October 16-18, 2009
Oct 16 02:35 So What If It's Deficit Neutral? Oct 16 02:40 So What If It's Deficit Neutral??? Oct 16 04:01 Untangling Tarryl's Conflicts Oct 16 05:08 Goodell's Disgrace Oct 16 13:03 Activists Overwhelmingly Support Marco Rubio Oct 16 22:54 Frightening: My Encounter With Government-Run Health Care Oct 17 02:55 Health Care Your Turn Oct 18 03:40 Message Already Sent Oct 18 05:35 Fight of the Ages: Obama's Words vs. Obama's Deeds
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
So What If It's Deficit Neutral?
Senate Democrats are still playing games with CBO. CBO said that the Finance Committee bill would reduce the deficit by $81,000,000,000, thanks in large part to the proposed $404,000,000,000 in Medicare cuts. Cato Institute's Michael Tanner just posted the Democrats' latest trickery:
When the Senate Finance Committee released CBO scoring of its health care reform proposal last week, we warned that its claim of reducing future budget deficits was achieved only through dishonestly assuming that Congress will implement a 21% reduction in Medicare payments that is scheduled under current law. We pointed out that Congress has been supposed to make those reductions since 2003, and never has. Now, surprise, surprise, Democrats have introduced a bill to eliminate the scheduled cut, at a cost of $247 billion. But Democrats cleverly are putting the new spending in a separate bill, so it won't change scoring of health care reform. Have they no shame?I've said all along that the deficit neutral message shouldn't be taken seriously because it was just a gimmick. I've also argued that CBO's scoring shouldn't be the only benchmark by which the Democrats' health care bills should be rated on:
I've said for days now that deficit neutrality wasn't the right benchmark to measure the Democrats' legislation by, that it was important to consider what the total cost of the legislation is and to find out if the Democrats' legislation does anything to reduce costs to families, companies and insurers.In addition to those benchmarks, it's important that we're certain that whatever legislation emerges will slow down or reduce health care costs. Based on the information available, the Democrats' bills increase health care spending at even more unsustainable rates.
In his WSJ op-ed, Karl Rove explains that the Democrats' troubles are just beginning :
The problem for Mr. Obama is that the Baucus bill is being sold on the strength of accounting tricks that make it appear that it won't add to the deficit. (This is true for the other health-reform bills, too). If fiscally conservative Democrats sign on to the bill now after publicly saying they are doing so because it doesn't add to the deficit, they may end up bailing once the tricks are revealed to the public.I'm skeptical that Blue Dogs will bail because of the Democrats' trickery. They've been effectively neutered by Speaker Pelosi. To stretch the pet metaphor a bit further, the Blue Dogs' bark was always worse than their bite. The Blue Dogs' problems are real though. This information should be highlighted in every Blue Dog district across the nation:
Under questioning at a Senate hearing Tuesday, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf admitted that the $500 billion in tax hikes in the Baucus bill would be passed onto consumers, jacking up insurance premiums. That undercuts the argument that Democratic reforms will make health care more affordable.That isn't what Americans want. In fact, why would Americans spend over $1,000,000,000,000 on legislation that increases the cost of health care on an individual level, that doesn't eliminate the uninsured (25,000,000 people would stil be uninsured.) and that increases insurance premiums at a rate that's already growing too fast?
Let's put it this way. The Democrats' 'reforms' will immediately cost people more money. What's worse is that it'll cost people even more money later. That isn't opinion. That's what happens when businesses incur additional expenses. They don't just eat the costs. They pass them along to the consumers. This isn't difficult. Actually, it's quite predictable.
James Capretta explains why Baucuscare is bad policy:
In short, the plan sponsored by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus would almost certainly lead to a death spiral in many private health insurance markets.In other words, the legislation imposes onerous regulations on health insurance providers which make it impossible for insurance companies to make a profit. Once it's apparent that they can't make a profit, the health insurance providers don't have an incentive for providing health insurance, which leads to people opting for a public option.
Insurance death spirals occur when regulators force insurers to offer coverage ("guaranteed issue") at premiums below the known risk of those they are insuring, without any assurance that the shortfall can be made up elsewhere. When insurers comply with these rules and offer relatively low cost health insurance policies to all comers, quite predictably, many sick people step forward to sign up. When the insurers then try to turn around and charge higher premiums to the relatively healthy to cover their costs, the healthy, also quite predictably, are more reluctant to enroll because they can see the premiums they would have to pay would very likely exceed their health-care costs. So they often say "no thanks" to the insurance and decide to take their chances by going without coverage instead. As more and more healthy people exit the marketplace, insurers are then forced to raise premiums for everyone who remains, which only further encourages the lower risks to opt out. This vicious cycle of rising premiums and an increasingly unhealthy risk pool is called a 'death spiral' because it eventually forces the insurer to terminate the plan.
