Fiscal Cliff & Debt Ceiling

I understand that the GOP may not wanted a public backlash of raising taxes on the middle class. But the increased revenue raising without any significant spending reduction will be harmful to the US economy in the long run. And I still believe that raising taxes on those who employ is a bad idea as well. Fine.

But come the debt ceiling the GOP should starting to manage and frame the conversation in terms of a bloated government with out of control spending and that the debt limit is there to limit too much borrowing by the government and thus should not be tampered with. They don't even have to bring anything to the floor for a vote. Just let the debt limit be applied.

Fiscal Cliff

I say we go over it. If the only way to impose entitlement cuts is to raise taxes for all then I am for it.

$716,000,000,000.00

I watched the first presidential debate last night between President Obama and Governor Romney. No doubt whatsoever that Romney won by an impressive command of facts and figures.




I am once again excited about the chances of defeating Obama and steer this nation from a path of self destruction. The wallet will once again open to the cause.

$716,000,000,000.00  is the amount that Romney repeatedly hammered Obama with. The figure is the amount Obama is cutting from medicare.

Last Best Hope

Republicans in Charge

There is significant talk that the Republican may be able to take control of Congress and perhaps the Senate away from the Democrats. This has led me to wonder what the Republicans can do in 2011 that will give them an opportunity for gains in 2012 without Obama benefiting. Firstly I do not believe the Republicans should play politics if given the opportunity to lead and save America from the Obamacrats. They should do everything possible to reverse what was enacted in the past two years.

Firstly, extend the Bush tax cuts and keep calling it the Bush tax cuts. If they cannot get sufficient votes to extend it, ask for a greater majority in 2012. If they do pass it that will put Obama in the position to sign it or veto it. If he vetoes it, then ask for a veto over riding majority in 2012 if the economic condition continues to be poor, and blame Obama for it. If economic condition improves without it, then America will be better for it. If Obama passes the Bush tax cuts and the economy improves, remind everyone in 2012 that it was the Bush tax cuts rather than the Obama tax cut that improved the economy. If Obama passes the Bush tax cuts and there is no resulting economic growth (unlikely), ask for a greater majority to reduce tax and regulation even further.

Secondly, repeal Obamacare. Again if there is not enough vote to do so then ask for a greater majority in 2012. If it makes it to Obama, he will have to either veto it or pass it. If he vetoes it, and it remain unpopular in 2012, as for a greater majority to repeal it. If he sign the repeal, he loses a "political accomplishment" of his administration.

Economic Growth

As we all know, this supposed "Recovery Summer" is any thing but and this should come as no surprise. What is a surprised is that the Democrats actually believe their economic plans would actually stimulate the economy. Lets review what their plans entailed. Firstly was the 800 billion dollars stimulus package. Common sense would say that government spending is always wasteful and inefficient and that any such money that does make it to projects will only be short lived and at best, maintain employment as is rather than grow it. Once the government fund dries up, so would the activities associated cease and those employed for the project be at risk for being cut.

The second plan the Democrats enacted was Obamacare. The argument goes that if the cost of health care was reduced, the cost savings would go toward economic growth and increased hiring. The first fallacy here is that nothing in Obamacare actually goes toward decreasing the cost of health care, it just spread the cost around differently. Then there is the second fallacy is that if it the healthcare cost of hiring is reduced, more people will be hired. Things just simply do not work that way. Employers do not hire because they can afford to hire, they hire only because they have work that needs to be done, work that will help them generate a profit. In addition, Obamacare also increases the administrative cost for the employer so that while it may be cheaper upfront to hire, it will be more costly to administer the hiring.

The third plan the Democrats enacted was regulating the financial market. By financial market I mean Wall Street and the banks, not the home purchase lending policies that led to the housing bubble burst that led to the economic collapse 2-3 years ago. While more rigid standards and oversight may make for a more stable financial environment, a more stable financial environment in itself does not stimulate economic growth, especially in the short term as firms have to spend administrative costs to stay in compliance.

