October 24-26, 2009
Oct 24 01:44 Biden Defends the Indefensible Oct 24 10:02 Where Was the DFL? Oct 25 03:00 Ohio Cries Out Oct 25 03:49 THE Question Oct 25 12:37 Pittsburgh vs. Vikings Oct 26 01:17 My God, They Think We ARE That Stupid Oct 26 02:33 AFL-CIO vs. We The People Oct 26 08:56 If This Is True... Oct 26 15:59 Won't That Drive Up CBO's Scoring?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Biden Defends the Indefensible
VP Joe Biden waded into the fight between Dick Cheney and the Obama administration by essentially saying that the Obama administration will take its time while the violence in Afghanistan continues.
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. waved off recent attacks from Dick Cheney about President Obama's handling of Afghanistan with a "Who cares?" and called his predecessor "absolutely wrong" on the question of whether the new administration was "dithering" in setting a fresh course for the war.Mr. Vice President, President Obama's speech in March announced a new Afghanistan strategy. He made a strong case for what needed to be done. Here's what he said then :
"I think that is absolutely wrong," the vice president said of Mr. Cheney's criticism. "I think what the administration is doing is exactly what we said it would do. And what I think it warrants doing. And that is making an informed judgment based upon circumstances that have changed,to come up with a sustainable policy that has more than one dimension."
Mr. Biden's staunch defense of the Obama administration came during a 30-minute, wide-ranging interview with The Washington Times and two other news outlets Friday in the ambassador's residence here. During the interview, the vice president provided his most extensive comments to date about the ongoing internal deliberations in Washington over the course of the Afghan conflict, saying "to fail to sit back and reassess where we are, I think, would be absolutely imprudent."
Today, I'm announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review, led by Bruce, that I ordered as soon as I took office. My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats. We've consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations. We've also worked closely with members of Congress here at home. And now I'd like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people.It sounds like President Obama is saying that killing the Taliban and al-Qa'ida was his highest national security priority. I don't think that thoughtful people disagree with that. Next, let's review what President Obama said and see if there's been any significant change in Afghanistan since he made that speech.
The situation is increasingly perilous. It's been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on, and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghan government have risen steadily. And most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces.
Many people in the United States, and many in partner countries that have sacrificed so much, have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? And they deserve a straightforward answer.
So let me be clear: Al Qaeda and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks, are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban, or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can .
- Has the Taliban become less of a threat inside Afghanistan?
- If NATO and US troops are pulled from Afghanistan, is it likely that the Taliban would topple the Afghan government?
- If the Taliban toppled the Afghan government, would they provide sanctuary for al-Qa'ida?
- If Afghanistan returned to being a sanctuary for al-Qa'ida, is it likely that they'd quickly resume planning terrorist attacks throughout the world, including attacks on the US homeland?
If killing al-Qa'ida and their enablers in the Taliban is still the highest priority, why can't a decision be made fairly quickly? After all, President Obama said that US diplomats had consulted our allies. The military, led by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, devised a plan for routing the Taliban that was approved by President Obama.
I can understand taking a week to review Gen. McChrystal's plans and to consult again with our Afghani and NATO allies but that's about it. It's now been six weeks since Gen. McChrystal was allowed to officially present his plan to President Obama. Add another 2-3 weeks to that when Gen. McChrystal first made his plans known unoffically.
In other words, President Obama has had over 2 months to decide on a course of action. Why has it taken that long to make a decison that was essentially made last March?
Thanks to the information that we have thanks to Vice President Cheney's speech, I'd be neglectful if I didn't highlight this little white lie in President Obama's speech:
And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review, led by Bruce, that I ordered as soon as I took office.We know that the Bush administration ordered the review in September, 2008. I don't doubt that the Obama administration looked the Bush administration's review over but I'm skeptical that they commissioned a new review, especially since Mr. Cheney said that there was a striking resemblance between the Obama administration's plan and the plan tha the Bush administration put together.
"That's why the president asked me to get in the place in January and go to Afghanistan," he said. "I came back with a different review. I came back with an assessment as to what I thought,we were inheriting, okay? But unrelated to whether they left us a review or not, let's assume they left us a review. A whole lot has changed in the last year. A whole lot's changed. So the idea, even if they did, let's assume they left us a review that was absolutely correct, is that review relevant and totally applicable to today in light of the changes that have taken place in the region, in Afghanistan itself? So I think that is sort of irrelevant. Not sort of, I think it's irrelevant."Again, Vice President Biden hasn't told us why the Bush administration's review is irrelevant. Furthermore, he didn't explain what's changed that dramatically. Why shouldn't people think that Vice President Biden isn't spinning things while President Obama procrastinates? Why shouldn't the American people think that President Obama is waiting because he doesn't want to upset his Nutroots allies when he needs their energy to pass health care legislation?