This is not a hypothetical, textbook scenario of what might happen to a poorly run insurance market. It has happened before, many times and in many places. See, for instance, the experience in Kentucky, and in Washington state, and in Maine too. There's no reason it couldn't happen nationwide.
It's important to notice that this wouldn't happen if government didn't intentionally impose these heavyhanded regulations on health insurance providers. (It's a slick game the Democrats are playing, 'fixing' the problem they intentionally created.)
The bottom line is that Baucuscare isn't the only bad legislation that the Democrats have passed. It's just the most recent legislative disaster that they've passed. All of the Democrats' bills increase health care costs, increase taxes on the middle class and don't solve the uninsured problem that the Democrats say they want to fix.
Only in Washington, DC can they call something like that reform.
Posted Friday, October 16, 2009 2:35 AM
No comments.
So What If It's Deficit Neutral???
Senate Democrats are still playing games with CBO. CBO said that the Finance Committee bill would reduce the deficit by $81,000,000,000, thanks in large part to the proposed $404,000,000,000 in Medicare cuts. Cato Institute's Michael Tanner just posted this little trickery:
When the Senate Finance Committee released CBO scoring of its health care reform proposal last week, we warned that its claim of reducing future budget deficits was achieved only through dishonestly assuming that Congress will implement a 21% reduction in Medicare payments that is scheduled under current law. We pointed out that Congress has been supposed to make those reductions since 2003, and never has. Now, surprise, surprise, Democrats have introduced a bill to eliminate the scheduled cut, at a cost of $247 billion. But Democrats cleverly are putting the new spending in a separate bill, so it won't change scoring of health care reform. Have they no shame?I've said all along that the deficit neutral message shouldn't be taken seriously because it was just a gimmick. I've also argued that CBO's scoring shouldn't be the only benchmark by which the Democrats' health care bills should be rated on:
I've said for days now that deficit neutrality wasn't the right benchmark to measure the Democrats' legislation by, that it was important to consider what the total cost of the legislation is and to find out if the Democrats' legislation does anything to reduce costs to families, companies and insurers.In addition to those benchmarks, it's important that we're certain that whatever legislation emerges will slow down or reduce health care costs. Based on the information available, the Democrats' bills increase health care spending at even more unsustainable rates.
In his WSJ op-ed, Karl Rove explains that the Democrats' troubles are just beginning :
The problem for Mr. Obama is that the Baucus bill is being sold on the strength of accounting tricks that make it appear that it won't add to the deficit. (This is true for the other health-reform bills, too). If fiscally conservative Democrats sign on to the bill now after publicly saying they are doing so because it doesn't add to the deficit, they may end up bailing once the tricks are revealed to the public.I'm skeptical that Blue Dogs will bail because of the Democrats' trickery. They've been effectively neutered by Speaker Pelosi. To stretch the pet metaphor a bit further, the Blue Dogs' bark was always worse than their bite. The Blue Dogs' problems are real though. This information should be highlighted in every Blue Dog district across the nation:
Under questioning at a Senate hearing Tuesday, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf admitted that the $500 billion in tax hikes in the Baucus bill would be passed onto consumers, jacking up insurance premiums. That undercuts the argument that Democratic reforms will make health care more affordable.That isn't what Americans want. In fact, why would Americans spend over $1,000,000,000,000 on legislation that increases the cost of health care on an individual level, that doesn't eliminate the uninsured (25,000,000 people would stil be uninsured.) and that increases insurance premiums at a rate that's already growing too fast?
Let's put it this way. The Democrats' 'reforms' will immediately cost people more money. What's worse is that it'll cost people even more money later. That isn't opinion. That's what happens when businesses incur additional expenses. They don't just eat the costs. They pass them along to the consumers. This isn't difficult. Actually, it's quite predictable.
James Capretta explains why Baucuscare is bad policy:
In short, the plan sponsored by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus would almost certainly lead to a death spiral in many private health insurance markets.In other words, the legislation imposes onerous regulations on health insurance providers which make it impossible for insurance companies to make a profit. Once it's apparent that they can't make a profit, the health insurance providers don't have an incentive for providing health insurance, which leads to people opting for a public option.