Lets look at things from a different perspective, what it does take to generate economic growth.
Firstly, there has to be a perceived opportunity for profit. By painting the economic environment as impending depression rather than a transitory recession to correct for the housing bubble burst. The Democrats intentionally fear mongered to get justification to enact their economic plans (faulty plans at that) without sufficient regards for the national perception. They then made it worse by predicting an over optimistic scenario that never came. Never came because their policies and plans are just wrong. The Democrats then made a second mistake in criticizing capitalism and the drive for profit. The opportunity well for profit was deliberately poisoned.

Secondly, there has to be available credit to finance project to take opportunity for profit. This was the main reason for the bail-outs but the bail-outs was resented by most Americans. The bail-outs was also directed at a few large firm whereas the majority of economic activities in the nation were with small and medium firms. These small and medium firms also suffered disproportionately from the housing bubble defaults. Thus the bail out did not and could not stimulate growth. In addition, the low interest rate as determined by the Federal Reserves was not in any meaningful way different from the interest rates before the economy soured. And since it cannot really go lower even when the economic environment is worse, there wasn't any growth to be derived.

Thirdly, there has to be an economic infrastructure facilitative for profit. Stability of the financial market is facilitative but not stimulative; it is the minimum necessary. When the financial market is unstable, economic growth is unlikely. When the the financial market is stable, economic growth is not a result. What is more important regarding economic infrastructure is the administrative cost or barrier to profit. There are two aspects here, the actual administrative cost to remain in legal compliance. The greater the cost, the more onerous the process, the less likely the risk to make a profit will be taken. This administration has sought to increased regulations of business. When you add on increased taxation on profits, even just the threat of increased taxation on profit, will dampen any enthusiasm for growth. Note, the other aspect of economic infrastructure that impedes economic growth is the amount corruption. I have no doubt that a significant amount of the economic stimulus was spent with a political component.

These same factors also explain why centralized economies do not produce the same economic growth as free capitalism.

Bottom line is that this administration has done everything possible to impede economic growth. It has demonized profit. It has increased the cost to make a profit. It threatened taxation on profit.

Government and Marriage

These guys pretty much share my sentiments on Government and marriage.


Government can regulate and define civil contracts such as civil unions, including benefits, consequences and penalties associated with being in one, and ending one. Leave marriage for social institutions.

Obama

In less than a year and a half of a four years term, the majority of Americans have come to understand the nation made a mistake with his election. Obama's failures span all fields of government from domestic economic policy, environmental protection, health care reform, foreign relations, as well as military direction. At the core the failures arise from a mismatch of core values between what American values and Obama's own ideology as well as a failure of leadership, believing rhetoric sufficient to inspire actions without sufficient ability to direct people of ability to apply their expertise.
Whether Obama is a fool or a knave has become irrelevant; the time for that debate has passed. The time now is how to minimize his ability to damage this nation. Personally I believe Obama is both a fool and a knave, a highly dangerous combination but insufficient ground for impeachment. With our divided government, the definitive mean to contain Obama lies within either the Judiciary or the Legislative. Unfortunately, the integrity of the Justices in the defense of the Constitution is under threat with Obama's appointment of judges as approved by Congress. Thus the key to contain Obama is to apply all reasonable resources to neutralize the leftist Democrat control of the Legislative Congress. All competitive House elections must be turned away from the Democrats. At this point I do not believe there are any such creature as a conservative Democrat; they must all be turned out. If permissible, safe Republican races must also turn from RINO incumbents to conservative new comers unless this turn threatens election of a Democrat.
The secondary line of defense against the harm of an Obama presidency will be the the states. Both the governorship and the state legislatures must move toward conservative ideals of less dependency on the Federal government. A dependent state government are willing victims of federal over reach that is the hallmark of the Obama administration. And among the ranks of current or former governors, someone with true leadership and executive experience will we find a challenger for Obama come 2012.


Update:
Roger L Simon wonders if Obama has lost interests in being President and believes this would be a dangerous situation for us all.

