August 25, 2010
Obama Prevaricated, Seniors Got Unmedicated!
Three Rabbis and an Eskimo walk into a gay bar. The ostrich says "If you like your current health care plan -- you can keep it!" Ha! That one gets me everytime. AP:
WASHINGTON -- A plan by Medicare to try to make it simpler for consumers to pick drug coverage could force 3 million seniors to switch plans next year whether they like it or not, says an independent analysis.That risks undercutting President Barack Obama's promise that people can keep their health plans if they like them.
And it could be an unwelcome surprise for many seniors who hadn't intended to make a change during Medicare's open enrollment season this fall.
To be fair, they are trying to make it easier to pick coverage. If there's only one plan...
Dang, I thought I had a winner with the headline. I tweeted and did a bit of link whoring. Blogging does feed one's humility. If my Mom were here...
Posted by: jk at August 25, 2010 3:48 PM"Got unmedicated" is one two many syllables. Mabye "de-medicated" would have done the trick.
Posted by: johngalt at August 26, 2010 2:43 PMAugust 19, 2010
Power Corrupts. Power Point Corrupts Absolutely
Politico has the slide show developed to help the Democrats "sell" ObamaCare® I thought hopes for GOP Midterm Tsunamis were overblown. Until I saw this presentation.
Slide 19:
It is critical to reassure seniors that Medicare will not be cut
[Don't mention the $500 Billion cut in Medicare]Slide 20:
Tell non college educated women that the health care law passed, Explain what is in the law and how it will affect them. Let them know they can keep the coverage they have now.
[If they didn't want to be lied to, they should have gone to college.]Slide 21:
Tell latinos that the health care law passed, explain what is in the law by using a personal story...
[Say Jennifer Lopez is injured on the way to pick up some tortillas...that's a good one]Slide 22:
For Voters Under 40...Do not make grand claims about the law. Use 'improve it' language.Slide 24 (penultimate):
Do Nots:
-- list benefits outside of personal context;
-- say the law will reduce costs and deficit.
[Ooops.]
Hat-tip: @JimPethokoukis, who summarizes "Dem strategy to change healthcare opinion by public: anecdotes, lots of anecdotes "
August 16, 2010
Death Panels in Session
Shhh! Don't call them death panels, people will think you're stupid. No, it's just an occasion where a government bureaucrat not approved by the Senate decides whether the government will pay for FDA approved treatments to extend lives. Or not. Washington Examiner:
The Ovarian Cancer National Alliance explains the problem: "Medicare must cover therapies that are 'reasonable and necessary,' while the FDA is instructed to approve drugs that are 'safe and effective.' Because of the conflicting federal coverage and approval requirements, there are some non-FDA approved drugs (called off-label drugs) that are paid for by CMS. However, with respect to Provenge, it appears that CMS is arguing that while the treatment is safe and effective, it may not be reasonable and necessary. For the first time, an FDA approved anti-cancer therapy may not be covered by Medicare."The same problem has developed on Avastin, according to the Susan G. Komen Fund, which has joined with OCNA advocating for Medicare coverage of both drugs. With respect to Avastin, Komen's founder and, CEO, Ambassador Nancy Brinker, said "We recognize the benefits of Avastin overall are modest for women with metastatic breast cancer. However, we do know that for some women, Avastin offers a greater than modest benefit. We hope that this decision will not restrict access to Avastin to all patients."
August 5, 2010
Are Grits Groceries?
There's an old blues song that has always baffled me:
If I don't love you baby, then,
Grits ain't groceries,
Eggs ain't poultry,
And Mona Lisa was a man.
I grew up on brain teasers and tried to deconstruct these lyrics a little more than Little Milton probably intended. Though not demonstrably false, none of the negatives struck me as "2 + 2 = 4" true. Was I dissembling, or was Diminutive Milt a little less committed than he wanted to let on?
Perhaps the Obama Administration will set up an agency to tackle the grits-groceries conundrum. But by law, they will have to decide "What is Health Care?"
There will be more such what-have-they-done ObamaCare moments. Wait until the public discovers the government is now literally determining what qualifies as "health care" in America.That isn't a typo. ObamaCare mandates that insurers spend a certain percentage of premium dollars on benefits, but Democrats never got around to writing the fine print of what counts as a benefit. So a handful of regulators are now choosing among the tens of thousands of services that doctors, hospitals and insurers offer. Few other government decisions will do more to shape tomorrow's health market, or what's left of it.
This command-and-control mechanism is the bill's mandate for insurance "medical loss ratios" (MLR) of 85% for large employers and 80% for small businesses and individuals. The MLR is an accounting statistic that measures the share of premiums paid out in patient claims ("losses"). In the individual market, MLRs typically run between 65% and 75%, and Democrats like Jay Rockefeller and Al Franken think this is evidence of excessive profits, executive pay, marketing and other supposedly wasteful overhead.
The same mentality prevails in the Administration, so it may well adopt a narrow definition of medical expenses when it issues final regulations by early fall. The insurance industry is lobbying for a less rigid standard: It will be easier to run a business and turn a profit if more of the costs are considered truly medical in nature.
Looking at other bureaucracies, I think I'd be more willing to trust Little Milton.
UPDATE: From the same editorial: "Even North Dakota's Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy, who voted for the bill, argues that tight MLR regulation 'could have a chilling effect on future innovative programs.' " Not that he ever considered -- for one second -- not voting for the innovation-chilling legislation. Thanks, Earl!
July 15, 2010
Never. Another. Dime.
Got my National MS Society Newsletter in my inbox. Usually, I delete it before it has the opportunity to anger me, but there are a few interesting things. There have been a few new drugs approved lately, and this letter brings news of a new FDA Fast Track. Fast Track is where the FDA behaves as it should. They only do this in extreme circumstances, mind you, but I guess it's better than never.
But the second item was "Changes in access to health insurance and new health insurance rules are starting now with more to come this fall and next January. What does this mean to you? Our Health Care Reform team has created concise answers to the FAQs of people affected by MS."
Against my better judgment, I clicked. It's not awful, but it is a press release from the White House, repeating every lie and not questioning anything.
Q: I have MS and am uninsured. Can I now buy an individual health insurance policy?
A: Yes, if you have been without insurance for six months or more Uninsured people with pre-existing conditions will be able to buy a health plan through temporary high risk pools. In most states, they opened July 1, 2010. These pools will provide insurance until 2014. Although the temporary high risk pools are government financed, the premiums may still be high until more significant federal subsidies take effect through the National Health Benefit Exchanges in 2014. Still, these temporary pools mean no one can be refused insurance because of MS or any other condition.
Yup, it's got a lot more government -- which is better -- but over time we'll add more and more government and it will be better still.
I will plug, again, a non-Communist organization that raises money to help get equipment and care to patients that need it:The 2010 Wild West MS Walkabout.
Sadly, it is the last year they will be doing this but it is a pretty good crew. A few nurses associated with my drug trial are walking. I'll suggest supporting the "Advanced Neurology of Colorado" team. If you wanna.
I've been tossing away the paper mag they have been dumping in my snail-mail box for years now. They habitually take the path of least resistance.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at July 15, 2010 11:58 AMCareer Advice
Professor Reynolds links to "ANOTHER DOCTOR running for Congress in response to ObamaCare."
I don't know. Maybe some ThreeSourcers or their spouses are looking for cheap laughs. If so, I'm all in.
A: "Yes ma'am."
Q: "The one who's gonna cut the spending and cut the debt and repeal Obamacare, right?"
The doctor, not the mustard. Well done! A name recognition amplifier.
Posted by: johngalt at July 15, 2010 2:29 PMAnother thing: There is a recurring theme for Republicans to label themselves Conservative Republican. This has become necessary in the age of "Progressive" Republicans.
Posted by: johngalt at July 15, 2010 2:31 PMJune 3, 2010
Why copy Europe now?
Much as this June 1 post made one ponder why America is so eager to emulate Canadian-style health care, Victor Davis Hanson muses about the example of Europe...
In short, as a reaction to the self-destruction of Europe in World War II and the twin monsters of fascism and communism, Europeans thought they could change human nature itself through the creation of an all-caring, all-wise European Union uber-citizen. Instead of dealing with human sins, European wise men of the last half-century would simply declare them passé.But human-driven history is now roaring back with a fury in Europe -- from Mediterranean insolvency, to the threat of radical Islam, to demographic decline, to new international dangers on the horizon.