Insurance death spirals occur when regulators force insurers to offer coverage ("guaranteed issue") at premiums below the known risk of those they are insuring, without any assurance that the shortfall can be made up elsewhere. When insurers comply with these rules and offer relatively low cost health insurance policies to all comers, quite predictably, many sick people step forward to sign up. When the insurers then try to turn around and charge higher premiums to the relatively healthy to cover their costs, the healthy, also quite predictably, are more reluctant to enroll because they can see the premiums they would have to pay would very likely exceed their health-care costs. So they often say "no thanks" to the insurance and decide to take their chances by going without coverage instead. As more and more healthy people exit the marketplace, insurers are then forced to raise premiums for everyone who remains, which only further encourages the lower risks to opt out. This vicious cycle of rising premiums and an increasingly unhealthy risk pool is called a 'death spiral' because it eventually forces the insurer to terminate the plan.
This is not a hypothetical, textbook scenario of what might happen to a poorly run insurance market. It has happened before, many times and in many places. See, for instance, the experience in Kentucky, and in Washington state, and in Maine too. There's no reason it couldn't happen nationwide.
It's important to notice that this wouldn't happen if government didn't intentionally impose these heavyhanded regulations on health insurance providers . (It's a slick game the Democrats are playing, 'fixing' the problem they intentionally created.)
The bottom line is that Baucuscare isn't the only bad legislation that the Democrats have passed. It's just the most recent legislative disaster that they've passed. All of the Democrats' bills increase health care costs, increase taxes on the middle class and don't solve the uninsured problem that the Democrats say they want to fix.
Only in Washington, DC can they call something like that reform.
Originally posted Friday, October 16, 2009, revised 17-Oct 3:15 AM
No comments.
Untangling Tarryl's Conflicts
If Sixth District voters only had this Strib article's information , it might be reasonable to think that Tarryl's thinking long and hard about what her health care reform beliefs would be. Fortunately for them, the Strib article isn't the only information that talks about Tarryl's health care beliefs. First, here's Tarryl's supposed dilemma:
Clark, a DFL state senator from St. Cloud, is cool to House proposals imposing penalties for people who refuse to buy insurance, and says she can't say whether she will favor a proposal for a government alternative to private insurance .I'll clear up Tarryl's supposed indecision surrounding the public option. I attended a health care forum that Tarryl called at St. Cloud's Whitney Senior Center . Tarryl's special guest that night was Sen. John Marty, the most outspoken and consistent advocate for single-payer health care .
"It depends what else is going to be with it and what the cost is," she said.
She is critical of a House proposal for a health surcharge on households earning more than $350,000 a year and on individuals earning more than $280,000, and emphasizes wringing inefficiencies out of the health care system to pay for reform.
"To the extent there are extra costs and we can't figure out how to squeeze the dollars out, then clearly we have to look at some other options," she said, referring to raising taxes on the wealthy. "That may be one way to do so."
From the outset of the event, the focus of the conversation was almost exclusively about Canadacare and single-payer health care. Loretta Linus spoke enthusiastically, though a bit combatively, about CanadaCare:
"The doctors are wonderful. You get good care. And it just makes me mad when they talk about how they have to come over here to get good care & that's not true. Now they say that Canadians have to come over here for good treatment. Well don't you believe it. Don't you believe it one bit. That government is so good to all its people. I don't care if you're rich or poor. They take care of you. And so many of the people come & they talk crap about how awful their system is. Well, don't you believe it. Single payer is wonderful if it's run right."She wasn't the only single-payer advocate to speak that night. A woman from the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition, aka GMHCC, said this:
"We don't need health insurance. We need health care."I talked with this woman after the event, at which time she spoke freely about GMHCC and about single-payer health care. She even directed me to a study done by the American Medical Student Association :
Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system , universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:Examine the last half of the third bulletpoint:
- Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
- Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
- Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement .
- Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
- There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization .
However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.At no point during the forum did anyone stand up and talk about traditional health insurance. In fact, John Marty made this statement , which he's repeated many times:
Finally, the last thing that caught my attention was John Marty's statement that we had to view health care as a "community need" like we think of the police or fire departments.After hearing one single-payer activist after another speak about the virtues of single-payer, with Tarryl inviting the most consistent voice for single-payer health care to be the forum's special guest, am I now supposed to believe that Tarryl is conflicted over the public option? You'll forgive me if I don't take that 'dillema' seriously.