Right vs Left: US Government

There certainly is a difference in expectations between the left and the right regarding the role of the US government. I have noticed that there are still plenty of bumper stickers decrying the war on terror. Yet, waging war is well within the purview of what a government, any government, does. In my opinion the primary goal of any government should be protecting its citizens against foreign power whether it be another national government, band of corsairs, or terrorists. I empathize with the pacifist sentiments of the left regarding war in general, and I also acknowledge their disagreement whether it was a just war or not in Iraq. I happened to think we should do more than retaliate against the perpetrators of 9/11 and if Iraq succeeds as a democratic state, I believe this will move Arab jihadists just a little away from terrorism. South Asians are another matter completely and deserves its own post. I bring this up because my abhorrence of the Obamacare must feel similar to the left regarding the WoT/Iraq. Yet I just do not see how Obamacare is within the purview of the US government at least as laid out in the US Constitution. That the discussion of Obamacare even occurred and considered at all is astounding. Not to mention how it came to pass seems very undemocratic.

The WoT/Iraq was about whether the US government should or should not wage war.
Obamacare was about whether the US government could or could not be in the business of providing healthcare. There is just no constitutional basis for this discussion to even get to a disagreement.

One might argue that Obamacare is not about US governement healthcare ... until you realize that the regulations imposed will increase the cost of providing private insurance, thus herding more and more people toward government care.

Socialist Holy Grail

I think most people who are against the current health care reform believe that re-election pressure on the Democrats would be sufficient to stop the legislative process of health care reform. I do not believe that the normal legislative process is in play here. Health care reform is the holy grail of the socialist left. Now that it is within reach, they will risk everything to achieve it. The Democratic leadership will risk even losing the congressional majority to achieve this. Yet I believe this is short sighted because it should be more than achieving health care reform, it should be about achieving durable health care reform. Without bipartisan support, should the Republican win back majority in either house or senate, the health care reform will come tumbling down.

Health Care Reform

With Scott Brown election to the US Senate from Massachusetts on Tuesday, the Democrats' proposed health care plans are doomed. Certainly this is good news not because health care in the US shouldn't be reformed but because their proposal had more to do with government control than health care reform itself. Any future proposals for health care reforms must address the following issues, though not necessary all together as a composite proposal.

1. Malpractice Reform. Health care must first be about the delivery of health care. Malpractice reform will make it easier for health care professional to deliver quality care in an efficient manner.

2. Provide care for for those in need but without coverage. This predominantly pertains to those with preexisting conditions. One way to do so might be to provide tax advantages for commercial insurance companies to include this population.

3. Stimulate competition in the health care insurance market. Allow companies to offer policies across state lines.

4. Stimulate consumer cost awareness. When the consumer feels more of the cost, they will price and quality shop. Perhaps co-pays should be based on a percentage rather than a flat fee. Naturally health care providers will also have to make both their fees and their results available. Results may be given as percentage-brackets rather than raw values.

I support Scott Brown as the next US Senator from Massachusetts. Why?

1. His election would give Republicans 41 votes, enough break the Democrats current filibuster proof 60 votes.
2. He has promised to vote against Obama care.
3. He is running for the People of Massachusetts' US Senate seat, not dead Kennedy's US Senate seat.

I have given money once already and have just given again. You can do so as well here.

A Rational Voice in Congress on Health Care

Read the Bill

Yesterday on the way home National Public Radio had a piece on protesters expecting congressmen to read a bill before they vote on it. It was clear that pushing bills through votes before the bill is read is the norm in Congress. I suspect that most congressmen simply trust the bill's content, constructed by congressional committee, to be firstly what it purport to be and secondly to be legally sound. Given this implied or practical trust, that it would be reasonable for most of Congress to vote on a bill they have not read. NPR's slant was that this has been going on all along and thus should be acceptable. It is not. Just because a process has continued to occur, and perhaps even accepted as standard practice, does not make it either sound or acceptable. Truly faulty reasoning.

If they think that such trust is sufficient, then the bill should be voted on by all citizens in the US. But that is currently not possible. Until then, I expect my congressman to at least give a damn, show some professional curiosity to know and understand what is in a bill when they vote for it. If they cannot understand it, they either should not be a congressman or the bill is too complicated to pass. Passing a tortuous complicated bill into law results in either enlargement of a faceless bureaucracy that implement such laws, and or loop holes that would devalue the intent of the law. Either is unacceptable.

