September 16-17, 2009
Sep 16 00:28 Hooray For Lindsey Graham Sep 16 08:35 Doctors: Obamacare the Wrong Rx Sep 16 10:23 Firing Squad Assembling? Sep 16 12:03 Talking vs. Real Reforms, Real Results Sep 16 18:07 Is This Cap And Trade's Death Knell? Sep 16 19:37 The End Of Health Care This Year? Sep 17 10:13 Will Unemployment Crisis Get President Pink Slip? Sep 17 23:12 Entirely the Wrong Approach
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Hooray For Lindsey Graham
In the opening segment of OTR, Lindsey Graham took a shot at former President Jimmy Carter for Carter's comment that Rep. Joe Wilson's statement against President Obama was proof that Rep. Wilson is a racist. Here's the video of the interview:
This line ought to sting President Carter the worst:
GRAHAM: Well the one thing different between President Carter and myself is that I know Joe Wilson. I've known him for 15-20 years. He's a very good man.Jimmy Carter's credibility disappeared when he invited Michael Moore to sit in his box at the 2004 Democratic Convention in Boston. Since then, the worst president in United States history has become a bigger and bigger disgrace to the office. Since then, President Carter asked the Obama administration to remove Hamas from the State Department's terrorist list. That only fitting since he's become the terrorists' favorite ally.
What's particularly disgusting about President Obama's disparaging statement against Rep. Wilson, (R-SC), is that he's making an assumption about a man he's never met and doesn't know. Where I come from, that's called prejudice, the very thing that President Carter is railing against. It isn't a stretch to say that President Carter owes Rep. Wilson an apology for making a hate-filled statement based on his disgust of conservatives.
President Carter was the worst president of the twentieth century. For awhile, he redeemed himself by working on humanitarian causes through Habitat for Humanity. Unfortunately, President Carter has spent his political capital by becoming a hatemongering critic of the United States and Israel as well as becoming a loudmouth critic of all conservatives.
At the end of the day, we should ignore the doddering old fool. He's utterly mean-spirited and disrespectful. That's the last thing we need right now.
Posted Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:30 AM
No comments.
Doctors: Obamacare the Wrong Rx
This article from Investors Business Daily is absolutely stunning. The headline is itself startling:
45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care OverhaulHere's why:
More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71%, the most lopsided response in the poll, answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."This poll alone should be enough to stop health care reform dead in its tracks. What shouldn't be overlooked is that this isn't an uninformed opinion. I'd be surprised if the doctors' lobbyists haven't read the different bills. I'd be surprised if the doctors haven't been briefed on the various bills' contents.
This response is consistent with critics who complain that the administration and congressional Democrats have yet to explain how, even with the current number of physicians and nurses, they can cover more people and lower the cost at the same time.
The only way, the critics contend, is by rationing care, giving it to some and denying it to others. That cuts against another claim by plan supporters, that care would be better.
The question that I keep returning to is this: What thing or things in the bills would be so terrible that these doctors would retire. The only thing that I've come up with is that Obamacare would rely heavily on price controls. If that's the case, then the flood of doctors retiring early makes sense.
The great concern is that, with increased mandates, lower pay and less freedom to practice, doctors could abandon medicine in droves, as the IBD/TIPP Poll suggests. Under the proposed medical overhaul, an additional 47 million people would have to be cared for, an 18% increase in patient loads, without an equivalent increase in doctors. The actual effect could be somewhat less because a significant share of the uninsured already get care.Rather than figuring out new ways to provide health care at genuinely lower prices, government's use of a sledgehammer approach tells me that they're ill-equipped at dealing with the challenges we face. A couple weeks ago, Greta van Susteren sent a team of people to look at a collaborative care health care center in Appleton, WI, was producing high quality care at prices well below the national average. During an interview with Newt Gingrich, she mentioned the care center, prompting Mr. Gingrich to talk about another innovative health care center in Lacrosse, WI.
