it for eight years, and it didn't work for him, either. Facts are stubborn things, that way. They don't change just because you and Fox news want them to.
And by the way, the real enemy over there isn't the Taliban, it's Al Qaeda. How did Bush do at beating THEM in his eight years in office? Oh, that's right.... Not so good. He couldn't even catch Bin Laden when we had him COMPLETELY surrouded at Tora Bora. So don't talk to me about Bush's great "victories". The proof is in the pudding, and if Bush had finished the job and truly defeated our enemies in either Iraq or Afghanistan, we woudln't still have large numbers of troops in both places.
Lastly, I am in no way saying or even suggesting that I want Obama to be "a bigger appeaser than he already is." You're putting words into my mouth, Sir, and further, you're presuming to understand the thinking and motivations of the Left when you clearly don't have any real understanding of either.
If "KNOW thy enemy" is a wise credo, (and it surely is), then you've just shown that you have quite a lot to learn about the anti-war Left. We're not all stupid "Hippies", ya know? In fact, hadly any of us are, but I'm sure it's comforting for you to fundamentally misjudge and misunderstand 1/2 of your fellow Countrymen that way. Seeing the world and all its problems in in simplistic Black & White terms, IS, actually, much simpler than actually thinking about things. But it doesn't lead to much real insight, as your comment AND your article, (if you're the author) have clearly demonstrated.
Eric Weber
Comment 3 by Eric Weber at 09-Dec-09 12:44 PM
A quote from the Beatles song "Strawberry Fields" seems especially apropos for you Gary, and for all who gullibly depend on Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, et al., and the totally one-dimensional Fox News, as their primary sources of knowledge about current events in America and the wider World:
"Living is easy with eyes closed, MISUNDERSTANDING all you see."
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Dec-09 03:06 PM
Eric, You're so full of BS it reeks. That you think that I get my information from "Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, et al., and the totally one-dimensional Fox News" shows how gullible you are. Yes, I sometimes get information from FNC. Otherwise, I get most of my information from government reports, Politico.com, Bloomberg & other news services.
It isn't that bright to trust the Left's charicature of conservatives. The Left isn't that interested in accuracy but they're exceptionally into promoting unflattering mischaracterizations. You'd be better off if you didn't believe the crap that the left is peddling.
Comment 4 by Eric Weber at 09-Dec-09 05:30 PM
Ok, Gary, now that you've unloaded that rant, (and clearly, you don't believe and NEVER employ ANY sterotypes regarding the Left, right??), how about speaking to comment #4 above, the long one?
I've given you a lot to answer for there. Do you REALLY think that Obama has NEVER spoken of going after the Taliban and Al Qaeda? That's what your question in comment #3 surely implies. How can you explain being quite THAT uninformed about the President's very clear and PUBLICLY STATED plans?
Do tell, Gary.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Dec-09 06:20 PM
Eric, President Obama hasn't spoken about winning, whether in Iraq or Afghanistan. Sen. Obama hasn't talked about winning, whether in Iraq or Afghanistan. The only things he's said is that he's for responsibly ending the war. Thus far, he hasn't said ANYTHING that said he'll continue the successful Bush strategy of keeping terrorists on the defensive.