"Spreading the Wealth" for Health Care

Over at Bookworm room, she reports a conversation with he Kaiser Permanente Doctor.

The doctor had a very interesting take on the current uninsured. I said that a lot of people are opposed to the proposed plan because they recognize that those numbers being bandied about regarding uninsured are false. That is, the 45 million (or whatever) uninsured aren’t uninsured simply because of poverty. The vast majority are either illegal aliens (and you can see his views about those above) or voluntary uninsured. As to the latter, my friend thinks they’re the real problem. He understands that these people are voluntary uninsured because they are young and healthy. They’re gambling that they won’t need insurance. Or they might be marginally insured, in that they buy a $10 policy with a $10,000 deductible, just in case something really bad happens. They are not putting money into the system.

What this doctor likes about mandatory universal health care is that it forces the voluntary uninsured into the system. He thinks it grossly unfair that they are not paying into the system, while people who need insurance are paying. If there were more money in the system, the person with a preexisting condition would not be required to pay as much for his insurance. In other words, he thinks that the insurance system should be a cross between an uninsured motorist requirement and social security. He freely admits that this is a government mandated spread the wealth approach, and one of which he approves.

Because he has a philosophical approach that requires everyone to be in the health care market, whether they want to be or not, he is unperturbed by CBO numbers projecting vast increases in the cost of health care under the new plan. He thinks the CBO people, being accountants and not doctors, have no idea what they’re talking about. What he envisions is a brave new world in which the government simply provides more insured people who will use medical services. He finds it inconceivable that universal health care (which is a system by which all people are insured, but medical care providers continue to be privately owned) can shade into a single payer, government-owned system.

He does not believe that having the government as an insurance provider will change the system and drive out private insurance. Nor does he believe that, even if all private insurance is gone, with the government being the only bill-payer, that this will do anything other than purify the private medical system of the current social injustices that plague it. He also refused to believe that, in other countries that have socialized medicine, there are treatments that are denied to people, not because the treatments don’t work, but because the people are deemed (by government mandate) to be too old or too ill to be worthy of treatment. As for government lists of treatment, he says we have them already, because every care provider is in thrall to Medicare and related government programs. He did not see a difference between the fact that Medicare sets prices, but does not yet set age or health boundaries for providing treatments.

He is very disturbed by the opposition to the health care plan, which he sees as the product of Republican cabals who are shipping agitators into local town hall meetings. The absence of any concrete evidence of such busing (such as buses) does not change his mind.

I explained that people are also concerned that they’re being sold a bill of goods that is not as promised. The rush to pass a bill (three weeks “deliberation” to change a sixth of the economy) didn’t bother him at all. “That’s how things go.” When I raised specific concerns about the existing bill (the inability to stick with your insurance if you change jobs, the incentive for employers to dump insurance and drive people into the government system, the government decision boards re treatments, the enhanced access the government will have to our finances) he just didn’t care. He thought those were petty concerns and was sure I was wrong. He also discounted the hidden taxes in the bill. “Obama promised that he’d veto any taxes.”

The doctor also dismissed the fact that many of the bill’s proponents — including the president himself — are on record as supporting single-payer care (which is different from the universal care this doctor supports). He denies that Obama lied at the New Hampshire townhall when he when he said ““I have not said that I am a supporter of a single-payer system,” despite several past instances of his having said precisely that. “There’s no lie there,” said my doctor friend. “Obama did not say that he ‘never’ supported single payer care. He’s talking in the present tense. He doesn’t support it now.” I said that, if that’s what the great communicator meant, that’s what he should have said, including explaining why he’s changed his mind. “Nah,” said the doctor. It was clear.

The conversation ended there.

My response, with some additional comment not posted there in italic, is as follows.

1. Unnecessary tests rarely profits the doctor ordering it, whether it be lab tests or procedures. When a doctor sends a patient to get endoscopy, the gastroenterologist profits (if not on salary) from the procedure, not the referring physician. Yes the referring doctor could have just given you a trial treatment, as well as the gastroenterologist. Kaiser though also would not profited from the endoscopy it this was an in-network service. Kaiser predominantly profit from the subscription/insurance fee of its members by taking more in than they spend, by taking money from people who use less of kaiser services and spending some (but not all) of it on those who need and use more.