Only one question remains: At a time when Europe is discovering that its democratic socialism does not work, why in the world is the United States doing its best to copy it?
Both are good questions, and I have a single answer for both of them: If America doesn't follow suit quickly enough the "utopian" Euro-centric systems may crumble of their own weight before we get there.
The Progressives/Marxists/Euro-socialists will, of course, tell us that once America is integrated into the collective it will suddenly become sustainable. How, exactly, they never say. Nor do they explain our lack of recourse if, once the "bill is passed," we find it undesirable.
Or the explanation for why communism failed in the USSR: "It wasn't done right, but here we'll make it work! We won't make the same mistakes." This ignores that the entire collectivist "experiment" is one big gigantic mistake.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 4, 2010 10:57 AMJune 1, 2010
Another Winning Appointment
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius defends the President's choice of Dr. Donald Berwick to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which oversees Medicare.
Have some compassion for the poor Secretary. I don't think I could defend him either:
- The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly.
- ...any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, MUST redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is, by definition, redistributional."
- I am romantic about the [British] National Health Service; I love it.
- You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach. You plan the supply; you aim a bit low; you prefer slightly too little of a technology or a service to too much; then you search for care bottlenecks and try to relieve them.
Clearly, the "Absolutely Right Leader At This Time."
I Found Us a Spot!
For our new hospital! It's close, has a modern infrastructure, good security, banking system. Canada!
TORONTO (Reuters) – Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada's provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.Ontario, Canada's most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate "incentive fees" to generic drug manufacturers.
British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit -- an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.
And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.
None of their hockey teams are very good, but we will have to make sacrifices to keep the lamps of freedom and medical innovation alive.
eh?
"...illegal user fee." ILLEGAL USER FEE?! Yeah, Obama Motors, aka 'GM' keeps insisting I pay one of those when I go in to get my next new car. Fascists!
(Challenge to reader: Spot the parts of this comment that are sarcasm and those that are not.)
Posted by: johngalt at June 1, 2010 2:50 PMLet's examine this interesting story more closely.
"There's got to be some change to the status quo whether it happens in three years or 10 years," said Derek Burleton, senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank. You mean, "change" to the "status quo" that was brought to you courtesy of the Progressive Movement decades ago?
Other problems include trying to control independently set salaries for top hospital executives and doctors and rein in spiraling costs for new medical technologies and drugs. The problem couldn't possibly be related to the lack of any "illegal user fees."
"Our objective is to preserve the quality healthcare system we have and indeed to enhance it. But there are difficult decisions ahead and we will continue to make them," Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan told Reuters. Look for existing rationing regimes to become more severe.
"If it's absolutely free with no information on the cost and the information of an alternative that would be have been more practical, then how can we expect the public to wisely use the service?"
But change may come slowly. Universal healthcare is central to Canada's national identity, and decisions are made as much on politics as economics. There, in two sentences, is proof that altruism with democracy is a deadly mixture.
Posted by: johngalt at June 1, 2010 3:09 PMThis is fun! OK, one more to share an anecdote.
Just got off the phone with the medical insurer about the payment of a hospital bill for my daughter's broken leg last year. "Amount billed" was $1375 with "amount not payable" totaling $848.20. The "allowable amount" of $526.80 seems reasonable for the procedure - an x-ray and a plaster walking cast - delivered with excellent care and attention. So why not just bill that amount instead of starting with a 161% overcharge? Within the details of that explanation can be found a big portion of rising healthcare costs. (Most of the rest is in the aforementioned "illegal user fees.")
To make matters worse, the insurance company classified the procedure as "surgery" and charged us an additional "illegal user fee" (co-pay for us gringos.) Never mind the details of the procedure, say the provider and the insurer, the billing codes say it was surgery, so QED.
Posted by: johngalt at June 1, 2010 3:19 PMMay 18, 2010
More Doctor Galts
Sadly, I am souring on all my Central American locations for our new hospital.
But word comes of potential staff. As they are already in Texas, they won't have as far to relocate.
Texas doctors are opting out of Medicare at alarming rates, frustrated by reimbursement cuts they say make participation in government-funded care of seniors unaffordable.Two years after a survey found nearly half of Texas doctors weren't taking some new Medicare patients, new data shows 100 to 200 a year are now ending all involvement with the program. Before 2007, the number of doctors opting out averaged less than a handful a year.
“This new data shows the Medicare system is beginning to implode,” said Dr. Susan Bailey, president of the Texas Medical Association. “If Congress doesn't fix Medicare soon, there'll be more and more doctors dropping out and Congress' promise to provide medical care to seniors will be broken.”
But, jk, they aren't leaving medicine -- just government medicine. Check your calendar.
Hat-tip: @Heritage
"This famous rhetorical question rings through Ayn Rand's best-selling novel as the people's anthem of despair in depressed economic times. Set in the future, the novel follows capitalist magnates as they battle looters, strikers, and the impending ruin of the United States' economy. The romantic and intellectual relationship between Dagny Taggart, the heroine, and John Galt, whose identity as the leader of the strike is eventually revealed, carries the novel to its climax.
This novel, controversial when it first appeared in 1957, purports Rand's objectivist philosophy that the individual is free to pursue his or her own happiness without bowing to God or society. Objectivism in action upholds full laissez-faire capitalism as the only philosophy that can protect humankind's freedom to think, to be inventive, and to live productively."
One correction: No longer set in the future.
Posted by: johngalt at May 19, 2010 2:57 PMMay 17, 2010
More on White Castle
I added this as an update to the post below, but that wasn't cathartic enough.
Let me get this straight -- you're assessing an extra fine if I give a job to a poor person? I guess if you accept that it's okay to fine an employer for providing a job to anybody, that only makes it a bit weirder.
UPDATE: Unintended consequence of side effect: Now you have to tell your employer your family income! Privacy anyone?
Under the new law, health insurance premiums charged by employers to employees must not exceed 9.5% of their household income. As many as 38% of employers may be at risk of violating the unaffordable coverage provision, [a Mercer] study concluded…Mercer partner Tracy Watts said, “Lawmakers did not take into account that employers don’t have access to information on employee household income. Employers question how they are going to get that information and…what happens if an employee’s total family income changes during the course of a plan year?”
"Before we offer you this job, how much is your family household income?"
I've got four words for you: DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at May 17, 2010 6:28 PMThey have to know, to see whether they need to pay the extra fine for hiring a poor person. And a new hire at White Castle is rarely in a strong position to exert his inner Lysander Spooner.
We have discussed some dumb gub'mint things on these pages, but this is quickly climbing to the top for me. Astonishing.
Quote of all Eternity
We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, -- Speaker Nancy PelosiI'm confidant in the timelessness because this quote opens two stories today. Both James Taranto and the Washington Examiner Editorial Page see fit to open columns reminding readers of this curious phrase.
Taranto references Senator Patty Murray's concern that "An obscure part" of the law restricts abortion.
"Implementation of this reform should be about increasing access to health care and increasing choices, not taking them away," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a member of the Senate leadership. "Health care reform is not an excuse to take rights away from women."
Taranto provides the inconvenient truth that her vote for cloture cleared the biggest hurdle to enact this bill as law. Dang.
And the Examiner uses to the Speaker's words to highlight what happens when you read Section 1334, pages 97-100,
That section gives the U.S. Office of Personnel Management — which presently manages the federal civil service — new responsibilities: establishing and running two entirely new government health insurance programs to compete directly with private insurance companies in every state with coverage for people outside of government.Quoting the new law, former OPM director Donald Devine notes that it makes the OPM boss a health care czar, with power to set “‘profit margin premiums and other such terms and conditions of coverage as are in the interest of enrollees in such plans.’ That’s open-ended. You can do anything.” Dan Blair, another former OPM director, calls the new program “nothing but a placeholder for the public option.” Indeed, the OPM head is also given the authority to “appoint as many employees” as needed to run the program, and to spend “such sums as may be necessary” to establish and administer it.