It's also impossible for me to take Tarryl seriously with this statement:
"To the extent there are extra costs and we can't figure out how to squeeze the dollars out, then clearly we have to look at some other options," she said.In January, 2007, I attended a townhall meeting at the St. Cloud Historical Center with Leo. After the meeting was over, Tarryl approached us, which I thought was strange considering we're both conservative bloggers. During our conversation , I asked first if she'd be a proponent for zero-based budgeting. She said she liked ZBB, but that she didn't think they could implement it for that budget session. That's when I asked if she'd at least promise to have the committees hold oversight hearings to find the waste in the budget. She said that they'd definitely do that.
A year later, the DFL still hadn't conducted spending oversight hearings.
Last year, Tarryl appeared on At Issue with Tom Hauser. Here's what Tarryl said during that interview :
Hauser: You can talk about reform all you want but reform inevitably ends up meaning that some people that are getting state services now won't be getting them after this reform, whether it be in HHS, whether it be in education, early childhood, any of those things.By setting the maximum amount she could find for budget cuts and reforms, Tarryl is saying that 1.4% of Minnesota's budget going into the 2009 session was wasteful spending . Now I'm supposed to think that Tarryl will be a deficit hawk when she goes to the lobbyist capitol of the world?
Tarryl: Sure, and an estimate, a good estimate would be that maybe we could figure out how to save about $500 million .
Again, forgive me for being skeptical.
This is nothing more than Tarryl trying to not scare off the moderates she'll need just to keep the race close to Michele. Tarryl positions herself as a moderate but her voting record screams L-I-B-E-R-A-L. At the end of the day, it's impossible for me to take Tarryl seriously as a deficit hawk. That isn't who she is politically.
Posted Friday, October 16, 2009 4:01 AM
No comments.
Goodell's Disgrace
Until this week, I've thought highly of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. After his opportunistic statement about Rush Limbaugh being divisive, though, I'm thinking that Goodell deserves a rating behind MLB Commissioner Bud Selig. At least Selig is just inept.
What's got my ire is Goodell letting hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton dictate what the qualifications were for owning an NFL team. These people are hustlers, specializing in being parasites feeding off other people's productivity. They're both racists and bigots. More importantly, though, is that they're people whose actions, misdeeds really, don't have consequences.
Goodell says that Rush is divisive. Personally, I think that the word provocative is more fitting. Let's stipulate for just this conversation that Goodell is right. If divisive nature bothered him that much, then it's fair to ask what thinking, rational man would take advice from people whose biggest 'claim to fame' was using Tawana Brawley to accuse white cops of raping her (Sharpton) and someone who called Jews Heimie (Jackson)?
It'd take the world's best salesman to talk people into believing that these weren't more divisive than anything that Rush has done.
It seems that Goodell only pays attention to divisiveness if it's coming from a conservative. It's irritating that he didn't think twice about accepting the advice of the two most divisive bigots/race hustlers of the Twentieth Century. What's more is that he didn't take his time in letting his opinion be known on Rush owning a team.
If that seems odd to you, perhaps it's because this is totally out of character for him. When he's dealt with the players misconduct, he's meticulously reviewed every bit of information that might impact his decision.
Contrast that with his hurried statement on whether Rush should be part owner of the Rams. He didn't bother checking any of the statements that Rush was accused of making. Goodell simply stated he was too divisive.
That's what reactionary liberals typically do.
Posted Friday, October 16, 2009 5:10 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 16-Oct-09 03:55 PM
Gary:
What got me was the reaction of the owner of the Colts. He gave a speech that Rush will be bad for the NFL. Let me get this straight your family can move the Colts out of Baltimore causing grief in Baltimore and force the tax payers in Baltimore to spend money to lure the Cleveland football team is morally okay?
Yet no reporter will dare ask that question. Rush is powerful and liked because he speaks to the idea of people like us. I don't know if I should watch the Vikings anymore if the NFL doesn't like a radio show I listen to.
Furthermore if Rush is racist because he said something bad about a black quarterback (what had Goodell upset) why isn't he upset with the Vikings. After all we insulted the black quarterback that was good enough to start a playoff game by trading for a white quaterback and luring another white quarterback out of retirement. Isn't that an insult to the black quarterback. Oh the argument will be the performance is being judge.
Excuse me Rush was just judging the performance of Donovan year's ago. Why is he being given grief for that. And who he was criticizing was the media not the black quarterback.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by S> Panzera at 06-Feb-11 08:31 PM
Fans deserve better. Godell has failed the the fans and the players. With all the complaints regarding conduct, he has allowed the issue to become meaningless. Additionally, he has not corrected the level of officiating. It has hurt the game. He should leave.