Upon further review, what's irrelevant is the spin that Mr. Biden and this administration is engaged it. Irrelevant except to our brave troops who need the additional troops to defeat the Taliban.
Posted Saturday, October 24, 2009 1:54 AM
No comments.
Where Was the DFL?
In January, 2007, I asked Tarryl Clark if the DFL would conduct oversight hearings to locate the wasteful spending. She said that they would. I asked her that question because the first six DFL bills submitted that year included tax increases. I wanted to know why these bills included tax increases considering the fact that we had a $2,200,000,000 surplus at the time.
When I asked her this question, I didn't give her wiggle room on whether there was wasteful spending. Instead, I framed it as to whether or not the DFL legislature would find the wasteful spending that we knew existed.
In the summer of 2008, after a townhall at Whitney Senior Center, I asked why the DFL hadn't held the proper oversight hearings. Tarryl insisted that they had. Based on this article , I'll respectfully disagree:
The big screen, flat panel TVs that so recently hung on the walls of the Moose Lake sex offender program will soon be enjoyed by patients at veterans homes across the state.Clearly, this purchase wasn't signed off on by the Pawlenty administration. When they learned about this purchase, they immediately corrected the situation. While it's true that chief executives like Gov. Pawlenty are held accountable for everything done by bureaucrats in the various bureaucracies, it's equally true that bureaucrats make decisions that aren't justifiable.
In a move designed to put an end to an embarrassing episode for a cost-conscious administration, Gov. Tim Pawlenty said Friday that at least 14 of the two dozen sets will go to veterans homes in Minneapolis, Fergus Falls, Hastings and Silver Bay.
More important than just the event is the money in the budget that was needed to purchase these TV sets:
The televisions, nearly $60,000 worth, had been purchased to help occupy the patients at the state's sex offender lockup and provide a possible clinical benefit.Why didn't the DFL legislature consider the possibility that spending $60,000 on flat screen TVs for sex offenders in lockup wasn't a high priority? Shouldn't they have questioned that line item before approving the budget?
Let's look at this from the perspective that we faced a $6,400,000,000 deficit last year. It's not like we had lots of leftover money that we could just throw around. Let's also remember the DFL told us again and again that we didn't have a spending problem, that we had a revenue problem. Forgive me if I don't believe that, especially after reading this article. (For some reason, I can't help thinking that we haven't found the other egregious expenditures in the budgets.)
There's another problem here that needs highlighting, namely the purchasing practices of the various departments. How many times do state employees purchase things without checking if they're getting a great deal? Since I'm a firm believer that people don't pay nearly as much attention if they're spending OPM (other people's money) on other people, I'm betting that government purchasing agents aren't the biggest bargain shoppers.
I think we all agree that these TVs shouldn't have been bought. Just for the sake of this post, though, let's use this transaction as an example. According to a website I just visted, you can purchase 50" flat screen TVs for as little as $700. (I'm sure you can do even better but I didn't spend alot of time doing an exhaustive search.) Had the purchasing agent done even a little bit of shopping, they could've reduced the bill by more than $40,000. My Minnesota math says that comes out to a savings of almost 75% (73.3% but let's not quibble amongst friends).
This leads me to wondering if legislative oversight would change the habits of purchasing agents. If purchasing agents knew that they'd be called on the carpet from time to time, would their habits change? Quite possible but possibly not. The upshot, though, is that if purchasing agents remain recalcitrant, then the legislature can pass legislation or the governor can give instruction changing their habits.
Had the legislature done its oversight job, we might've budgeted differently. More importantly, if we'd adopted zero-based budgeting as our budgeting system, we'd force department managers justify their budgets every two years.
The ideal system would start with ZBB, then be followed up by aggressive legislative oversight. That would produce the tightest budgets and the best oversight. Apparently, the DFL hasn't adopted this even though a number of people have asked them to. Furthermore, it's doubtful that they'll change that habit.
That's why it's time we restructured the legislature. It's time we elected a reform-minded legislature that will tighten up the budgeting and the oversight processes. That won't happen with a DFL legislature. There's zero chance of that change happening. Leopards don't change their spots that dramatically.
Posted Saturday, October 24, 2009 10:02 AM
No comments.