Huh. Public option, abortion restrictions -- if only there were some way to find out what was in a bill without enacting it into law! You'd think Madison would have thought of that.
UPDATE: Don't tell Harold and Kumar! White Castle analyst points out perverse mechanism against hiring poor people. You really can't make this stuff up!
On second thought, I think "Kumar" (Kal Penn) should be told after all.
The actor will be part of the White House Office of Public Liaison, which is run by Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. Penn will be primarily involved in dealing with Asian American and Pacific Islander communities and the arts community.
May 13, 2010
Liberty and Privacy
Woot.
A new lawsuit against ObamaCare® takes a more expansive view of its unconstitutionality.
In the complaint, the material about the interstate commerce power and the tax power is fairly standard. What makes the lawsuit significance is a well-developed argument (subject, of course, to the caveat that a complaint is not a brief) on medical privacy issues. Primarily, that the compelled disclosure to insurance corporations and insurance agents of private medical information (as well as urine or DNA samples and so on) is a violation of Fifth Amendment liberty, and of the constitutional right of privacy. Further, coercing individuals to associate with insurance companies and insurance agencies is a violation of the right of association, a right derivative of the First Amendment, but, as developed in later case law, not at all limited to classic First Amendment associations such as political or expressive organizations.
Hat-tip Volkh via Insty
When the high court of the land has decreed that homeowners must sell to private companies as the government mandates, is there any hope it will rule we don't have to buy things from private companies as the government mandates?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at May 13, 2010 3:10 PMOh, and I'd also advise these folks that if they want to argue by the Constitution, they're better off arguing about the 9th and 10th Amendments, rather than "derivative" rights that a court could very well reject.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at May 13, 2010 3:13 PMA new line of argument is warmly received, given the revelation on the Stossel page you linked above that Intrade.com has "chance that Obamacare will be ruled unconstitutional because of the individual mandate" running about 10 percent right now.
But what about this "constitutional right of privacy?"
Who are you, and what have you done with my good friend and blog brother JK?!
Posted by: johngalt at May 13, 2010 3:22 PM"Emanations and Penumbra," Brother jg, it's very complicated... heh.
Posted by: jk at May 13, 2010 3:28 PMI'll join with Perry and the well deserved tease on 'privacy" but I think that a Fifth Amendment challenge could be strong. They cannot decide whether it is a tax or a penalty. Force then to choose and then explain how I am not "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Posted by: jk at May 13, 2010 3:35 PMLemme just bang my gavel here. There, now you've had your due process. It's the law, so give the government its due.
There are just so many legalistic ways to defeat court challenges that I have absolutely no hope there. Republicans for the most part don't have even have the guts to campaign on the one thing: "I will work tirelessly to have this bad law repealed!"
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at May 14, 2010 10:31 AMMay 11, 2010
Sarcasm Alert!
Maybe there is too much sarcasm around ThreeSources lately. But when you see this, how can you avoid it?
Health overhaul law potentially costs $115B moreWASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's new health care law could potentially add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending over the next 10 years, congressional budget referees said Tuesday.
If Congress approves all the additional spending called for in the legislation, it would push the ten-year cost of the overhaul above $1 trillion — an unofficial limit the Obama administration set early on.
The Congressional Budget Office said the added spending includes $10 billion to $20 billion in administrative costs to federal agencies carrying out the law, as well as $34 billion for community health centers and $39 billion for Indian health care.
The costs were not reflected in earlier estimates by the budget office, although Republican lawmakers strenuously argued that they should have been. Part of the reason is technical: the additional spending is not mandatory, leaving Congress with discretion to provide the funds in follow-on legislation — or not.
"Tooth Fairy May be Mom & Dad -- DEVELOPING..."
Unfortunately, the debt will be rolled over and over, so the Tooth Fairy will also be our children, grandchildren and beyond.
As I told a friend who renewed his auto insurance with AIG, it's his daughters who aren't yet of working age, and all his future descendants, who are backing his policy.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at May 12, 2010 4:04 PMYa i bet the congressional budget office has no idea what it's talking about when they said the policy will save us dozens of billions of a decade. Clearly letting americans get sick and treating when people are in critical condition is how adam smith and god want this country to be. and darn tootin' isn't that comic hilarious!! I mean dinosaurs?? excellent, you really captured the anachronistic b.s. of those hippie-dippie liberals, what the hell do they want progress for?? I've got it sweet right now and I want it staying that way, thank-you very much mr. fix society- hussein- obama!!! Where does he get off?? Helping people is the job of wandering prophets like our lord jesus christ, not some big government jerks! I mean ya jesus said we should treat each other how we would treat ourselves, but come on, i just work harder than poor people - and so i deserve more. It's not my fault their culture and way of life is inferior to mine?
No i don't think government should do anything! why do they keep doing social programs!! just drop all the taxes switch us to a theocracy and await the rapture! it's clearly coming, and guess who won't ascend? I'll give you one guess, it rhymes with Antsy Selosi!
Posted by: Jon Green at May 13, 2010 12:09 AM@Jon: style points for the "rhymes with" ending. Nicely done. Considering the title, I guess style points all around.
I've cited conservativism's tendency to rely on "from God" as an ultimate defense of its moral code as a major flaw. And that morality should be advanced as a secular principle rooted in our nature as reasoning beings. Something tells me this guy is too far removed from reality for even that to bring him around.
Posted by: johngalt at May 13, 2010 2:51 PMApril 29, 2010
Quote of the Day
In addition to the cost, states are worried about the strings attached to the program. In a conference call with state officials last week, HHS officials weren't able to answer specific questions about federal mandates that will be placed on participating states. That's discomforting because HHS will draft the program's rules only after states decide whether to sign up. -- Grace Marie TurnerFrom a great editorial in the WSJ, looking at States' decision to sign up for high-risk pools that are scheduled to run out of money "next year or in 2012."
Senator Levin, that is one s****y deal.
And to think I've been accusing Goldman and Paulson of improper disclosure!
I'm hard-pressed to think of a time when the federal government was more hypocritical. We've seen it bad, but every new day has a new thing exceeding the ones before. Congress wants to regulate derivatives because it claims people aren't smart enough to understand everything in there -- investors need government's "protection." Yet the states are being told, "Sign here, we'll tell you the terms later."
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at April 29, 2010 1:43 PMOne becomes bored with pointing out that a private business would be jailed for half the stuff Congress does.
But after the mau-mauing we saw in the Senate the other day for 1/1000th of this, one has to mention it again. These guys want to regulate systemic risk.
Posted by: jk at April 29, 2010 1:57 PMOn the subject of playing by different rules, in yet another discussion about public employee pension programs and their UNSUSTAINABLE (hear that liberals?) defined benefit plans a guest expert on the Rosen show informed listeners that while the government has to adhere to GAAP accounting principles they have their very own advisory board to interpret them. Where the private sector has FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) the (state and local) public sector has GASB (Government Accounting Standards Board.) A quick Wikipedia search revealed that GASB "is a private, non-governmental organization." Okay, I guess, but I still suspect governments get far more lattitude than corporations.
I also learned that a similar effort was initiated in 1990 for the federal government. That version of GAAP is defined by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. This is distinctly NOT a private organization. And something tells me they'll let federal agencies get away with just about anything.
Posted by: johngalt at April 29, 2010 3:21 PMApril 23, 2010
Hold the Presses!
ObamaCare® might cost more:
But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.
In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.
Hat-tip: Megan McArdle who asks Who could possibly have predicted this shocking and totally unexpected turn of events?
In other news, gambling at Rick's? DEVELOPING...
UPDATE: Matt Welch at Reason:
Now that the world is belatedly waking up to the fact that President Obama lied his face off about the fiscal impacts of health care reform, maybe it's an appropriate time to point out that he's lying his face off about financial reform as well:
April 14, 2010
Port Wine Stain Removal?
JK just highlighted the press "discovery" of the impending doctor shortage and treatment delays and degradation under Obamacare. But Obamacare's big selling points were affordability and accessibility. We'll get improvements in those areas by mandating that everyone have coverage, right? Wrong.
In June 2002, Washington Policy Center published a study showing how state-imposed mandates add to the cost of health insurance. Since then state lawmakers have added new mandates, and the cost of insurance has continued to rise.