Even so, the government vows to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from health care spending to pay for reform, which would encourage a flight from the profession.
The reality is that these places wouldn't have happened had government put a heavier mandate on what could and couldn't be done. Government's record on positive innovation in health care or anything else has been abysmal for at least half a century. Government has never identified the next FedEx, Microsoft or VitalMedix and they never will.
That's why it's important that we push government out of the health care industry. Yes, I know that government's imprint on the health care industry is substantial. I'd assert that that's what's driving many of the problems in the health care industry.
I'd argue that it's time to put a bill together that unleashes the best and brightest health care minds on solving the problems but there's no need since Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, Devin Nunes and Richard Burr co-sponsored the Patients' Choice Act .
IBD's polling is important because it exposes a fatal flaw in Obamacare. You can't improve the U.S. health care system, you can't avoid rationing, if your plan causes half the doctors to retire early rather than work in the 'reformed' health care industry.
Posted Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:41 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 16-Sep-09 12:49 PM
I have to worry that only 71% of the doctors, on whom we depend for their intelligence and knowledge for our very lives, can agree with the obvious logic. TANSTAAFL.
Firing Squad Assembling?
The Democrats' circular firing squad is positioning themselves for maximum damage. There's nothing like the sight of a full-fledged fight first thing in the morning. Here's the details on the latest Democratic Party infighting over health care:
It's not every day that you hear a Democratic senator charge that a fellow Democrat is proposing to raise taxes on the middle class, but that is what happened on Tuesday when Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ripped into the health-care bill developed by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mt., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.The minute the American people hear that the Baucus bill contains huge tax increases, they'll turn against the bill. They're in no mood to see taxes increased. FOR ANY REASON. Levying a 35 percent tax on supposedly high cost plans will only cause employers to dump employees during this recession.
The Baucus proposal would impose, starting in 2013, a 35 percent excise tax on insurance companies for "high-cost plans", defined as those above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for family plans.
In addition to that being stupid economic policy, it's the worst possible political strategy the Democrats could choose. They're falling in the trap where they think that their policies are popular. That's a huge mistake. I know it's a mistake because that's a major driving factor for the TEA Parties. This last weekend and over the last three weeks, literally millions of people showed up for the March On Washington bus tour that started in Sacramento and culminated in DC.
The West Virginia Democrat worries, however, that a lot of middle class workers, like the coal miners in his state, will end up facing "a big, big tax" under the Baucus bill because they currently enjoy generous employer-provided health care benefits which they receive tax free.If something doesn't make sense, like a Democrat whining about big tax increases, the rule of follow the money still works effectively. I didn't think that Sen. Rockefeller was opposed to tax increases in general, though I thought that he'd oppose tax increases for another reason.
I'd recommend that everyone read the entire Rockefeller article. It's a great list of why the Baucus bill is already in trouble .
Posted Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:25 AM
Comment 1 by Reaganite Republican at 17-Sep-09 06:57 AM
Note that whenever Obama, Emanuel, or Gibbs are asked about why polls show SO many people oppose their misguided Cap-n-Trade and Obamacare proposals, they ALWAYS segue-right-into "we need to educate the public!".
LOL- save your breath- Constitutionally-aware patriots don't take lectures from Marxists.
Talking vs. Real Reforms, Real Results
Anyone who's read this blog knows that I'm a big Laura Brod fan because she's just a brilliant thinker. This morning, I found a link to Laura's health care op-ed in the Pi-Press .
While President Obama briefly mentioned Mayo Clinic in his speech in Minneapolis last week, it would have been far more instructive for him, and the nation, had he gone to Rochester to see the cutting-edge treatments developed there. Despite President Obama's rhetorical reference to Mayo as an example of what is right, his "new plan" includes proposals that are antithetical to what makes Mayo work for so many people. Better listening might lead to better policy, policy that relies more on what Mayo has learned about bringing teamwork to bear on the best interests of the individual, and less on the heavy hand of the federal bureaucracy.Since the start of the health care debate, I've advocated a patient-centered approach to reform while opposing top-down, one-size-fits-all approaches. The former is embodied at the federal level in the Patients' Choice Act, co-sponsored by Paul Ryan, Devin Nunes, Tom Coburn and Richard Burr. The latter can be seen in H.R. 3200, the Kennedy-Dodd legislation or the Baucus bill.