Ohio Cries Out
When Ohioans read this memo , they'll demand a change in leadership. Look at the list of awful employment statistics from the memo:
JOB LOSS/GAINS AS OF OCTOBER 21, 2009Prior to reading this, I've thought that Jennifer Granholm was the biggest failure by far at creating jobs. Obviously, I have to adjust that opinion to include Ted Strickland. His lack of leadership on all things economic is borne out by the amount of jobs are being lost in Ohio. He's done little to change the dynamic in terms of business climate.
Ohio lost 5,900 jobs in the month of September
Ohio lost 155,000 jobs in 2008
Ohio has lost 174,600 jobs so far in 2009
Ohio has lost 258,100 jobs over the last 12 months.
Ohio has lost 329,600 jobs since Ted Strickland became Governor.
Ohio has lost 388,900 jobs since the last national recession ended in November of 2001. Twenty-two states lost jobs during this period, and only Michigan fared worse than Ohio.
According to this website , Ted Strickland's idea of health care reform is Medicaid for all:
The state government's budget provides Medicaid insurance coverage for Ohio children whose parents make up to 300 percent of the federal poverty line, and the opportunity for parents above the limit to buy into coverage. We will provide access to affordable health coverage for every single child in Ohio. The budget also provides for an expansion of Medicaid eligibility for low-income parents and pregnant women, and an expansion of the PASSPORT program.Ted Strickland hasn't had an innovative thought in centuries. In Congress, he was a cookie-cutter congresscritter, nothing more. He isn't a leader, either.
It's worth noting that, as governor, Strickland has had difficulty creating jobs. Meanwhile, John Kasich has a record in DC of both creating jobs AND balancing the federal budget.
That, in a nutshell, is the Ohio gubernatorial race. Ohioans can either pick a former milquetoast politican with a marginal to mediocre track record or they can pick a leader with a long list of historic, positive accomplishments.
That's a choice so easy even a Democrat could almost get it right.
Posted Sunday, October 25, 2009 3:05 AM
No comments.
THE Question
Nebraska Sen. Mike Johanns gave this week's Republican radio message. During his message, Sen. Johanns focuses people's attention to the only question that Americans need to ask regarding the Democrats' health care bills: Will their legislation improve their lives:
Most people agree that health care changes should decrease the costs and make it easier to receive health care, Republican Nebraska Sen. Mike Johanns said Saturday in the GOP's weekly video and radio address.The answer is that the Democrats' legislation will make things worse for the vast majority of people. At a time when there's economic difficulties, the Democrats want to raise taxes on job creators. How is that helpful? The Democrats' goal theoretically is to insure everyone. According to the CBO's analysis, 25,000,000 people will still be uninsured after 10 years. That's before factoring in the huge price tag, reported to be over $1,000,000,000,000 .
"Yet current proposals in Congress don't accomplish this goal and could even have the opposite effect, negatively impacting each and every one of us," Johanns said.
"As a select few deliberate over legislation that will mean higher premiums across the board, higher taxes for hardworking families and cuts to Medicare for senior citizens, I ask: will this improve your life?" he said.
At what point do politicians understand that they're the problem, not the solution? (HINT: When the American people tell them loudly and persistently.)
There's little in the Democrats' bills that's even remotely close to helping people. The Senate Finance bill isn't the Democrats' only legislation that drops the mother of all unfunded Medicaid mandates on the states. Why does Washington think that the states can just absorb that type of shock to their budget?
Johanns listed several examples of proposed changes he said could have a negative effect on various groups of people. Among them:The CBO says that people who don't buy insurance will get hit with a fine. That isn't imaginary. That's the gospel according to the nonpartisan CBO. The Senate Finance Committee bill includes a 40% excise tax on gold-plated insurance plans. That isn't imaginary. The unions ran ads pointing this out. The Democrats' bills call for dramatic cuts in Medicare. Those aren't imaginary. Still, the Democrats claim that these claims aren't accurate:
"To the factory worker, who has forgone pay raises for the promise of better insurance benefits for you and your family: your health insurance will be taxed and your premiums will go up ."
"To the recent college graduate burdened with student loans: you'll be forced to buy health insurance the government mandates, and if you refuse, you'll be hit with a penalty ."
"To our seniors, who wish to receive care in the comfort of their homes: funding for hospice care and home health care services would be cut."