2. Health systems thus profit by taking money from those who subscribe for health services but do not use as much of it as they put in. If we look at our national health care system overall, the problem may seem that the uninsured are not putting money into the system and thus your doctor’s impression may seem correct but it is not. The uninsured do put money into the system already through taxes they pay to the local, state, and federal system. Those who choose to go uninsured likely believe that they would not need to be insured because they don’t expect to use health care should have that choice respected. In large part these are young people who really don’t need to. To think we should force them, or those who cannot afford insurance, to buy insurance or buy into the health care finance system seems coercive to me.

3. I have no problem with the doctor being agreeable to the government spreading the wealth in this regard for health care. If you think it is a form of taxation for the general well being of the nation, like that of national defense for instance, or border control, or disasters relief a health care tax might even seem reasonable. What is not reasonable is to think that as a democracy that rose party out of refusal to pay unfair taxes, that the doctor would take exceptions to people, whether it be a majority or a minority voice of protest. Isn't that the essence of the Tea Parties and the townhall protests currently underway regarding what the current government proposes. And should the majority decides against this tax should it be forced on them anyway?

4. For a learned person, the doctor still made several gross error in analysis and judgment. The first being a sampling error based on anecdotal experience. Just because the Kaiser system works does not mean a government managed system would. Yes clearly a “public” option will drive private plans out of business because the government plan will get income from everyone through taxation, even the already insured will pay them, thus the government’s “public” option plan will always have a higher ratio of pay-ins to pay-outs than any private plan could match. And since the government has the right to set health care standards for all, private health system cannot hope to compete. In addition, the government has never been known for being efficient financially or in service provided whether it be Amtrak, the post office, or Veterans Health Administration. What partly work now, or even what works well now, can work even less later. Not all reforms make things better.

5. The second error the doctor made is likely based on hubris of being an educated physician thinking he knows better for the patient than the patient himself. Though the current drive for health care reform is really about reforming to control costs rather than improve care access (though some will certainly benefit from improved access), when it comes to the ultimate and primary recipient of health care, it is about quality of care. The current anxiety and consternation among the majority of Americans center around the care they are currently getting as contrasted to the care they may or may not get with the reform. The doctor likely believe he can deliver the same (high?) level of care to his patients and are thus is dismissive of patients general concern over health care reform. He may not realize some patients may not think so highly of his delivery, and he certainly underestimate how someone smarter (or perhaps even less smart than he but has a better political pedigree) than he, another physician installed as a health care czar, may feel inclined to believe he is wasteful and starts to dictate how he could do better, placing him in a position to have to change his standards of practice to conform to someone else’s standards. When one is smart, there is a tendency to believe that one is right and that this right is self evident to anyone else with half a brain.

6. The third error the doctor made is allowing his own convictions and bias blind him to information challenging the veracity of his own beliefs.


I have frequently noted that when a doctor speaks out for or against in the current health care debate, they are given special status and what they say seems to gain greater significance. But shouldn't the truth and the justice of any argument be equally valid and valued regardless of the speaker? It is all really rather amusing.

"The HC Monstrosity-All 1,018 Pages"

Fleckman reads all 1018 pages of the current healthcare bill and gives us highlights. I have selected a few of note. The rest available here. My comments in italics.

PG 950- 980 BIG GOVT core pub health infrastruc. incl workforce capacity, lab systems; health info sys, etc
What happens when the core lab and info system goes down?

Pg 932 The Govt will estab Preventative & Wellness Trust fund- intial cost of $30,800,000,000-Billion.

PG 913-914 Govt starts a HC affirmative action program thru guise of diversity scholarships.

PG 898 The Govt will establish a Public Health Workforce Corps. 2 ensure supply of public health prof.

PG 876-892 The govt takes over the education of our Med students and Drs.

PG 865 to 876 The NHS Corps is a program where Drs. perform mandatory HC for 2yrs for part loan repayment.