Activists Overwhelmingly Support Marco Rubio
According to this article , Charlie Crist got trounced in another straw poll:
As expected, Marco Rubio has won another county Republican Party straw poll by a huge margin over Gov. Charlie Crist, this one in Palm Beach County by 90-1, leaving Republicans and others to continue to debate over whether such votes matter.While it isn't wise to take these straw polls at face value, the trend is unmistakable. It's also troubling to the Crist campaign. The Crist campaign is based on fundraising ability, name recognition and distancing himself from his liberal agenda. Thus far, that strategy isn't working too well.
Rubio has already won straw polls of county Republican parties in Bay, Gilchrist, Hernando, Highlands, Jefferson, Lee and Pasco counties, many by lopsided margins, 75-1 in Highlands, for example.
The vote tonight was different, however. The earlier ones were all in rural or suburban counties. Palm Beach is the first big urban county in which the Republican Party organization has held such a vote. Large, urban counties should be Crist's strong points.
As Rubio raises more money to increase his name recognotion and as he keeps contrasting his brand of fiscal conservatism with Crist's list of fiscally irrespnsible 'accomplishment' (like campaigning with President Obama on the failed stimulus bill), the more like it is that Florida GOP primary voters will distance themselves from Crist.
Marco Rubio still faces a daunting challenge but we can make a difference. Follow this link to contribute to Rubio's campaign to defeat liberal Charlie Crist.
Posted Friday, October 16, 2009 1:07 PM
No comments.
Frightening: My Encounter With Government-Run Health Care
Friday afternoon, I came face-to-face with the reason we should reject government-run health care. First, a little background is needed. I buy my insurance through the state of Minnesota. Because I'm considered part of the working poor, part of my insurance premiums are subsidized. Because of that, I'm required to submit information on how much money I've made over the previous 12 months. It's important that you know that I've submitted that information with plenty of time to spare.
Friday, I got a notice that my policy would be cancelec if I didn't supply them with this routine financial information. I immediately called the toll-free number, where I spent the next 10 minutes dealing with the touch-tone part. Then I was relegated to waiting another 5-10 minutes to talk with a representative. Mind you, this isn't the bad part of the experience. This is nothing compared with what happened next.
When I finally got a representative, he brought up my file to see why I'd gotten this notice. He said that a case worker had a question about my paperwork so the case worker asked a superviser for their opinion and that the superviser said that my paperwork was incomplete.
I told the representative what I'd sent in and that it's the same information that I'd sent in last September. What the representative said next got my blood boiling. He said "Well, everybody does things differently." He then tried glossing over that part but I told him to stop right there. He continued to try talking over me but I wouldn't let him off the hook.
When he stopped speaking, I said that that response was unacceptable, that I'd either complied with the law or I didn't and that there wasn't any gray area on that. The representative then repeated that "Everybody does things differently." I didn't let that slip, either, saying that there can't be consistent compliance with the law if everyone does things differently.
Here's the worst part: After confronting him on this, THE BUREAUCRAT HUNG UP ON ME!!!
At that point, I was so furious that I could've spit pole barn spikes through a brick wall at 100 paces. My first instinct was to call my adopted state representative, Steve Gottwalt. When I told Steve what had happened and what was said, his reaction was similar to mine, saying that the law is the law and that it's clear on what's required. He agreed with me that the law must be applied evenly or it's meaningless.
Steve further said that bureaucrats don't have the authority to ignore the laws' specific provisions, that they aren't suggestions of guidelines but actually are the law. Steve then said that I should call back in and request to speak with a superviser and to tell the superviser what had just happened.
When I called the number again and requested to speak with a superviser, I was connected with a woman named Nekheti. She couldn't have been more professional. I explained what'd been said. She immediately apologized for the representative's behavior, then she looked into how the problem could be resolved. Once we got to that stage, it literally took less than 3 minutes to solve the problem.
The problem that I see with how this was handled initially is what every American should be worried about. The law, which Steve is familiar with, was written very clearly. It isn't difficult to know what's expected. Despite the clarity of Minnesota's law, the person handling the application still got it wrong, who then talked with a superviser who got it wrong, too.
We shouldn't tolerate faceless bureaucrats dictating what's acceptable and what isn't. After all, THEY WORK FOR US!!! They don't get to make up the rules. That's the legislature's job. The bureaucrats' job is to verify that the laws are being obeyed. Nothing more, nothing less.
What's most offensive is that the bureaucrat that I spoke with seemed offended when I told him that. That bureaucrat's attitude was "Who do you think you are telling me how to do my job?"
I'm your boss!!! You work for me and the people of the state of Minnesota. Your job is to obey the law, not do whatever you think is right.