The White House and congressional Democrats dispute such arguments, saying their health care plans would result in stronger and better coverage for all and ultimately lower prices since they are seeking to rein in wasteful spending. They also note that currently, people with insurance pay a "hidden tax" created by the costs of emergency room visits by the uninsured being shifted to the rest of the population.Notice that slippery wording: "Medicare cuts wouldn't affect CORE Medicare benefits." That's mostly true but it doesn't tell the whole truth, specifically that the Democrats' medicare cuts would affect Medicare Advantage benefits. The Democrats don't say anything about how these cuts to Medicare Advantage help the AARP sell Medigap policies. The Democrats won't tell you, nor will the AARP tell us, that cutting Medicare Advantage is the Obama administration's paying off AARP for their support of the Democrats' bill.
As for the proposed cuts to Medicare providers , Democrats say they would not affect core Medicare benefits and would strengthen the program overall by reducing fraud and abuse.
Let's summarize: The Democrats' legislation will raise taxes , drop a huge Medicaid unfunded mandate on states , fine people for not buying insurance, do nothing to cut health care costs to the average person, cut Medicare and do little to reduce the numbers of uninsured .
Only in Washington, DC could this legislation be called reform.
Originally posted Sunday, October 25, 2009, revised 26-Oct 8:44 AM
No comments.
Pittsburgh vs. Vikings
This afternoon, the Vikings are locked in a slugfest in what promises to be the premiere matchup of the day. Just when I thought the Vikings offensive line was starting to assert itsel, Ben Roethlisberger throws a laser between the linebackers & the secondary & Mike Wallace is suddenly walking into the end zone.
This first quarter essentially was a feeling out period, with the game opening up alot in the second quarter. I'm hoping that the Favre magic to win the day (God that sounds good.) but I expect a slugfest right down to the last drive.
Is this what you expected Ed?
UPDATE: I was almost right. It came down to the next-to-the-last drive. Unfortunately, Chester Taylor didn't catch a very catchable ball on a screen pass, the ball was intercepted by Pittsburgh, who took it in to make the final score Pittsburgh 27, Vikings 17.
Clearly, though, th Vikings answered alot of questions in losing. This is clearly a dominant football team. This is no longer a team that's defense + AP. The Vikings have alot of weapons, chief among them Brett Favre & Sidney Rice. Sidney Rice is turning into a dominant receiver, something that Favre is planning on exploiting.
It's only proper to give the Steelers their due. Their defense made the big plays when they needed them. Still, it's impossible for me to say that they're as good as last year's Super Bowl Champions.
Most weeks, there's one game that's called that week's premiere matchup. Sometimes that matchup doesn't live up to the hype. Last week's Giants-Saints game is a perfect example, with the Saints trouncing the Giants.
This week, though, lived up to the hype & then some.
Finally, don't be surprised if there's a rematch the first Sunday in February. These are two heavyweights.
Posted Sunday, October 25, 2009 3:05 PM
No comments.
My God, They Think We ARE That Stupid
This NY Times article proves that Democrats think we'll buy whatever spin they put out there. Here's what they're saying:
The bad economy is good for President Obama and Democrats as they try to reinvent the health care system with scant Republican support.First off, Rep. McDermott is a far left idiot if he thinks that Hillarycare went down in flames because of the economy. It went down in flames because Americans didn't want to surrender control of that part of their life to government. Unfortunately, that thought doesn't enter the thoughts of control freaks like Rep. McDermott.
That is the conclusion of many Congressional Democrats, who say that economic insecurity and high unemployment stoke public support for their proposals to guarantee insurance for millions of Americans.
Representative Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington, said this was one of the biggest differences between the health care wars of 1993-94 and the battle today. When Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton fought for universal coverage, Mr. McDermott said, the economy was on an upswing, in the early stages of a 10-year economic expansion, which proved to be the longest in American history.
There's a reason why Democrats won't use the term government-run. It's the reason why they've resorted to using the euphemism public option. Americans love liberty and options. They despise overregulation. It's part of America's DNA to love liberty and choices.
I'd further suggest that things would have to get significantly worse before enough people would support the Democrats' proposed government takeover of the health care system.
"The mentality in the country is different," said Mr. McDermott, a psychiatrist who has served in Congress for two decades. "In 1993, we were talking about the uninsured as 'them.' Now it turns out this is for us. When a bank like Washington Mutual in Seattle lays off 3,000 people, they lose health insurance. Millions of people with insurance are asking, 'What if I lose my job?'"I'd disrespectfully disagree, mostly because most states have safety net health insurance plans. It isn't something that people want to deal with longterm but they will if that's what's needed.
Simply put, this is Rep. McDermott projecting. It isn't based in reality.