The president could have gone to Medtronic, a global leader with a reputation for innovation such as the integrated insulin pump/glucose monitoring device that improves outcomes and the lives of those with diabetes. Or he could have met with the folks at Medtronic to listen to them talk about how his tax proposals will impact their ability to create and retain jobs in Minnesota , or in the United States, for that matter.
Of course, he could have taken time to visit the University of Minnesota, consistently ranked as one of the top hospitals for health outcomes and for efforts related to childhood cancers and autism therapies.
The reason I oppose the Democrats' bill is because they're reliant on tax increases, rationing, price controls and major budget cuts to Medicare and because they do nothing to spur innovation that cuts health care costs while improving health care results.
Minnesotans already know that our state is a proven incubator for cost-cutting ideas and cutting-edge healthcare technologies . All of us, regardless of party affiliation, must be concerned that these innovations may be at risk if we get this "reform" wrong.Minnesota has been the healthiest state in the union or it's finished second seemingly since time began. Minnesota also has one of the lowest uninsured percentages in the nation. In other words, we're experts in terms of keeping costs under control and improving accessability. We don't need nationalized health care reform because our system isn't broken.
It's easy to identify several major differences between President Obama and President Clinton, the biggest of which is that President Clinton believed in using states as testing laboratories for sweeping reforms. That's what he used to reform welfare. It isn't accidental that welfare reform was a great success .
I suspect that the biggest reason why this difference exists is because President Clinton's training was as governor, where his re-election chances rested on him getting things right whereas President Obama's re-election chances rested on his ability to deliver a polished speech. If Sen. Obama made a mistake prior to becoming President Obama, it wasn't a big deal because he was just one of 100 policymakers. If Gov. Clinton made a mistake, it was there for all the world to see. That's a big deal.
I've repeatedly said that government, especially the federal government, is worthless at innovation. At best, they're a nuisance. At worst, they're a major hindrance. By comparison, the Mayo Clinic and Medtronic are in the innovation business. They innovate by habit. It's part of their DNA.
This might possibly be the best question Rep. Brod asks in this op-ed:
The president also has talked about how eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse" in Medicare must be undertaken. I completely agree, and I suspect any tax-paying Minnesotan would, too.President Obama's biggest weakness in the eyes of the American people is that he's a spendaholic. Had his stimulus bill been offset with the $500,000,000,000 in wasteful spending that President Obama says is there, he would've garnered alot of good will with the American people. He didn't do that, which is why the American people started flocking to the TEA parties in increasingly large droves.
But it underscores the problem with the current state of Washington thinking: If we know there is massive waste, fraud and abuse in the billions of dollars we currently spend on health care in this country, should we not address that before creating another huge government bureaucracy that will generate even greater waste, fraud and abuse?
I'm still skeptical that President Obama is interested in finding $500,000,000,000 in Medicare wasteful spending but that's another story for another day. Frankly, there's nothing he's done that suggests that he's the least bit worried about the unsustainable spending rate that he's chosen. If President Obama is wise, something that's still debatable, he'll listen to Laura Brod and follow this advice:
The president came to Minnesota to give a partisan speech before a partisan crowd. And I respect his right to do this. But, Mr. President, the time for good speeches is past. It's time to listen to those who have already made health care reform work and who have made a difference. It is time to put action over words.Giving polished-sounding speeches is easy. Reforming health care takes hard work and a willingness to listen.
Thus far, President Obama hasn't shown a willingnes to listen. Thus far, he's only shown a willingness to make token gestures while maintaining a high level of partisanship.