Yes I realize that the verb 'mandate' acts on different objects in the comparative cases, but the idea is that when government interferes in the marketplace only bad things happen.
Taken together, however, mandates impose significant cost on the health insurance market. State-imposed mandates carry the force of law, and they interfere directly in the voluntary relationship between buyer and seller. Mandates mean people are forced to pay for coverage they may not otherwise choose. This leads to a “crowding out” effect – coverage customers prefer is not available because insurers must offer the mandated benefits instead.
In Washington state, where this report was produced, the state mandates some 57 different conditions, providers, and beneficiaries be included in every health insurance policy. Included among these is "port wine stain removal." Imagine that not being covered. Oh, the humanity!
I had a pre-existing port wine stain and was denied coverage...
Posted by: jk at April 14, 2010 5:22 PMIs This That Supply and Demand Thingy Again?
I don't think they're even factoring in Doctor Galts (Henderson, was it?) But "experts" on the WSJ News pages are discovering what real experts on the WSJ Editorial Page were screaming for months: we won't have enough doctors without ObamaCare®, ObamaCare® makes it worse, and ObamaCare® does nothing positive to alleviate the shortage.
The new federal health-care law has raised the stakes for hospitals and schools already scrambling to train more doctors.Experts warn there won't be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.
This is so weird. Government controls the price. And then there's a shortage. Somebody should do a study and see if there is some correlation...
You're just an evil, racist right-winger. Stop clinging to your guns and religion!
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at April 14, 2010 1:18 PMNot Henderson but Hendricks, Doctor Hendricks.
Posted by: johngalt at April 14, 2010 3:10 PMWhen did Obamacare partisans ever claim their bill would result in more doctors, better care or shorter wait times? They said it would make health insurance affordable and undeniable.
Posted by: johngalt at April 14, 2010 3:18 PMOf course, what good is the insurance if you have no one to provide the services it's supposed to pay for.
Posted by: Lisa M at April 14, 2010 5:22 PMIf only someone had written about the problems with the supply-side of health care:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=050107B
(Warning: Shameless self-promotion)
Posted by: Everyday Economist at April 14, 2010 9:44 PM@EE: Shameless Self Promotion is a feature not a bug around here. It's a great article and well worth a(nother) read.
The reference to substitution is interesting. Walgreen's has added nurse practitioners in in-store clinics. I think that CVS and Walmart* have done the same. In anything resembling a free market, this would be an effective solution for much of what ails health care.
Yet I worry that the perpetuation of a top-down, command-and-control model will impede the growth of these services, which would help alleviate the upcoming shortage.
Posted by: jk at April 15, 2010 10:34 AMApril 13, 2010
Quote of the Day
If you like your plan, you can keep it: Whoops - Congress Eliminates Own Health Care Plan via Obamacare http://bit.ly/c2W08d #tcot #hcr -- @bdomenech (Ben Domenech)
UPDATE: Same topic, diff'rent pundit:
Good luck with that, guys. Are congressmen really going to pass legislation to rectify the harm ObamaCare did to them, while continuing to subject everyone else to this awful, hated law? Leaving the law in place isn't a politically attractive option either, for the reason National Review's Yuval Levin points out: "If you had your own research service to help you figure out what the law will do to your insurance, the answer would likely be just as confusing and discouraging." The CRS's findings are a powerful reminder that ObamaCare likely holds horrible surprises for everyone. -- James Taranto
April 8, 2010
America's "Unusual Bargain"
In the 25th comment under JK's "That's Not Me" post lamenting the "God and Values and Country" flavor of the organized TEA Party Express bus tour JK expressed that "giving" a right to individuals which, in turn, takes away the rights of other individuals to "define my own law" is an unusual bargain. Maybe I'm being too cavalier but I believe that's what America has always been about. In the 26th comment I made a layman's case for a supportive Constitutional interpretation:
I contend that our difference of opinion arises from two different interpretations of the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."I submit that these unenumerated rights are those of individual people. I read you as insisting that what is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution any majority of people may impose upon all individual people. I say the latter interpretation de facto turns the ninth amendment on its head.
It's an interesting topic worthy of its own post. And the original thread rolled off the page today. Something tells me that commenters aren't yet finished.
UPDATE: An extension of the excerpt from my own comment (in response to jk's first comment below).
The ninth amendment is to protect the rights of individuals, of minorities, from all levels of government, not of states from the Feds. By my reading the tenth amendment does not give the states power to abrogate the right of individual people "to be secure in their persons..."This is the nature of my "parasite" argument. That clinical term does not imply benefit or harm, but the state of being conjoined as one person in the eyes of the Constitution. No, you won't find this in the text. But you will find numerous prohibitions that threaten Obamacare or "the right to receive uncompensated medical care from my neighbor."
(Emphasis added.)
So there is indeed a right to health care (nowhere does it say there isn't). And any law which allows any provider to refrain from providing any treatment for any reason will be struck down.
This will save us a lot of debate on ObamaCare and I won't have to endure another one of those "God and Values and Country" TEA parties.
Posted by: jk at April 8, 2010 4:42 PMFunny, I haven't seen any legislatures passing such laws ... telling doctors they don't have to treat someone.
I don't understand why it's so hard to recognize that a document acknowledging unenumerated individual liberties doesn't imply unenumerated government powers. Specifically enumerating the latter is the way to protect the former.
Posted by: johngalt at April 8, 2010 7:49 PMApril 5, 2010
Quote of the Day
If you say to an average person: "What would you rather have: Free health care or an un-trampled Constitution," people are going to pick free health care because people like free stuff. They also like rainbows, puppies and therapeutic massage and, one day, we will all have a right to those too — I hope. Which is why we had the Constitution to begin with: To protect us from ourselves. -- Greg Gutfield.Gutfield is respecting Rep Phil Hare's candor "I give him credit for saying what no one else on his side is saying: This entitlement means more to us than the principles on which our country was founded." We're stupefied hearing him say he doesn't care about the Constitution (and them of course, conflating it with the Declaration -- the depredating that.
But Gutfield is sadly right. My newfound Facebook Communists don't see why some old piece of paper should keep them from getting free stuff.
UPDATE: Heh. Blog Brother ac posts Gutfield's "politically-incorrect" iPad review.
With apologies to Robert Heinlein: "TANSTAFHC"
(Tahn-stahf-hic?)
From the original manuscript: "Means 'There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.' And isn't" I added, pointing to a FREE LUNCH sign across room, "or these drinks would cost half as much. Was reminding her that anything free costs twice as much in long run or turns out worthless."
Means same for Health Care.
Posted by: johngalt at April 5, 2010 2:24 PMApril 4, 2010
Quote of the Day
Obamacare was supposed to provide unicorns and rainbows: How can it possibly be hurting companies and killing jobs? Surely there's some sort of Republican conspiracy going on here!More like a confederacy of dunces. Waxman and his colleagues in Congress can't possibly understand the health care market well enough to fix it. But what's more striking is that Waxman's outraged reaction revealed that they don't even understand their own area of responsibility - regulation -- well enough to predict the effect of changes in legislation. -- Glenn Reynolds in an Examiner editorial with bonus Hayek references,
March 30, 2010
Denver TEA Party III
I don't yet have firm plans to attend tomorrow's Denver TEA Party [4pm at the State Capitol] but if I go, these will be my signs:
And...
Are any of the Colorado brothers interested in going? I have two blank poster boards and need someone to carry the second sign.
UPDATE: 3/31 0850 MDT - According to People's Press Collective the scheduled 4pm start time is unlikely. Travel delays from Grand Junction mean the start time will probably be 5pm instead.
Also, I had assumed that Palin and other headliners were on board for the entire tour. Not so.
In the event that none of us go to the event I invite others to contribute their sign ideas in the comments.
UPDATE II (jk): Blog friend Sugarchuck sends a pic:
Not out of line at all. Besides not having to walk from a parking spot we'll also be livin' the green life in the carpool lane!
Posted by: johngalt at March 31, 2010 10:58 AMPosted before update -- whatever you decide. I'm not sure Palin's absence isn't a plus. With all respect to the guv, I'd rather attend a freedom rally than a "Sarah Palin rally."