Democrats say a government-run insurance plan is the best way to allay fears about the loss of private insurance. Private insurers can increase premiums or withdraw from markets, they say, but a government plan will always be available and affordable.Democrats say that government-run insurance is more affordable. Let's examine the credibility of that statement. When the government-run option starts accumulating big deficits, which will happen, Congress's first reaction will be to raise taxes. Will people care whether their premiums go up or whether their taxes get raised? I'm betting they won't differentiate. Let's do a side-by-side:
Democrats say "Private insurers can increase premiums. Republicans say that government can raise taxes to keep premiums lower. Both statements are true. What's the difference?
Liberal Democrats like Speaker Nancy Pelosi say that a public plan would put competitive pressure on private insurers to hold down premiums and costs.According to this, Democrats are admitting that Medicare eliminates negotiating. Hospitals and doctors are forced to accept whatever the federal government sets the payments at. Typically, Medicare reimbursement rates don't cover the cost of the cost of the visits/treatments. That's why hospitals and doctors try limiting treating Medicare patients.
To save money, they say, the public plan should use Medicare rates as a basis for paying doctors and hospitals . Private insurers negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, which have substantial bargaining power. The Medicare rates, set by law and regulation, are lower.
How is that a solution? Only a liberal cocky liberal would think that we're stupid enough to think that their legislation is a solution.
Posted Monday, October 26, 2009 1:23 AM
No comments.
AFL-CIO vs. We The People
Marybeth Juetten of the AFL-CIO has an LTE in this morning's St. Cloud Times that's long on DFL talking points but devoid of logic.
Members of Congress shouldn't be confused about which way they're going to vote on this issue. To me and other constituents, it's clear cut: Will you stand with big insurance companies, or will you stand with us?First, and most importantly, what assurances do we have that the Democrats' bill will control costs? It's more accurate to say that their legislation only hides the cost increases:
Working families need health care reform that will control costs, guarantee coverage and finally hold insurance companies accountable. The public insurance plan option is the best way to do that.
To ease the burdens of the insurance mandate, the reform proposals call for varying levels of subsidy. In some versions, such as the current Senate bill, subsidies are handed out to families with incomes as high as $88,000 a year. How long will it be before just about everyone wants further assistance, and this new form of entitlement spending spins out of control?Families making $88,000 don't need a subsidy, though I'm certain they'll accept the subsidies without hesitation. After thinking this through, after putting 2 and 2 together, I realized that the Democrats' subsidies are meant to hide the insurance premium increases.
The Democrats' plan doesn't control costs. That isn't just opinion. It's what the CBO says. What would happen if the Democrats didn't offer subsidies for these middle class families? Isn't it likely that the people would quickly turn on the Democrats?
What does Ms. Juetten mean when she says that the best way to "finally hold insurance companies accountable" is with a "public insurance plan option"? Doesn't that sound like she's suggesting that insurance companies are making too much of a profit? She says not but I'm not biting:
No one begrudges insurance companies or any other business for making a profit, but they shouldn't be allowed to do so at the expense of families and the good of our country.I'm not buying it because Speaker Pelosi said that their profits are obscene :
"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers' "obscene profits."This is what Chris van Hollen said about profits:
"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants. Their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.The AP's Calvin Woodward ran the numbers. Not surprisingly, the numbers tell a substantially different story:
Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.Making a profit margin of 2.2 percent isn't exactly making a windfall profit.
Here's another inaccurate DFL talking point worth exposing:
After years of raising premiums, denying claims and rejecting people who need care due to pre-existing conditions, insurance companies now are playing the victim.Actually, Medicare denies more claims than private insurance companies do. Medicare rejects 6.85 percent, followed by Aetna at 6.80 percent, then Anthem at 4.62 percent, Health Net at 3.88 percent, CIGNA at at 3.44 percent with the rest coming in in the 2's. I'm not willing to let the insurance companies play the victim card but I'm not buying the Democrats' assertions that insurance companies are making obscene profits, either.
After reviewing the facts, it's impossible for me to assign any credibility to Ms. Juetten's LTE. I'd be more inclined to think that this was just another recitation of the Democrats' talking points.