Pg 865 The Govt will MANDATE the establishment of a National Health Service Corps.

Pg 859 Govt will establish a Public Health Fund at a cost of $88,800,000,000. Yes thats Billion.

PG 844-845 OMG! This Home Visitation Prog. includes Govt coming in2 ur house & telling u how 2 parent!!!

Pg 838-840 Govt will design & implem. Home Visitation Prog 4 families w young kids & families expect kids.

PG 835 11-13 fees imposed by Govt for Trust Fund shall be treated as if they were taxes.

PG 829-833 Govt will impose a fee on ALL private health ins. plans incl. self insured to pay for Trust Fund!

PG 801 Sec 1751 The Govt will decide which Health care conditions will be paid. Say RATION!

Pg 789-797 Govt will set, mandate drug prices, controlling which drugs brought 2 mrkt. Bye innovation

Pg 769 3-5 Nurse Home Visit Svcs – “increasing birth intervals btwn pregnancies.” Govt ABORTIONS any1?

Pg 735 lines 16-25 For law enforce. purposes the Secretary-HHS will give Atty General access to ALL data.

Pg 719-720 Sec 1637 ANY Doctor who orders durable med equip or home med svcs MUST b enrolled in Medicare.

PG 711 Lines 8-14 The Secretary has broad powers to deny HC providers/suppliers admittance into HC Exchng.

Pg 676-686 Govt will regulate hospitals in EVERY aspect of residency programs, incl. teaching hospitals.

PG 660-671 Doctors in Residency – Govt will tell U where ur residency will b, thus where u’ll live.

Pg 632 Lines 14-25 The Govt may implement any “Quality measure” of HC Services as they see fit.

PG 621 Lines 20-25 Govt will define what Quality means in HC. Since when does Govt know about quality?

Pg 503 Lines 13-19 Govt will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic med records.

PG 438 Sec 1236 – The Govt will develop a patient decision making aid program that u & Dr. WILL use.

PG 432 Lines 18-21 The Govt will publish “quality measures” 4 individual’s end of life in Federal Register.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment u will have at end of life.

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 – The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order. Logan’s Run anyone?

PG 429 Lines 10-12 “adv. care consultation” may incl an ORDER 4 end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program 4 orders 4 end of life. The Govt has a say in how ur life ends.

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding u in death.

PG 404 Lines 12-16 Govt exempts itself again from – Chap 35 of title 44, USC incl. privacy of Americans.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 – Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl! WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority 2 disqual Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps in2 Govt plan.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand.

Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.

Pg 304 L 17-19 Govt does NOT have 2 protect ur priv, share w any1, & is not resp http://www.twitlonger.com/show/c5bcfdae5fa79a650bbdab6be70918ac (expand)

Pg 304 L 17-19 BIG ONE HERE: Expedited Data Collection – Chapter 35 o… Read More: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/c5bcfdae5fa79a650bbdab6be70918ac

Pg 303 L 12-25 Post Acute Care Svcs Data – Govt will collect data including Pers. info as they see fit.

Pg 287 Line 14-25 PROOF that Govt will ration HC by mandating waiting periods for readmission.

PG 276 Line 3-20 Oxgen Equip & Supply Cos -Govt MANDATES u will provide suppl NO MATTER where indiv. is.

PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty u have, you’ll all be paid the same.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician svcs 4 Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.

Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access 2 ALL Americans finan/pers recs.

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC accrdng 2 Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc.

Pg 151 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Aggregate Rules-tax on employers payroll not on pub opt. incl payroll of other biz.

pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE.

Pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill – Doctors/ #AMA – The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.

Pg 126 lines 10-15 HC Bill – The Govt can make up prices for anything at anytime for any reason.

Pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monop.

Pg 110 Lines 7-12 HC Bill Employment taxes on ALL employers NOT offering Govt HC. No choice.

Pg 109 Sec 207 – Health Trust Fund. The Govt will raise taxes on EVERYONE 2 fund HC as they see fit.

Pg 84 Sec 203 HC bill – Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange.

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.