People don't care about polished-sounding speeches; they only care whether their lives will be improved. That's the primary benchmark that Minnesotans and other Americans will judge President Obama's administration by.
Posted Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:08 PM
No comments.
Is This Cap And Trade's Death Knell?
Though I don't know this for certain, I think Declan McCullagh's article might be the death knell of Cap And Trade. Here's why I think that:
The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.There are a few reasons why this news hurts President Obama's attempt to 'save the planet', the biggest reason of which is that a regressive tax increases of this proportion don't sell well anytime but they especially don't play well during a recession.
A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.
Cap and Trade is already weighing Democrats down because it's unpopular everywhere except in hardcore lefty territory. People in the south, the midwest and in the Rust Belt understand that it's a huge tax increase on their gas prices and on their electric bills.
People have been reminded that President Obama said that coal-fired power plants would be taxed out of existence. Bloggers are reminding people of John Dingell's statement that Cap and Trade "is a tax and a great big one, too" and that that then-Sen. Obama said that electricity prices "would necessarily skyrocket" under his plan.
This shouldn't be looked at in a vacuum, either. This morning, Sen. Baucus introduced his health care reform bill, which contained a massive tax increase in the form of mandating coverage for those who've refused to buy insurance. That could range in cost from $8,000 for single people to $21,000 for families. Couple those numbers with the $1,800 from this bill and people's eyes are rolling back into their sockets.
Let's be blunt about this: Since President Obama's inauguration, spending has gone beserk, proposed tax increases have been even more insane and that's just with the frst portion of President Obama's agenda. We're still in the early stages of the Obama agenda and we're already rolling up massive amounts of debt.
That's before we talk about the state of the economy and the lack of job creation or even a hint of the economy showing signs of showing signs.
The bottom line is this: These memos might well have sounded the death knell for Cap And Trade. Good riddance.
Technnorati: Energy , Cap And Trade , Tax Increase , Coal Power Plants , Rust Belt , Heating Bills , John Dingell , President Obama , Bankruptcies , Max Baucus , Health Care , Reforms , Excise Tax , Stimulus , Deficits , Spending , Democrats
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:11 PM
No comments.
The End Of Health Care This Year?
This Las Vegas Sun article suggests that we won't see a signing ceremony on health care this year. Here's why I'm saying that:
No sooner than the Senate Finance Committee's chairman released his long-awaited health care bill today than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it's not good enough for Nevada. Reid is concerned about the cash-poor state's inability to boost Medicaid spending as would be required under the bill.the bill introduced today by Sen. Baucus is fatally flawed, with Sen. Reid being the fourth DEMOCRATIC senator to complain about the bill, joining, Ron Wyden, Bob Casey and Jay Rockefeller in stating opposition to the bill for various reasons.
"While this draft bill is a good starting point, it needs improvement before it will work for Nevada," Reid said in a statement. "During this time of economic crisis, our state cannot afford to shoulder the second highest increase in Medicaid funding."
There's only 2 weeks left in September. That's significant because the reconciliation deadline 'expires' 2 weeks after that. After that, the bill requires sixty votes in the Senate. That's before considering the need to pass the spending bills before the fiscal year ends at 11:59:59 Sept. 30, 2009. They either have to pass the 13 spending bills by then or pass a continuing resolution by then.
Assuming that a bill gets passed out of committee by then, which isn't certain by any stretch of the imagination, then the Senate has to pass a bill and the House has to pass a bill, then iron out the differences before voting on the conference report.
That's going to be a difficult task because Rep. Bart Stupak, (D-MI), said that he's got the votes to stop the Democrats' House bill if they don't allow his amendment an up or down vote. Stupak's amendment would prohibit the use of public money being used to pay for abortions. Essentially, it's the Hyde Amendment of years gone past.