Posted Friday, October 16, 2009 11:00 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 17-Oct-09 07:06 AM
You are fortunate that the law WAS very clear. That certainly is not always the case, and sometimes it is deliberately so. Many laws, especially the federal stuff like the "vapor bill" on health care, couldn't be written in plain English or they would never pass. They won't even TITLE them with gross deception. Health care "reform," indeed! "DEform" is more like it. It doesn't solve any of the problems it purports to solve, and that assumes it works exactly as they say it will. Or claim it will; who knows what the legislation actually says.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 17-Oct-09 07:56 AM
Jerry, I totally agree with that.
Comment 3 by John Kanon at 17-Oct-09 05:05 PM
Gary, I'm confused. How does someone who considers themselves a conservative get subsidized health care? If you have subsidized health care can I also assume you don't pay MN income tax? So therefore your point about "you work for me" is a little disingenuous. Am I missing something here?
Comment 4 by eric z. at 17-Oct-09 06:13 PM
Individuals are a problem.
J. Ewing is right - have you any experience with DEED UI hearings, and with the courts and their awful rubber stamping?
But - be honest - have you had to deal with Qwest recently?
Have you been put on a private sector hold line to talk to a tech rep in Bangalore?
Those phone systems are awful. But they arose in the private sector.
Who do you think designs them, installs them, sells and maintains them? Private sector people chasing profit.
The problem is accountability for those doing that kind of job. It is low end non-inspiring, and the only power that goes with it is to brown-helmet the people they've power over - you in this instance.
But private insurers, they terminate people over nit-picking disputes about what's experimental hence not covered, is there a gotcha to rescind. All that.
I have seen quality control lab people in a small specialty chemical company dry lab product analytical work, when they felt too busy. I have seen in the same lab a continuous complainer, an older worker who'd seen better days, who was assiduously honest and diligent in doing the work.
People vary. But if you are saying the claims people at cubicles at UnitedHealth Group are better - prove it. My guess is there's a range of capability and caring to do a good and diligent work for the paycheck.
Some members of congress do little for the district, little in district, but collect the same pay as those who are assiduous.
Go figure.
Comment 5 by oldpnyd at 23-Nov-09 11:31 AM
As someone who has worked in Gov't I was use to people claiming to be my "boss". Guess what? No one owns me. Let alone several thousand. Don't shoot the messenger we are doing what the laws allow. True we misspeak from time to time and the Gov has cut our budget again putting more pressure on the staffing. So why don't you place the blame where it resides? Opnyd. Ps. If you want a story my wife has been in a nursing home for 2 years and medicare has paid no bills since 4/08 and they won't give me the time of day. And that's after working with 2 Senators, one for almost a year. Too bad. ESAD.
Health Care Your Turn
My Your Turn op-ed is in this morning's St. Cloud Times. Here's a little snippet from the post to pique your curiosity:
According to members of the Senate Finance Committee, the Democrats' bills increase taxes by $500 billion, cut Medicare by $400 billion and dump the biggest unfunded mandate in U.S. history into states' laps. It also causes health care costs to keep rising at an unsustainable rate and leaves 25 million people without insurance .Simply put, that's the heart of each of the Democrats' health care plans. Here's a simple set of questions that everyone should ask Democrats:
- Won't increasing taxes increase health care costs?
- Won't cutting Medicare by $404,000,000,000 while Medicare enrollment is increasing by 30 lead to rationing? Won't those cuts likely hurt rural hospitals?
- Isn't putting a Medicaid mandate on states avoiding taking responsibility for a federal government-initiated program?
- Why does this legislation still leave 25,000,000 uninsured?
- Isn't the true cost to families, the federal government, insurance companies, manufacturing companies & state governments closer to $2,000,000,000,000?
- Will any of this stabilize or lower health care costs? If yes, how?
- Won't insuring everyone cause health care spending to actually increase?
- Considering the FY2009 deficit was a record $1,420,000,000,000, can we afford another $2,000,000,000,000 in spending obligations over the next 10 years?
- Will the tax increases included in the Democrats' health care plans stifle economic growth and job creation? If yes, doesn't that mean we should rethink this legislation?
- Wouldn't HSAs give people an incentive in using their health care dollars wisely? Shouldn't that be our goal?
The Democrats' goal is to cover everyone, which sounds noble enough. We should reject universal coverage as the most important priority. Our first priority should be to make people health care shoppers whose first priority is to their family. That introduces the concept of accountability to the health care equation.
SIDENOTE: I'm not saying that we ignore those who can't afford to be responsible.