Pg 62 HC bill – Protection of Data, Govt shows they will have database of ur pers & financial info.

Pg 61 HC Bill lines 22-24 Congress has no clue what Elec. Med Records will cost. Asks for estimate.

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer!

Pg 58HC Bill – Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!

Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!

Pg 37 Sec 132 of HC Bill – The Govt will be reviewing grievances about themselves and will decide on appeals for rejected claims.
You can only sue the government if they let you.

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes u get.

PG 24 Sec 116 of HC bill Govt effectively sets prices for ALL private health plans. WTF!!!!

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

HT: Right Wing Sparkle

Sarah Palin's Resignation

Two thoughts on John’s post at Powerline on Sarah Palin to comment on.

Is Sarah Palin an arch-conservative? No. She has social conservative beliefs on military, religion, gays, and abortion, thus she has taken a stance and of a character that does appeal to arch-conservatives. That she does not seek to impose these beliefs during governance should make her appealing to independents. As a politicians who believes in small government, fiscal responsibility, and good governance as you pointed out, she should be appealing to all voters. I do not believe this has changed at all since August of 2008. Yes, her selection as McCain’s Vice-President running mate opened doors for her and you can argue she is being an opportunist. But given the opportunity to make a positive impact and real change for our nation, she should explore her potential to do so. In fact, I believe it would be irresponsible for anyone, not just her, do hide out and not make a difference.

Is Sarah Palin a target of political attacks? Certainly. Not just in the media but also by frivolous ethic charges. All the ethics charges evaluated thus far has been dismissed. Has the cost been significant? Not really though half a million dollars is a lot. Has the ethics charges been crippling to her governance? Probably and this is hurtful to Alaska’s use of tax payer not just in terms of money but in terms of man power and resources. Has the ethic charges been crippling to her ability to be a politician? Certainly. To resign because of it and retreat from public life would add fuel to the fire and embolden other attacks on other politicians, right or left. To resign because of it and enlarge her public life would completely defeat the political motivations behind the attacks. After all, aren’t the ethic charges intended to anchor her down in Anchorage (i know Juneau is the capital), shut her down and silence her voice? If so, then whenever she appears in the lower 48 at any and all sorts of political and economic events it will be a complete victory over those who seek to corner and limit her political influence.

Is her resignation politically risky? Yes. But to maintain the status quo is defeat. To be paralyzed politically, cost your states resources on frivolity, and encouraged continued devious political attacks, just so she can claim a full term as Governor when campaigning in 2012 is irresponsible.

Obamacare: the "Public Option"

What is the "public option" under Obamacare? What is being proposed is that all citizens are required to be a part of a healthcare plan. To cover those that cannot afford private plans, the government would provide for a government rant "public option."

What is the problem then with the "public option?" It will drive the private plans out of business. Private plans collects money only for the members it serves. The "public option" collects money from all tax payers and covers only those without a private plan. There is no way that any private plan can come even close to the intake:outlay ratio of the "public option" plan. Thus initially the "public option" plan will be substantially cheaper as well. Those who pays for healthcare plan, whether it be individual or business, will gradually gravitate to the "public option" plan to reduce cost. (And cost has been and will continue to be the main problem of healthcare in the US).

What is wrong with the US government's "public option" plan being the primary provider of healthcare in the US? Because the government is inept and incompetent and inefficient when it comes to providing any service. Talk to any patients who has experience both the Veterans Administration care (Government care for veterans) and the private sector and they will tell you which is better. Talk to any healthcare provider regarding ease of providing care to their patients between Veterans Administration care and the private sector. They will all tell you that the private sector does it better. The private sector does it better because they are competing among themselves and competition always stimulate quality. I do not mean to suggests that Veterans Administration care is inadequate, I only suggests the private sector does it better.

Thus the end result is that the "public option" will result in the government being the primary and dominant healthcare provider, near universal healthcare. The result will also be healthcare that is delivered inefficiently and poorly. As such, either the quality of care will fall, and or the cost of care will increase. When the cost of care increase, the likely response will be to reduce the care provided, i.e. rationing. Then healthcare will certainly be worse than what we have today. At least today, if you are unhappy with the care, you have alternatives and options.