According to this Hill article , Sen. Reid is still playing up the reconciliation storyline:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that Democrats are prepared to use budget reconciliation as a last resort.That's wishful thinking on Reid's part. It isn't happening, partially because of the things I listed earlier in the article, partially because of the technical hurdles I wrote about here :
"We've always had a place at the table for Republicans. There's one there today. We hope it bears fruit," he said. "If we can't get the 60 votes we need, then we'll have no alternative but to use reconciliation."
[Last night] on Hannity, Speaker Gingrich said that he's been told that there are so many points of order that would be launched that the resulting legislation would be totally incoherent. If that's true, and I'll trust Mr. Newt that it is, then the Democrats' uphill fight just got infinitely more challenging.Sen. Reid's chances of getting anything meaningful accomplished through reconciliation is miniscule at best. That's because he'll have to do battle with Sen. Gregg, (R-NH), who is preparing a lengthy list of potential points of order for the reconciliation fight. If it's a match of wits between Sen. Gregg and anyone in the Democrats' leadership team, I'll place my bets on Sen. Gregg.
This doesn't guarantee that there won't be a health care bill signing this year but it puts that possibility on life support. That means that people can breath a little bit easier, though only for a little while.
Posted Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:43 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 17-Sep-09 12:41 PM
The latest bill out of Senate committee supposedly costs "only" $865 billion over 6 years. Therefore, Obama will veto it because he promised he would "not sign any bill that adds one dime to the deficit." Hmmmm. $865 billion isn't "one dime," so maybe he WOULD sign this monstrosity. He wouldn't actually /lie/ would he?
Will Unemployment Crisis Get President Pink Slip?
Michael Barone, one of the most brilliant political analysts in American history, penned a great column today that takes President Obama's policies to task:
"The level of unemployment is unacceptably high. And will, by all forecasts, remain unacceptably high for a number of years."The thing that President Obama should worry about is whether the economy starts creating jobs again. If tons of people don't get hired back to good paying jobs fast, their frustration with President Obama's policies will increase exponentially.
Who do you suppose said that? A Republican political operative? A Fox News political analyst? One of those several hundred thousand Tea Partiers who assembled in Washington on Sept. 12? No, it was Lawrence Summers, the director of Barack Obama's National Economic Council and, by common consent, one of the world's leading economists.
Summers made this gloomy forecast in the course of arguing that our economy is headed to "sustained recovery." And while it sounds like self-protective political rhetoric, it is also in line with the thinking of Democratic economists who bemoaned a "jobless recovery" during the first Bush term.
They argued then that a variety of factors, big increases in the incomes of high earners, the crowding-out of wage increases by the fast-rising costs of health insurance, prevented the rapid job growth that followed previous recessions. There was something to these arguments.
While the stimulus bill was being debated, President Obama said that we had to pass this bill so that we'd avert an economic catastrophe. During those stump speeches, he'd remind people that passing the bill would keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent.
At some point, people will get frustrated because the results haven't matched up with the speeches. There's a limit to how much people will ignore performance, whether it's the nonexistent job growth or the nonexistent economic growth.
I said prior to President Obama's inauguration that this was new ground for him in that he'd always been judged by his ability to give a polished-sounding speech but that he's now being judged by the results of his policies and the laws he's signed.
Posted Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:15 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 19-Sep-09 07:16 AM
He may be a single term president.
The GOP, though, what, Mitt Romney, Palin, Guilani? It seems a vacant lot is the GOP problem. A vacuum, with someone not yet identified having a ghost of a chance.
Obama is disappointing progressives big time. That weakens his base of support.
You are talking "centrists" looking at another alternative.
I want to see Kucinich challenge him, I know it will not happen, but Kucinich is someone I could vote for.
The GOP, last cycle, ran poison. They lost big time. Is there a learning curve, Gary?
Do you see anyone credible as a GOP challenger, if so, who? Who do you get past that segment of the GOP that uses Jesus as a litmus test and that other segment that too readily shoults, "RINO, RINO, RINO," at anyone to the left of an idiot like Tim Pawlenty.