Posted by: jk at March 31, 2010 10:59 AMMore signs:
WHAT PART OF "ENUMERATED POWERS" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
ENEMY OF THE STATIST
|
V
(A couple of these would make good 3Srcs T-shirts!)
News of Ms. Palin's absence serves mostly to explain the dearth of local advertising for the event.
jk: I emailed you to discuss logistics. [@3srcsdotcom]
Posted by: johngalt at March 31, 2010 1:05 PMGot your email, thanks. $50 seems a bit excessive for gas but we're thinking it over...
Posted by: jk at March 31, 2010 1:51 PMWhat did you expect in the "new energy economy?"
Posted by: johngalt at March 31, 2010 2:56 PMObama: Health Care Bill is "All Sorts of Republican Ideas"
Did anyone else catch this Matt Lauer interview of Obama this morning?
The president is "frustrated" that Republicans did not support these ideas that they had actually proposed in the past.
Mister president, have you forgotten that the Republicans were VOTED OUT OF OFFICE FOR THE POLICIES THEY PROPOSED IN THE PAST? Instead of trying to please congressional Republicans, try pleasing the voters.
TEA anyone?
Clearly he recognizes the unpolularity of ObamaCare® -- he's trying to blame Republicans!
Posted by: jk at March 30, 2010 5:14 PMYou mean that interview where he said that the Tea Party's core is a bunch of birthers? The flat out lies in that interview were too many to count, including his claim that his NCAA brackets blew up because he was too busy concentrating on health care.
Posted by: Lisa M at March 30, 2010 6:47 PMIf only the President had payed more attention to his NCAA bracket, the country could have saved Trillions!
Posted by: jk at March 30, 2010 7:13 PM"Mister president, have you forgotten that the Republicans were VOTED OUT OF OFFICE FOR THE POLICIES THEY PROPOSED IN THE PAST? Instead of trying to please congressional Republicans, try pleasing the voters."
I do not understand this.
Republicans are in office for eight years. Voters do not like them - perhaps for what they proposed, perhaps for what they (or did not) accomplish. It does not matter really - the voters chose to kick them out.
But they also chose to put someone else in. That someone was a person, described by yourself, as 'the most radical leftist President' in America's history.
Doesn't the election of such a man imply the implicit endorsement of radical leftism by the voting public? Or at least, the rejection of conservatism writ-large?
You say Obama should stop trying to please congressional Republicans and start trying to please voters. Forgive me, but that sounds like an invitation for an even more socialistic set of policies than we have got.
TEA is fine and all, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking we have attained greater heights. We have a long way upwards yet.
Posted by: T. Greer at March 31, 2010 7:49 AMI'll let brother jg defend his own words; I'm guessing that we're all gobsmacked that this single-party cramdown that gathered zero GOP votes is presented as being jam-packed with Republican Ideas®
I will speak up on the suggestion that President Obama's election proves "endorsement of radical leftism." President Obama cleverly ran away from his leftist record. He beat up Senator Clinton for insurance mandates and wasn't going to raise taxes "one dime" on earners below 250K. Post-partisan, post-racial, and Post Toasties, a new era of government bla bla bla.
It worked and I won't blame him for trying it. You're correct that the GOP left the door wide open and he walked through it. But it is unfair to the poor American voter to say that he asked for this.
My best effort at explaining how a center-right country elected the most radical leftist president in history is here.
It took the happy, not-paying-attention public six to eight years to recognize that Republicans were ripping them off. It hasn't taken that long with the Bolshecrats.
Posted by: johngalt at March 31, 2010 10:43 AMMarch 26, 2010
Repeal is Real
Investors.com editorial page explains how national health bills have been repealed in the past and can be again.
Then:
Once before there were "angry mobs" reacting to government expansion of and into health care. They once greeted former House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski over the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988, which expanded Medicare benefits and funded it with a supplemental tax.Unlike the current legislation, which was barely passed through a combination of deals such as the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase (along with a worthless executive order on federal funding of abortion services), the earlier bill passed the House in June 1988 by a vote of 328-72. It passed the Senate by 86-11.
In a precursor to the Tea Party movement, the natives, particularly seniors, rebelled over its provisions and the supplemental tax.
(...)
Legislation to repeal was introduced in the House on Nov. 7, 1989, and passed by a voice vote.
Now:
There's still time for repeal. House Minority Leader John Boehner says the election of a Republican House and Senate in 2010 would make possible the de-funding of ObamaCare. A victory at the presidential level in 2012 would seal the deal.It can be done. It has been done. It must be done. To paraphrase Joe Biden, it's a big deal.
March 25, 2010
Quote of the Day
I thought 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. Sunday night in Washington was the Republican Party's finest hour in a long time. When the voting stopped, the screen said the number of Republicans voting for Mr. Obama's bill was zero. Not one. Nobody. -- Dan Henninger
March 24, 2010
Health Care
I'm going to try and take the advice of two very smart people. Nicholas Nassim Taleb suggested, in The Black Swan, that everybody [jk] should read more books and less news. A good friend of mine and this blog sent a private email suggesting that my jest of "putting down the keyboard" was actually a pretty good idea.
My work has me wired in and using three Internet connected computers, so I won't stop hitting F5 on ThreeSources, but in that spirit I did decide that the best reaction to my liberty-ignoring friends was no reaction.
Another good friend who has right to be far more disappointed than me pointed out the folly of repeal. "We're gonna take away your free stuff" is not really a campaign winner. ObamaCare is here to stay, All we can do [close your ears ThreeSourcers, he's gonna say it again] is fight at the margins.
It's a Brave, New, Darkly Dystopian world -- and Soma® isn't even legal.
AND YET, I still have to link to Holman Jenkins's outstanding editorial today "Now Can We Have Health Care Reform?"
We'll let Angela Braly, CEO of insurer WellPoint, take the story from here. She was recently hauled before Congress to justify her company's proposed 39% rate hike in California. She explained the source was two-fold: rising medical costs and healthier customers dropping their coverage, forcing the sick to pick up the tab.Now this sounds like two problems, but for WellPoint and other insurers it's really only one problem. Once everyone is required by government mandate to buy insurance, the industry's survival is no longer threatened: It can just pass its skyrocketing costs along to customers.
Once customers can no longer refuse to buy the industry's product, the problem of costs won't be fixed, but it no longer is the insurance industry's problem.There, in that one sentence, we give you the failure of ObamaCare, the failure of the congressional health-care debate, the failure of health-care politics in this country.
He ends with a dare for us to open our hospital. Judging from my email, a lot of health professionals are ready to join us:
A world-class hospital in India does heart surgery the equal of any heart surgery in America, but does so at one-tenth the cost (and increasingly attracts a world-wide clientele). The reason is not what you think: low-paid doctors and nurses. The reason is that competition works in medicine as it does in everything else when the patient cares about getting value for money. This is the great low-hanging fruit of health-care reform. It continues to hang.
March 23, 2010
Why Health Care is so expensive
Just as the housing bubble can be traced to the Community Reinvestment Act, the American health care 'crisis' can be traced to EMTALA. This act, part of the 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) is the origin of the treatment-on-demand mandate on American hospitals. The stick that makes hospitals comply is continued receipt of Medicare reimbursements. So why can't a private hospital choose to stop treating Medicare patients and, as an added bonus, indigent patients?
As with the CRA, EMTALA was made worse by subsequent amendments. Like this one:
"Though patients treated under EMTALA may or may not be able to pay or have insurance or other programs pay for the associated costs, they are legally responsible for any costs incurred as a result of their care under civil law. Patients whose advance intention it is to receive medical care and fail to pay cannot be held criminally liable unless they intentionally and knowingly provide false identifying information to dodge billing."And yet, as amended...
"The patient cannot receive a negative credit mark for failure to pay the hospital or any related services, or any third-party agent collecting on their behalf."
Cockamamie.
Defend Colorado from ObamaCare
Jon Caldera is collecting signatures for a ballot initiative to amend the Colorado Constitution to protect health care choice.