Having a health care policy with a small co-pay or low deductible doesn't give people an incentive to be wise health care shoppers. Ideally, a great affordable health insurance policy would cover annual physicals, important tests with a reasonable deductible and few mandates. If that was a standardized policy, health insurance premiums would drop while making health insurance alot more affordble. That policy would cover the important things while giving people and families the responsibility to be smart health care shoppers.
Frankly, I don't see the downside to that type of policy. Doesn't that raise the question why the Democrats' legislation doesn't have this as the centerpiece to true reform?
Posted Saturday, October 17, 2009 3:01 AM
Comment 1 by paulette at 17-Oct-09 10:09 PM
so what are we realy talking about health care for people who are not rich and able to get any doctor they want in the mean time the middle class settle .we the people deserve the same care as the rich ; good treatmeant. thank you god bless us all. paulette
Message Already Sent
Pundits are speculating that moderate Democrats will act different if Chris Christie defeats Jon Corzine in the New Jersey gubernatorial race. I don't know if that's true or not but this I know: a message has been sent to Democrats, that message being that voting for the public option will get you defeated in 2010.
Appearing on last night's Hannity, Frank Luntz said that his focus group polling showed that Democrats voting for the public option would be in for the fight of their political lives. A full 25% of people would "actively work to defeat" a Democrat who voted for the public option. Another 23% said that they'd be "likely to vote against" a Democrat who voted for the public option. Another 9% of those polled would be "somewhat likely to vote against" a Democrat who voted for the public option. Only 28% of the people polled said that they'd be more likely to vote for a Democrat who voted for the public option.
The pro public option breakdown was 8% "would actively work to get elected", 10% would be "more likely to vote for" a politician who voted for the public option and 8% who would be "somewhat likely to vote for" a politician who votes for the public option.
Several things jumped out at me from this polling data. The first thing is that the intensity of opponents of the public option is 3 times that of those who strongly support the public option. Think about it. This is the Democrats' holy grail, the thing that Ted Kennedy fought for until his dying day. Despite that history, opponents are more passionate about defeating the public option than those who passionately want it passed.
Another thing that jumped out at me is the fact that the people who passionately oppose the public option would work to defeat their incumbent if they voted for the public option. Potentially, that means trouble for Democratic politicians like Collin Peterson and Walt Minnick.
I'd further suggest that it's wrong to think that the only people at risk are the Democrats elected for the first time in 2006 or 2008. With the mood the way it is, it wouldn't surprise me if alot of longtime incumbents found themselves in for the fight of their life.
Posted Sunday, October 18, 2009 3:43 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 18-Oct-09 07:03 AM
That's good. Now we just need to expand that thinking to the notion that Democrats are equally as vulnerable if they pass ANY health care "reform," public option or no. The whole thing is based on a false premise, and is a high-wire magic act. It can't work, and Congress can't be allowed to try.
Fight of the Ages: Obama's Words vs. Obama's Deeds
Pundits of all political persuasions have talked about how eloquently President Obama delivers a speech. No less a conservative than Charles Krauthammer has talked about President Obama's speechmaking ability ad nauseum to the virtual exclusion of the content of President Obama's speeches.
It's time that the punditocracy stopped yapping about President Obama's ability to read from a teleprompter. We The People don't care that he tells whoppers with elegance. We The People want to know whether his policies will put us on a glidepath to prosperity and security. Thus far, they haven't.
No less prominent a liberal that Alan Dershowitz wrote a WSJ op-ed that was critical of President Obama's Israel policy:
At the suggestion of Mr. Obama's Jewish supporters, including me, the candidate visited the beleaguered town of Sderot, which had borne the brunt of thousands of rocket attacks by Hamas. Standing in front of the rocket shells, Mr. Obama declared: "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." This heartfelt statement sealed the deal for many supporters of Israel.President Obama has frequently thrown Israel under the proverbial bus. Meanwhile, he's proposing direct talks with Iran even though Iran wants to blow Israel into non-existence.
Now, some of them apparently have voters' remorse. According to Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, "President Obama's strongest supporters among Jewish leaders are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives, and some are questioning what he really believes." I hear the same thing from rank-and-file supporters of Israel who voted for Mr. Obama.
President Obama's other major national security/foreign policy mistake thus far was the removal of the missile shield from allies like Poland and the Czech Republic while buddying up to Putin's Russia.
That's before we start talking about President Obama's outreach to the Taliban while dithering on whether he'll send the troops to Afghanistan. Only an idiot of the same type as Jimmy Carter would reach out to terrorists whose goal is to destroy the country that they're currently terrorizing.
Remember when President Obama said that he didn't want to take over Chrysler and GM, that he had enough already on his plate? How'd that turn out?