Tax Day Cometh

I did my taxes yesterday. Two days from now will be tax day, and many will turn out that day for a Tea Party protest. Here is a great summary of what taxes should be like from Bookworm Room:

Principles of Sound Tax Policy

¨ Simplicity. Administrative costs are a loss to society, and complicated taxation undermines voluntary compliance by creating incentives to shelter and disguise income.

¨ Transparency. Tax legislation should be based on sound legislative procedures and careful analysis. A good tax system requires informed taxpayers who understand how tax assessment, collection, and compliance works. There should be open hearings and revenue estimates should be fully explained and replicable.

¨ Neutrality. The fewer economic decisions that are made for tax reasons, the better. The primary purpose of taxes is to raise needed revenue, not to micromanage the economy. The tax system should not favor certain industries, activities, or products.

¨ Stability. When tax laws are in constant flux, long-range financial planning is difficult. Lawmakers should avoid enacting temporary tax laws, including tax holidays and amnesties.

¨ No Retroactivity. As a corollary to the principle of stability, taxpayers should rely with confidence on the law as it exists when contracts are signed and transactions made.

¨ Broad Bases and Low Rate. As a corollary to the principle of neutrality, lawmakers should avoid enacting targeted deductions, credits and exclusions. If such tax preferences are few, substantial revenue can be raised with low tax rates. Broad-based taxes can also produce relatively stable tax revenues from year to year.

Government & Healthcare

The government is once again making a push to assume a greater role in health care. This move is nominally to provide health care to the millions uninsured. This guise is at best well intentioned ignorance, and at worse a ruse for greater control. Yes there are millions uninsured. Firstly, the vast majority of these people are young health people who do not need insurance. The young and elderly are already covered under Medicaid and Medicare. Secondly, for those uninsured who needs health care, they have access to care as no hospital can turn away a sick patient. True an argument can be made that preventive care to avoid becoming sick is better than being treated once sick, but the data on preventive care remains rather soft. And for preventive care that does make a difference, like screening mammograms, there are plenty of programs that will provide free screenings. But this is where the truth can be found, in that if you are uninsured and needs treatment, you will be laden with a huge bill. The problem of health care in the US is not coverage of the uninsured, the problem of health care in the US is a problem of cost.

Put it another way. Why are there uninsured at all? Because either they choose not to buy health care insurance, or because they cannot afford health care insurance. If they choose not to buy, it is probably because they don't see the need for it. If it is because they cannot afford health care insurance, then this again is certainly the problem of health care cost rather than a problem of uninsured.

Does the high cost of US health care means better health care? Yes and no. We spend an exhorbitant amount of money keeping premature infants and the terminally ill patients alive as long as we can. Frequently we fail, and especially with the terminally ill, we only prolonged their lives by days or weeks rather than years. Is this a smart spending of our health care resources? This aspect deserves a serious conversation in our society and culture. But this is not being discussed because the politicians would much rather talk about providing universal coverage rather than smart spending.

Certainly this is out of concern of a slippery slope that if we restrict money to be spent for premies and the terminals, we might restrict money spent on other areas of health care as well. And this gets us back to the essential problem of health care, cost. And anyone will tell you that the solution to cost increases is to control cost. Initially cost reduction can be gained through better efficiency and better care process to reduce complications (another direct contributor to cost). However, these cost control gains will never be as much as projected. Many different forms of health care delivery has been tried in the US in the past 20 years, all promising to reduce health care cost. All has provided a few years of cost control only to be followed by rising cost along the previous trajectory. Part of the problem here with government heath care and cost is that the government is never cost effective or sufficiently cost conscientious. Then it will come down to either accepting the increasing cost of health care or reducing service available.

Will the government accept the increase cost of health care? Will the people accept increasing taxation? For a while yes, but only for a while. When the cost of taxation for government health care is too high, what typically would happen next is that services will slowly but surely be restricted. And what we would all end up with would be universal coverage with less health services.

One other consideration. We all get what we paid for. When we pay for our health care directly, service is owed to us. When the government pays for health care, service is owed to the government.