We at the Independence Institute refuse to watch this atrocity corrode the quality of healthcare in Colorado. For months we have been at work bringing forward an amendment to the Colorado Constitution to preserve as a basic human right our “Right to Health Care Choice.” It is my goal to make Colorado a sanctuary state for quality healthcare.This citizens’ initiative is very close to the petition stage. Soon we will need as many volunteer petition gatherers as possible. We will also need funding to wage this battle. I ask you, right now, to donate to our fight. I desperately need your talents, your time, and your resources to protect Colorado from this affront coming from DC. We can stop Washington.
Follow the links to read the amendment (in lovely, non-selectable PDF...)
'Sanctuary State for quality health care.' Ingenious.
I support this amendment. I've signed up as a signature gatherer. BUT-
I'm convinced that SCOTUS precedent allowing federal law to trump state law would ultimately overcome even this constitutional amendment. Our only real, legitimate hope to defend the Republic is that same Supreme Court.
Damn, am I glad the president used his latest State of the Union address to piss off Justice Alito!
Posted by: johngalt at March 23, 2010 3:37 PMMarch 22, 2010
Colorado to Join ObamaCare Suit
Two great things about health care:
-- I am proud of the GOP
-- I am proud of my State:
DENVER (AP) — Colorado is joining at least nine other states in suing to block federal health care legislation.Republican Attorney General John Suthers said Monday he will join the suit, despite the objections of Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter.
Suthers said the bill's requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or be subject to fines is an unconstitutional expansion of the federal government's powers. He says Congress has the right to control interstate commerce but can't force people to participate in commerce.
Suthers said his decision isn't politically motivated. Republican state lawmakers urged him to join the lawsuit earlier in the day but Suthers said he didn't meet with them to reach his decision.
Good story. True. I'm concerned about the GOP though: they need to proceed on several fronts: I believe most Americans would be horrified to realize that this changes the most basic agreement between the gov't & the governed; WHO NOW OWNS AND DIRECTS WHOM? So, education/clarification, probably through private ads. They need to broaden their views on potential cand's (who's that guy from FL? I think it's Marco Rubio? And Thune (or is it Thane?) So, Diversity & careful choice of the right cand @ the right time. 3rd: & have already shown signs of beginning to do: growing a set: knowing who & what they are & speaking the truth continually and clearly without rancor. So, know their ground & STAND UP for it. 4th (& final for now) better involvement by & coordination of Volunteers, who, aware of their danger too late (perhaps) are eagerly scrambling to find a way out of this affront to every man, woman, child and beast who ever died to keep us a free people.
Posted by: Bilbe at March 23, 2010 10:39 AMBeing an advocate of free speech, I leave one copy of the above comment -- it's moderately on-topic for blogspam.
I removed the duplicate and the link to a cellphone plan.
Posted by: jk at March 23, 2010 12:13 PMQoTD II
Brother Keith admits to a fondness for Latin:
The editors of National Review sensibly counsel conservatives, in the wake of last night’s victory for Obamacare: “‘Nil desperandum’--never despair.” I agree, though I’m more inclined to the mock-Latin motto of the Harvard band: “Illegitimi non carborundum”--don't let the bastards get you down. -- Bill Kristol
If only the Preznit's motto weren't "oderint, dum metuant."
Posted by: Keith Arnold at March 23, 2010 11:33 AMI think that one sounds better in the original Klingon...
Posted by: jk at March 23, 2010 12:07 PMTouche, jk. Nicely played.
I've never heard it in the original Klingon, though; if I e-mail Michelle Obama for the quote, do you suppose she'll reply?
Posted by: Keith Arnold at March 23, 2010 12:19 PM"Free" Health Care
"Hey buddy, what're ya in for?"
"I refused to practice medicine under duress."
"I quit when medicine was placed under State control some years ago," said Dr. Hendricks. "Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I could not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun.I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything - except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the 'welfare' of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, but 'to serve.'
That a man who's willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards - never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness at which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind - yet what is it they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce.
Let them discover, in the operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it - and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't."
-- Ayn Rand, from Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957
Superb, timely, germane and all that. I tried to post it as my Facebook status but it's about 5000 characters too long.
Not sure what to say on this sad day, but this passage nails it. I went with the shorter "Our fathers and grandfathers fought wars in distant lands to preserve freedom for the next generations. We gave it away because we won't pay our doctors' bills."
Let me help you choose:
- Paragraph 1, last sentence.
- Paragraph 2, sentence 2, 3, or 4.
- Paragraph 3, sentence 1, 2 or 3-5.
- Closing paragraph.
Any one of those 8 selections would make a powerful, stand-alone statement. Magister dixit.
(Rand was oft criticized for repetition - usually by those whose "fraudulent generalities" she railed against.)
Anyone know the latin for "fraudulent generalities?"
Posted by: johngalt at March 22, 2010 7:59 PMMarch 21, 2010
219
Not with a bang, but a whimper
Nothing makes me shout at the television in frustration more than Nancy Pelosi sounding smug. She just sets my teeth on edge.
She says, "Being a woman will no longer be considered a pre-existing condition."
Really???? I can't think of too much more, "pre-existing," than my gender.
Further, it makes total sense that women would cost more to insure as they bear children and have longer life spans. I would not trade my child-bearing (as a mother of of three) or my life expectancy for slightly lower premiums.
Men pay more for life insurance.
WHY is this so obvious to me and not obvious to everyone???
Posted by: dagny at March 22, 2010 10:48 AMThanks, Dagny, I was trying to think of some biological condition that women were more susceptible to, that might make their health care more expensive. In the end I could not think of anything and decided that the Speaker was right -- it must be pure, patriarchical sexism. Childbirth, yeah, that's it.
But I can help with the second part: They don't see it because they don't want to.
The pre-existing condition under socialized medicine is age. When you get too old, you're not worth covering any more and are denied care on that basis.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 22, 2010 1:20 PMActually, br, the pre-existing condition under socialized medicine - the condition for which swift and efficacious care may generally be denied - is illness or injury.
Posted by: johngalt at March 22, 2010 8:02 PMQuote of the Day
I've never been prouder to be a Republican. The party's Congressional leaders have fought this battle to the end on behalf of the American people--with intelligence, toughness, persistence and good humor. The contrast between the parties has never been starker than in today's debate. If any intelligent Democrats were watching--there must be some left--they had to be embarrassed for their party.--John Hinderocker, looking for silver linings on a day of dark-ass clouds.
Couldn't She Find a Bigger Gavel?
Just asking.
March 20, 2010
ObamaCare Won't Cost Dems Their Jobs
That's the thesis of Dana Milbank in tomorrow's Washington Post column.
Beyond that, it's doubtful that opposition to the measure will ever again be as high as it is now. Fox News polling found that 45 percent of voters would favor repeal, while 47 percent say leave the reforms alone or add to them. With the big insurance subsidies years away, the initial changes stemming from the legislation would be relatively modest -- and that should come as a surprise to an American public told by Republican foes of the legislation to expect a socialist takeover of the United States.(...)
There will certainly be ads this fall saying Republican Congressman X voted against tax breaks for small business and voted to deny Junior his life-saving treatments. These modest changes to the health system probably wouldn't be widespread and noticeable enough to limit Democratic losses at a time of 10 percent unemployment. But, at the very least, voters would see nothing to justify the Republicans' apocalyptic predictions.
Yet repeal still holds appeal, even to the likes of Mitt Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts created what the New Republic's Jonathan Chait calls "the closest thing to Obamacare in the United States." A poll by the Boston Globe and Harvard last fall found that only one in 10 Massachusetts residents favors a repeal of that program.
Yup, me and Dana -- two peas in a pod.
I think it will add to troubles in an already tough year, but our [who's this "we" kimosabe?] belief that this is a coupon for 100 seats is potentially misguided. I will give them my favorite joke, mutatis mutandis: "Hey guys, I hear we're going to get to run against the Republicans again this year."
Not guided by my cautious tactical pragmatism and cool head, many TEA partiers will go to third parties or stay home because the People's Front of Judea candidate isn't pure enough.
A quote of my father's wafts back as well: "Great is the power of incumbency." The man was ahead of his time.
"Mutatis mutandis" - I always appreciate Latin. And my compliments to your father, jk... though I trust Tom Daschle was relying on that one. If you wake up enough voters, incumbency's power may be great, but not absolute. I am hoping that enough people have been awakened, and there are polls indicating that may be the case. I'm also hoping that as some Democrats cast their votes today, they'll be remembering a little Latin of their own: "Ave, Imperator! Morituri te salutant!"