Posted Monday, October 26, 2009 2:39 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 26-Oct-09 06:50 AM
What these lefty loons keep missing is that private enterprise generally produces LOWER costs, INCLUDING profit, than does any government program with no incentive whatsoever to control costs, either to their own bureaucracy or to the "customer." That's just the way it works. Quite simply, everything the government tries to do ends up costing more and delivering less, and the best "reform" is always to get government OUT of the marketplace.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 29-Oct-09 01:25 PM
Isn't it true that both sides are fixing to do a cramdown of some kind, and there's disagreement; but each side wants it top-down, not bottom-up, which is to say neither really gives a crap about what you or I think because we do not buy lobbyists to buy them? Isn't that the same truth that inspired Barney Frank to tell the gay activists that marching would do no good and they should lobby if they want to be heard? Just being truthful to people whose issues he agrees with? Marching around DC waving teabags got what, actually?
Term limits and closing the revolving door and eliminating the advantages of incumbency would do a lot more to make responsiveness a priority on BOTH sides than any unilateral hollering on blogs or on march.
If This Is True...
If this WSJ article is right, Democrats are opening themselves up for a huge new flood of well-deserved criticism. They're also heading for a constitutional challenge. Here's what the WSJ is reporting:
Top Senate Democrats are close to finalizing their health bill and could unveil a measure as soon as early this week that would include stiffer penalties on employers who fail to provide health coverage.The CBO score is partially predictable in that this mandate won't add to the federal deficit. Still, the bill won't be effective because it's still cheaper to pay a $750 fine than buy health insurance for employees.
Senate leaders plan to submit the bill to the Congressional Budget Office for a cost estimate as soon as Monday, and make the legislation public as soon as Tuesday, according to a person familiar with the negotiations.
Most importantly, Democrats still haven't explained how their legislation will make health care less expensive. They won't talk about that because they can't explain it. That's because their plan doesn't make health care less expensive. I wrote here that "the Democrats' legislation will make things worse for the vast majority of people." We're mired in a deep recession and the Democrats are proposing to raise small businesses' operating cost one way or the other. How stupid is that?
I don't know of a thoughtful economist who thinks that adding to small business's expenses during a deep recession is a good way of creating jobs. I'm betting that King could rattle off a long list of economists that think the best way to create jobs that pull us out of this recession is to decrease small businesses' expenses.
Mr. Reid spent the weekend shoring up support for the bill from Democrats in the chamber. But some key moderate Democrats signaled Sunday that they remain uneasy about main planks of the legislation. "I certainly am not excited about a public option where states would opt out," Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) said on CNN's "State of the Union."I haven't seen a statement by Evan Bayh but I'm betting that he won't support the Democrats' plan. Another senator sure to influence the debate is Mary Landrieu. Here's what she recently said :
Health care reform is necessary to drive down costs for consumers and businesses, but it must not be allowed to increase the federal debt, Landrieu said. Moderates in Congress have succeeded in making that principle a priority, she said.That certainly puts her opposite this emerging proposal. Sen. Landrieu hasn't had a high profile thus far in the health care debate but that's about to change. As chairlady of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, she'll be asked by small businesses to stand up for them. Her opposition will give other moderates the political cover they need to oppose Reid's bill.
She said she backs more tax credits for small businesses and wants to let small businesses pool together to buy insurance. She opposes plans to require employers to pay for coverage. She also wants to make sure reform legislation gives states more flexibility in making their own health care changes. "We cannot fall into this same old same old one-size-fits all" approach, she said.
As usual, Ed nails the Democrats' problems with this post :
Typically, businesses could pay more than $750 per month for some health insurance plans for each employee. The cheap fine allows businesses to opt out altogether at a very low cost, forcing employees into the public option.When we look back at the path health care legislation took, we'll realize that this is just another attempt by Democrats to force single-payer down our throats. The bad news for Democrats is that bloggers like Ed and myself will be there next November to remind voters that the Democrats wanted to stick small businesses and individuals with additional expenses when they could least afford it. (Let me know how that works out for you, Democrats.)
Also, this looks like a bribe of sorts to keep employers out of court. An employer mandate may have similar constitutional problems as an individual mandate, at least for those employers whose business does not cross state lines. However, businesses can afford to hire more and better lawyers than individuals in order to challenge it. If they see this as a cheap mechanism to dump medical coverage costs, we can expect them to cheer it rather than sue and put the whole scheme in jeopardy of a Supreme Court reversal.
However, the optics of this look bad, and will look worse in practice. The Senate will create a huge out for the business world at the expense of the individual workers, and when they take it, people will realize they've been had, especially the class warriors that comprise the narrowing base of the Democrats. The only people stuck with an onerous mandate will be individuals, forced for the first time in American history to purchase a product in order to legally reside in the US.