Any thoughts as to who could take Obama out?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Sep-09 09:50 AM
Eric, If the economy still hasn't gotten going by the end of 2011, a long list of people could beat Obama, including TPaw, Palin, Mitch Daniels & Haley Barbour.
Ignore Huckabee & Romney. They're ancient history. Romney has the Massachusetts health care debacle hanging around his neck now. Huckabee is being exposed as a big spender who cheerfully raised taxes in Arkansas.
Entirely the Wrong Approach
The current hot topic is health care reform, with the Baucus bill getting the most focus recently. All the talk has centered around public option this and co-op that and mandate this other thing. Cindy has written a wonderful post about the Bennett disaster compromise as has Erick Erickson .
I'm thankful for the good writing that Erick and Cindy have done. Still, the emphasis shouldn't be on the Baucus disaster or the Bennett disaster. It should be on what will produce the biggest cost savings, what will make portability the rule, not the exception and what will improve accessability.
I'm here to suggest that we're starting with the wrong approach entirely. Before welfare reform was signed into law, extensive testing of approaches was conducted at the state level. Tommy Thompson and William Weld were the biggest innovators with regard to welfare reform.
By the time President Clinton signed welfare reform, we knew what stood the best chance of working. We knew because we'd put the principles to the test. The results had been scrutinized. The things that didn't work were scrapped. The things that worked were emphasized.
The bills currently being considered are either a crapshoot (H.R. 3200) or they've been tried and failed (the Baucus and Bennett bills). Mandating coverage is nothing more than a hidden tax on the middle class. PERIOD. Taxing Cadillac plans hits union workers especially hard.
Bennett, Baucus and Waxman haven't even had the decency to visit hospitals and clinics that are thinking outside the box and that are delivering high quality results at a fraction of the cost to find out why they're achieving such great results.
They haven't even bothered asking Gov. Tim Pawlenty about a state plan that union workers use that have kept premiums flat 2 of the last 5 years and raises minimal the other years.
Why haven't Baucus, Bennett and Waxman asked insurance company executives what role government mandates play in driving up health insurance premiums? Why didn't they talk with billing directors at hospitals and clinics to find out what bottlenecks they encounter? Why didn't this trio talk with state legislators about legislation that they've gotten enacted that's actually working?
There's are reasons for these 'oversights'. The biggest reason is that they each are afflicted with DC-itis, a mental disease that causes these men to think that all wisdom resides in a tiny section of DC. The next biggest reason for their coming up with inferior health care legislation is simple laziness. Had these gentlemen done their due diligence in finding what's working and what isn't, they coulld've crafted a much better bill that would've gotten much stronger support.
It's time that We The People insisted on Congress start with the right approach. It's also time that We The People insist that Democrats not approach this from an ideological standpoint but rather from a common sense standpoint. That's the only way it'll get done right.
Posted Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:15 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 19-Sep-09 07:08 AM
I agree that sometimes no bill is better than a bad one.
The problem, what's a good solution?
It seems as if employer paid insurance as a tax-free benefit worked in the 1950's when employment appeared stable, nobody looted firms from the top, technology did not phase out businesses as quickly as later, etc. And doctors ran provision of medical services.
Now HMOs run by MBAs and people like Hemsley of UnitedHealth are diverting cash big time from actual treatment to salaries, marketing costs, and such.
Is Health Partners better than Kaiser and other HMOs? I don't know enough to say, but it is an impression I have.
SEIU is saying that some states regard domestic violence as a pre-existent condition to be excluded from coverage. Then Bachmann proposes, in effect, letting insurance providers gravitate to the least restrictive states to headquarter, and that Minnesota insurance regulation should disappear.
Is it true? If any reader knows, I'd like to know. Domestic violence, an excluded pre-condition? Presumably even for beaten children?
That sounds like something from a Dickens novel, centuries ago.
Kafkaesque.
Is that a lie, like the death panel stuff, or real? It is hard to tell who lies, who does not.