I have, hoping against hope, called my Congressman's office, politely expressed my position, and was told that Adam Schiff is firmly committed to voting in favor of passing health care "reform" in every vote that takes place today. I expressed my sincere disappointment and thanked the staffer.
I will vote for whoever runs against Schiff, even if I have to run against the sumbich myself.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at March 21, 2010 12:08 PMMilbank's analysis and optimism not withstanding, the math is not on the side of Republicans. There is no conceivable scenario in which the Republicans pick up a veto-proof majority in both houses - not enough net-seats in play even if they ran the table. Any alternations will be quickly vetoed and sustained even by a Democrat minority, who will suddenly rail against the tyranny of a simple majority. This leaves any hope for meaningful reform to 2014, and The Refugee is not sure the fire can be kept burning that long.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 22, 2010 3:07 PMBR: you've taken away my hope for optimism. That leaves only secession, armed resistance, or living with it.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at March 22, 2010 4:25 PMI'm not anticipating a veto-proof majority soon (or ever, that is a pretty rare incident), I want a house majority in 2010 -- that stops it from getting worse. Picking up either the Senate or WH in 2012. That would be the start of making things better.
Posted by: jk at March 22, 2010 5:37 PMSorry to be a splash of cold water, KA. My hope lies in the new post above about fighting this thing state-to-state. We may also need to adopt the Left's strategy of challenging everything in the courts. Nevertheless, any serious modifications are a long shot. Government cheese is more addictive than crack.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 23, 2010 12:07 PMAP/OBAMA Newswire - "Medicare fix would push health care into the red"
Betsy Markey based her vote on the CBO deficit reduction number. Now AP (not the Washington Times, not the Heritage Foundation ... the 'in-the-tank, Associated Press) reports:
The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red.
Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Markey and the entire Subvert Constitutional Procedure Caucus have been hailing deficit reduction as the justification for destroying the best part of Canada's health care system - the American system. Now this AP report, citing CBO blows that claim out of the water.
What say you, Markey?
I'm really curious why our more liberal blog brothers been completely silent through all of this. Do they believe ObamaCare will cut the deficit, or do they think it's "benefits" are worth a bit more deficit spending?
CODE RED Rally in D.C. via Cell Phone Vid
This is cool! Tania Gail of PAWaterCooler.com is going to the Capitol rally today and she's posting live video clips to her website via cell phone. If you click on the image it links to her qik.com page which shows a google map of her location when the video was recorded.
11 minutes ago she posted this clip. "Holy cow, people are coming!"
Graphic of the Day
Professor Mankiw suggests a warning label for CBO scores:
In the discussion of out and out lies and gimmickry used to game the CBO numbers, both Larry Kudlow and Mankiw remind that the CBO by definition scores statically (their Laffer Curve is flat). They can score an increase in taxes to 110% as revenue and not account for any loss from people who would prefer not to pay to go to work every day.
Indeed, to be very wonkish about it, these tax changes could have especially large GDP effects. Some people like to argue that taxes have small GDP effects because income and substitution effects offset each other. But if you give someone a subsidy and then phase it out, both the income and substitution effects work in the direction of reducing work effort.Why does CBO assume no change in GDP? It is not because the CBO staffers necessarily believe that result. Rather, it is just one of the conventions of budget scoring.
March 19, 2010
"We're Going to Control The Insurance Companies!"
Hat-tip: Weasel Zippers via Instapundit
Those nasty insurance companies and their 2% profit margins.
WOW 2 comments for me in one day, must be record. Comes from being laid off. Anyone want an accountant?
Posted by: dagny at March 19, 2010 7:34 PMAnd what a fortune will be saved as a result!
Biden - "We really got a great number back from the Congressional Budget Office. (...) Indicates we're gonna save billions of dollars over ten years, over a trillion in the next ten. That's great news and I think that frees up a lot of guys who were goin' 'Wait a minute, I don't know about if there's really gonna be savings here."
With promises of "billions" and "trillions" in savings it's clear that insurance companies aren't the only ones they're controlling.
And yet if we call him a complete @#$#ing liar the approbation will be heaped on ... us.
Posted by: johngalt at March 19, 2010 9:36 PMHe's the Guerilla Pedant, you never know where or when he will strike next!
I think you may mean "disapprobation," bro. I heap approbation on you every day.
That is, we all heap something on each other around here...
Posted by: jk at March 20, 2010 11:25 AMOh, yeah. What he said!
I could claim that I used the wrong word intentionally, just to see if anyone was watching. But that would be Bidenesque.
Posted by: johngalt at March 20, 2010 12:54 PM"Doc-Fix Gate"
Those of us paying attention knew it was true, but now someone within the Democrat ranks has leaked proof:
“As most health staff knows, leadership and the White House are working with the AMA to rally physicians for a full SGR ["sustainable growth rate" for medicare reimbursements to doctors] repeal later this spring. However, both health and communications staff should understand we do not want that policy discussion discussed at this time, lest (it) complicate the last critical push to pass health reform,” according to the memo.The memo helps explains why the American Medical Association has supported reform even though their top legislative priority, the doc fix, was left out. The group is working behind the scenes with Democratic leadership and the White House to fix the cuts later this year.
And in the prior paragraph of the memo was this astonishingly honest statement:
"The inclusion of a full SGR repeal would undermine reform's budget neutrality."
According to the Politico piece, SGR repeal would increase the deficit another $371 ba-billion.
Gee, it's a good thing Rep. Betsy Markey made sure that the CBO scored the legislation as "deficit reducing." I guess she didn't get the memo, addressed to "Democratic Health and Communications Staff."
Rep. Altmire (D - PA4) got the memo and will reprise his no vote with an encore.
Posted by: jk at March 19, 2010 6:01 PMHe Claims to Believe in Property Rights...
Yet, as a service to ThreeSourcers who do not subscribe to the WSJ (Heretics!), I provide the full text of their ObamaCare Editorial today.
Gotta go now, Rupert's jack-booted thugs are at the door...
Has there ever been a political spectacle like the final throes of ObamaCare? We can't recall one outside of a banana republic, or, more accurately, Woody Allen's 1971 classic "Bananas." Capitol Hill resembles nothing so much as that movie's farcical coup d'etat in San Marcos as Democrats try to assemble the partisan minimum of 216 House votes—if only for an hour or so at some point on Sunday—and no bribe is too costly, no deal too cynical, no last-minute rewrite too blatant.
Yesterday, Democrats defeated 222 to 203 a GOP resolution that would have required them to vote up-or-down on the text of the Senate's Christmas Eve bill. Big Labor hates that bill's tax on high-cost health coverage, and rank-and-file Members are so embarrassed by its kickbacks that Democrats are resorting to the procedural trick of "deeming" it passed instead. Speaker Nancy Pelosi actually told reporters this week that "nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill," but she'll do what it takes to impose it anyway.
The Commander in Chief even felt obliged to cancel his overseas trip so he could personally explain to Members why this Presidential legacy project is worth their defeat in November. Four separate workout sessions, including an Air Force One trip to hometown Cleveland, were enough to convert Dennis Kucinich. The supposedly principled Ohio liberal had opposed ObamaCare in the House's November vote because it still preserves a vestige of a private health-care industry. But a vast expansion of the welfare state as a consolation prize is now good enough for his government work.
That's only the start of the logrolling, if that's not an insult to logs. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced on Tuesday that central California would get extra public water allocations. This was apparently the price for Democrats Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa to vote something other than their consciences. We will hear about many more in the coming days.
Also yesterday the white smoke rose up from the Congressional Budget Office, which released its cost estimates for the "reconciliation" bill and the sundry fixes without which Mrs. Pelosi can't deem the Senate bill passed. Democrats pre-emptively released the topline numbers, which by themselves took weeks of tweaking to game the CBO's accounting conventions and officially stay under $1 trillion in spending for 10 years. (The real cost over a decade once all the spending kicks in: $2.4 trillion.)
CBO Director Doug Elmendorf was thus obliged to release a "preliminary estimate," having "not thoroughly examined the legislative language." Mr. Elmendorf said at a hearing that his health-care staff members were close to burning out under "the almost round-the-clock schedule" of unrelenting Democratic demands about the budgetary effects of this or that provision. And all for a bill whose subsidies don't begin until 2014.