The simple point is that President Obama is the opposite of who portrays himself to be. Lynn Forester de Rothschild's op-ed in yesterday's NY Post highlights the emptiness of Prsident Obama's words nicely:
A paternalistic government threatens our independence, our individuality and our right to self-determination. It's why Jefferson sang praise to the yeoman farmer and Jackson to the common man. It's the principle that Reagan placed at the heart of his presidency, and that Clinton built on by advancing policies that empowered individuals, not policies that made individuals beholden to the state.The TEA Party movement was ignited by Washington politicians telling us one thing, then doing the opposite. In fact, Rick Santelli's initial call for protests was ignited after President Obama's mortgage bailout speech in Arizona.
In contrast, President Obama's praise for the free market and individual liberty just doesn't ring true, because his record does not reflect his rhetoric. His actions show a fundamental disconnect with American values, a disconnect that won't be dispelled with captivating speeches, no matter how masterfully delivered.
When President Obama went campaigning for his stimulus bill in Illinois , President Obama told a major whopper:
"Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off," Obama said today in Peoria.As I wrote then, that storyline lasted until Air Force One lifted off:
But when asked today if the stimulus could do that, Owens said, "I think, realistically, no. The honest reality is we're probably going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again."Mrs. Rothschild tied President Obama's truth-telling to the health care debate:
The promised benefits don't add up. It's just not possible for the government to simultaneously a) provide care for 30 million more people, b) not increase the budget deficit and c) allow anyone who is satisfied with their health care package to experience no change. In repeatedly insisting that he'll deliver all three results at once, Obama has lost credibility: 80 percent of Americans polled said that his health-care reform will raise costs or diminish quality of care.Unfortunately, the networks won't question President Obama's claims. They'll just quote him and keep moving.
BTW, the TEA Party activists have a problem with the Fringe Media's refusal to question leaders' statements. Online newspapers should put a link to the analysis piece in their reporting article and in their columns. That way, people can see things in a better context.
If this was SOP for the networks and newspapers, President Obama wouldn't get away with saying the things he's saying. Other than Major Garrett and Jake Tapper, the White House reporters don't call President Obama on his whoppers.
That's why FNC's ratings have skyrocketed. That's why Glenn Beck's ratings in the afternoon this summer were 250 percent larger than Keith Olberman's ratings in primetime. With the economy struggling and with terrorist-sponsoring nations working on nuclear weapons, John Q. Public is demanding accurate information. They're demanding less-than-sexy information because they need it for planning their family's future, whether it's saving for their children's education or whether they're planning their retirement.
Until President Obama starts addressing John Q. Public's needs, his ratings will continue dropping. He portrayed himself as a moderate. His actions have betrayed him as a radical. If he doesn't stop with telling people one thing, then doing the opposite, he'll divide the Democratic Party. As we know, a house divided can't stand.
Posted Sunday, October 18, 2009 5:44 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 19-Oct-09 09:26 AM
Obama's weakness of leadership on healthcare - his failure to push hard for even public option, much less for single payer of base insurance levels with the private sector allowed to write extended coverage has honked off those who believed he would provide change rather than the continuity being shown there and in the two war fronts. It will not make the honked off people vote GOP, but it might yield a few good primary challenges to Blue Dog turncoats. And may they all be voted out.
And Olympia Snowe, what's she good for to either party? Certainly she's in bed [figuratively] with Baucus, and no good will come of that.
Here's one you might comment on Gary:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59I1G120091019
If it's keeping higher ed graduate schools intact and free from Texas Austin raiding Wisconsin and the U.Minn., it is good. But is it at the level of serving a partisan constituency? Any thoughts?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Oct-09 10:36 AM
Eric, I'm just putting a post together that argues from a totally different perspective. The Democrats' goal of covering everyone runs contrary to bringing down costs. In my upcoming post, I argue that eliminating alot of the mandated coverages will lower health care costs, which makes health insurance more affordable.
The Democrats' plans don't offer a new way of delivering current services. Instead, their plans all revolve around first covering everyone, then imposing price controls on hospitals & doctors. By doing that, you're guaranteeing that students will stop going into med school, leading to a shortage fo doctors.
In Canada, with a population of 33,000,000 people, there are 5,000,000 people who don't have a primary car physician. Universal coverage is worthless if you don't have a doctor to see.
In short, government-applied price controls guarantee that the problem will get worse, not better. As a person who sincerely wants our health care system fixed, I'm suggesting that they start from scratch & that this time, they listen to the medical professionals instead of the politicians.