Posted Monday, October 26, 2009 9:11 AM
Comment 1 by apathyboy at 26-Oct-09 09:49 AM
It seems to me that all of your arguments stem from your conservative ideology, which is fine for rallying the base but it's not going to change anyone's mind. They're good for rallying the base but I just don't think they are objective enough to win over moderates.
So the thought of having you around to "remind" us in November doesn't really worry me. Most non-Republicans agree that something needs to be done and most non-Republicans agree that the Republicans are doing nothing.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 26-Oct-09 10:18 AM
It seems to me that all of your arguments stem from your conservative ideology, which is fine for rallying the base but it's not going to change anyone's mind.Mary Landrieu, Evan Bayh & Ben Nelson oppose the Democrats' 'public option' but I'm talking solely to the conservative base? Please tell me you aren't that foolish.
I offered a common sense plan that keeps government intervention to a minimum, something that's supported by a 3:1 margin (56%-19%) but I'm only playing to the base?
You'd better do better homework before peddling that crap around here.
Comment 3 by apathyboy at 26-Oct-09 12:18 PM
I'm not that foolish. There are plenty of valid and objective arguments against the Dem's health care plan. I just don't think that you're is one of them.
[You're comment got cut off at "common sense plan" so maybe I'm missing something.]
Perhaps I'm reading too much into your argument but you seem to be saying that the Dem's health care is a bad idea because it will lead to a single payer system, which I think is unfounded. You also seem to imply that the Democrats are intentionally causing a single payer system which is ridiculous. Am I off base here, or is that the gist of your argument?
Comment 4 by apathyboy at 26-Oct-09 01:06 PM
"I offered a common sense plan that keeps government intervention to a minimum, something that's supported by a 3:1 margin (56%-19%) but I'm only playing to the base?"
By 3:1 margin I assume you're referring to your 2/8/09 post that says "people prefer tax cuts over spending increases by close to a 3:1 margin" (your post does not cite a source for this item). If this is the case then you are assuming that anyone who prefers tax cuts to spending increases is going to support your plan (whatever that happens to be).
I'm sure if you polled a bunch of 5 year-olds they'd prefer eating pizza everyday over eating vegetables every day by a margin of 3:1.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 26-Oct-09 02:57 PM
I don't think Constitutionality is a big concern for Democrats, in the first place, and I don't credit them with the thinking ability to worry about challenges. The belief that this is some sort of strategy of theirs to get to single-payer gives them far too much credit for intelligence. They are dreamers, believing that everything they will to happen can magically flow from any legislation they can pass. Beyond that, it's all political gamesmanship to get the votes. What is actually in the legislation doesn't matter. That's where they must be challenged, by convincing them that they will lose their hold on power by pursuing this. They'll drop it like a hot rock.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 26-Oct-09 03:25 PM
Perhaps I'm reading too much into your argument but you seem to be saying that the Dem's health care is a bad idea because it will lead to a single payer system, which I think is unfounded.Oh really??? View the video in this post & tell me that my worries are unfounded.
By 3:1 margin I assume you're referring to your 2/8/09 post that says "people prefer tax cuts over spending increases by close to a 3:1 margin" (your post does not cite a source for this item).Actually, I was referring to this morning's Rasmussen polling that said the American people believed additional government intervention in the health care process would make it worse.
Comment 7 by apathyboy at 27-Oct-09 06:54 AM
I watched the video. Your worries are unfounded.
The video has a six year old quote from Obama saying he is in favor of a single payer system. It has a clip from a more recent town hall meeting in which he says he will not push for a single payer system yet somehow neglects to include that. The rest of the video is a series of people that have absolutly no legislative power whatsoever saying they support a single payer system.
This video was edited by people who oppose the public option with the intent of convicing people who are in favor of the public option but opposed to a single payer system to oppose the public option. It is intentionally and maliciously deceptive.
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Oct-09 07:34 AM
Only an idiot could watch that video & see a legislator who worked on the health care legislation say her goal was to drive health insurance out of business say that my fears are unfounded.
As for President Obama's 2003 quote, that's a flimsy argument because he repeated that position in a December, 2007 debate. That sounds like a pretty consistent position, far more consistent than the litany of broken campaign promises he's made.
Your arguments aren't persuasive because your logic is fatally flawed.
Comment 8 by apathyboy at 27-Oct-09 09:01 AM
"As for President Obama's 2003 quote, that's a flimsy argument because he repeated that position in a December, 2007 debate. "
No, he didn't. If you want his official position, go to his website:
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obama_consistent_in.php
[his claim of "consistency" is b.s. on his part, but the point is he'd never support a single-payer bill.]
I'm not selling anything here (check out my blog for that). But I'm not buying anything either. I am making observations about your arguments, which are not logically sound. Disagree? You give me your major premise and minor premises and if I can't tell you exactly where your logic is invalid I will acquiesce.
Response 8.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Oct-09 09:12 AM
I don't want his official position. They're as worthless as a nuclear nonproliferation treaty with Iran. The secret with understanding President Obama is to see what he says when he thinks he isn't being taped. What he says in public is usually 180 degrees opposite of what he believes.
Did you even bother watching him say that he's a strong advocate for single-payer or that he didn't think they could get there right away? Didn't that mean anything to you? Is it that you'll just believe whatever you'd like to believe?
Comment 9 by apathyboy at 27-Oct-09 09:39 AM
Here's what it means to me: Obama advocates a single-payer system but recognizes it's not right for America right now. He hopes we'll have one 10, 15 years down the road but would never push it himself. No issue.
Major premise, minor premise. Let's have it.
Response 9.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Oct-09 10:27 AM
How does the public option work? Does the government pick which insurance policies are available to your family? What kinds of mandates does the public option include? Will the government set things up to run the insurance companies out of business so they can take over the heatlh insurance industry within 5 years?
Based on the mandates in HR 3200 & in the Senate Finance Committee bill, I can confidently state that they're set so high that they don't allow private insurance companies compete.
The so-called public option is set up to push insurance companies off a cliff. It's nothing more complicated than that.
Comment 10 by apathyboy at 27-Oct-09 10:55 AM
If you don't know what mandates the public option will include you can't state with any confidence that these mandates are set too high.
The public option is set up to reduce insurance costs without pushing the private insurance companies out of business. It's actually pretty complicated, but that's the gist of it.
Comment 11 by eric z. at 29-Oct-09 07:14 PM
So many people say "public option" and that's a very, very elastic thing meaning different things to different people.
What does it mean to Harry Reid?
I think only Reid knows, and I suspect it changes for him from day to day as he glides and slides.
What we end up stuck with might be chopped liver.
It takes more trust in more people than I have, to buy into anything said at this time.
Conference committee time, there may be the same waffling and weaseling. They are all politicians after all, not responsible people.
Won't That Drive Up CBO's Scoring?
According to this Politico article , Democrats are pushing that more of the 'benefits' of their health care system be delivered in 2010, assuming that it passes by then. The reason why the Senate Finance Committee legislation passed CBO muster is because it counted 10 years of tax increases but only delivered 5 years of coverage.
Couple that with the fact that the Doctor Bribe will have to be included in the Senate's legislation at a cost of $247,000,000,000 and you've got legislation with massive deficits easily in the hundreds of billions dollars range. That's before counting the actual cost of the bill. Right now, the Senate Finance bill is the cheapest at 'only' $829,000,000,000 before the Doctor Bribe.
Democrats are pushing Senate leaders and the White House to speed up key benefits in the health reform bill to 2010, eager to give the party something to show taxpayers for their $900 billion investment in an election year.I wrote here that the CBO's scoring is vital to final passage. If CBO says health care reform is both expensive and adds new deficits to the projected budget deficits, Democrats like Lincoln, Pryor, Bayh, Landrieu, Lieberman and Ben Nelson will vote against it in the interest of self-preservation.
The most significant changes to the health care system wouldn't kick in until 2013, two election cycles away. With Republicans expected to make next year a referendum on health care reform, Democrats are quietly lobbying to push up the effective dates on popular programs, so they'll have something to run on in the congressional midterm elections
Texas Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the strategy was a transparent attempt to paper over the less palatable aspects of the bill. There are billions in new taxes on insurers, device manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies that come due in 2010.This is fixing to be a Democrat's worst nightmare. People are tired of hearing about the next spending thing that adds hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. They're exhausted to hear about another round of tax hikes that will hurt the middle class and small businesses. The simple fact is that they're skeptical that government can run something as complex as health care efficiently.
This afternoon, Harry Reid announced that the Senate bill will have a public option, then admitted that they don't have the votes for invoking cloture. That's likely because he can't get people like Mary Landrieu, Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson to sign off on the public option.
Reid, Sen. Schumer and Pelosi are sounding confident but I suspect that they're acting confident rather than being confident in the hopes that they win over a wobbly or two. It's all about exuding an air of inevatibility. It isn't about true confidence.
Legal Insurrection agrees .
Posted Monday, October 26, 2009 4:04 PM
No comments.