By the way, to make the deficit numbers "work," Democrats decided at the 11th hour to increase their new tax on investment income to 3.8% from 2.9%. Congratulations.
White House budget director Peter Orszag quickly declared that "The CBO score today should leave no doubt that we are operating in a new fiscal era," and no kidding. One thing the score also made clear, however, is that Mrs. Pelosi's reconciliation fixes could easily be blown to pieces in the Senate. While the Democratic strategy is already a wholesale abuse of the traditional reconciliation process, it now bids to violate the actual rules of reconciliation as well.
In a carom shot if there ever was one, the excise tax on gold-plated health coverage has received one last tweak. It is expected to fund ObamaCare as employees take more of their compensation in wages rather than health insurance, thus exposing more income to ordinary taxes. The House demand to delay that tax until 2018 from 2013 in the Senate bill—to appease the likes of AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, who met one-on-one with Mr. Obama on Wednesday—therefore reduces Social Security payroll tax revenues. But reconciliation expressly forbids such changes to Social Security, and CBO says this change will drain some $53 billion from the program's trust fund.
Senate Republicans will therefore be entitled to raise a budget "point of order" against the entire reconciliation bill if it does arrive in the upper chamber. That will let them strip out the offending provision—which will offend the labor movement, to say the least—or even send the entire bill back to the House, forcing another round of agony on the gullible rank-and-file.
North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad admitted the risks yesterday, asking rhetorically if he expected that some GOP "challenges will be upheld? Yeah. I do." By the way, Mr. Conrad and his House North Dakota colleague Earl Pomeroy are getting a special provision that exempts a state-owned North Dakota bank from the unrelated private student loan takeover that Democrats have included as part of ObamaCare. That multibillion-dollar baby was added to further rig the budget numbers and win over conflicted Members.
***
Even the political panic over the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program, amid an incipient financial collapse and a Presidential election, looks like regular order compared to this ObamaCare mayhem. That the White House and Mrs. Pelosi are still running into such resistance after a year of pleading reveals what an historic blunder ObamaCare really is.
This is what happens when a willful President and his party try to govern America from the ideological left, imposing a reckless expansion of the entitlement state that most Americans, and even dozens of Democrats in Congress, clearly despise.
Words fail...
Instead, are you in the mood for a little more optimism?
We've discussed before that if the Obama Administration had not thrown the American electorate into boiling water, or if Democrat-Lite John McCain had been elected, the voters likely would never notice the ever forward creep toward American socialism. So why do Obama and Pelosi keep the rolling boil going? Why not back off the pressure and accept a slightly faster pace of creep instead of a wholesale leap into their egalitarian "paradise?" The answer, in my opinion, is that they know the veil has already been lifted and Americans don't like the looks of the new bride Democrats are walking down the aisle for them. For them, it's shotgun wedding time.
Resist with dignity now. Don't pucker up when she kisses us. Take it like a man. Make sure all the relatives and the local papers know, over the next seven months, what an abomination was forced upon us. November 2nd is the filing date for divorce court and we need to be the first in line.
P.S. It seems that WSJ made the entire editorial visible without subscription. And who said they're not charitable!
I am furious and this the most public forum I can easily get to express this so I will. Unfortunately here at Threesources I am mostly preaching to the choir. I did as stated below call Betsy Markey, lot of good that did.
I am also an accountant and so this is what I see. The supporters of Obamacare are telling me repeatedly that we are going to provide health care to millions more people and to people with pre-existing conditions and it is not going to cost more and quality will not suffer. I don't believe them. I don't believe in the tooth fairy either.
That is the heart of my objection. This health care reform will necessarily raise taxes or reduce care and more likely both. There is no alternative.
"The worst kind of tyranny is to make a man pay for what he doesn't want merely because you think it would be good for him."
R.A.H.
Posted by: dagny at March 19, 2010 2:14 PMMy presidential reading tour has brought me to TR. I'm starting with his autobiography, which does nothing to reverse my philosophical impression of #26, even though it is impossible not to appreciate him personally.
He makes a great quote, though. Entering the NY Legislature in the full heat of the Stalwart-Half-breed wars, he says of the "Silk Stockings" Republicans:
They were apt vociferously to demand "reform" as if it were some concrete substance, like cake, which could be handed out at will, in tangible masses, if only the demand were urgent enough. These parlor reformers made up for inefficiency in action by zeal in criticising; and they delighted in criticising the men who really were doing the things which they said ought to be done, but which they lacked the sinewy power to do.
Bully!
Posted by: jk at March 19, 2010 5:54 PM
March 18, 2010
Will She Even Bother to Run Again?
Despite what meager effort I and my family and those I emailed in CO-4 could make, today's fake CBO report gave Betsy Markey the cover she wanted to commit political suicide in this traditionally conservative district. I hope voters remember the "Markey Mistake" for a long, long time.
Markey's decision to vote in favor of the bill will almost certainly become a dominant issue for Republicans as they try to oust her in November. Markey in 2008 became the first Democrat in 36 years to win the 4th Congressional District seat, and national Republicans have made ousting her a top priority this year.Two recent polls released by business groups opposed to the Democrats' health care bill showed a majority of district residents were against the bill.
Markey said her decision to support the bill was about policy, not politics.
"I'm not a career politician and I've said this before, this is not a stepping stone for another career. I'm not here as a place to retire," she said.
Ironically, I think she just did exactly that.
She shoulda held out for the plane ride.
I've seen many TV commercials lately asking me to "call Betsy Markey and tell her to keep up the fight."
I think we lost, boys. I got overconfident less than one month ago. But today it feels very much over. Most have given up on stopping it and are choosing to revel in November's gains. Small damn comfort.
I've been overconfident before. I don't know if my pessimism now is a reaction to that or just to the Markey disappointment. You do realize that if they pass Healthcare with this unsavory process there's no reason for them not to pass every other leftist wet-dream on their wish list too. Perhaps the spectre of that will be enough to stiffen the resolve of the less progressive Dems.
Laura Ingraham told Bill O'Reilly today that Bart Stupak told her for every vote Pelosi switches to a yes, his guys are switching a no. Sounds like Stupak might really be all in after all.
Might there be, dare I say it - Hope?
Posted by: johngalt at March 19, 2010 1:02 AMMy pessimism has the same source. Kucinich covers the left, Markey covers the middle, game over. I see that it is still a fight, but the bogus CBO score and the Speaker's calling for a vote portend bad things.
Posted by: jk at March 19, 2010 10:37 AMMore Patients - Fewer Doctors
First, I don't believe that Obamacare would lead to 31 million more patients. I believe they're all receiving care when they need it already but I went with it for a snappy title. Investor's Business Daily surveyed some 25,000 doctors last summer (about 1400 of whom responded) and reported that 45% said they'd close their practice or retire early if Obamacare passed. And they opposed the measure two to one. The left-stream media slammed this as "ludicrous."
Yesterday IBD reported a similar survey by a physician's job placement firm, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, with similar findings:
This poll, conducted by the Medicus Firm, a physician search and consulting outfit, found that 29.2% of the nearly 1,200 doctors it queried said they would quit or retire early if a health overhaul were passed into law. That number jumped to 45.7% — nearly identical to our own — if a public option were included.(...)
In the end, it's clear: A health care overhaul, as it's now being pushed, could lead to a precipitous drop in the number of doctors.
"Many physicians feel that they cannot continue to practice if patient loads increase while pay decreases," wrote Kevin Perpetua, managing partner of the Medicus Firm, summing up his findings.
*Ahem* - Duh. (This is John Galt speaking.)
South of the Border, Down Mexico Way.
That's where I fell in love, when the atars above came out to play.
'Cause it was fiesta, and we were so [happy, frivolous, carefree]
South of the Border, Down Mexico Way...
March 17, 2010
Destroy America or Become a National Hero?
I just called my congressperson, U.S. Representative Betsy Markey of CO-4. Her website touts a report that she is one of the most centrist and independent members of congress. The House Switchboard number was busy so I called her office directly and got right through.
I asked if the congresswoman had decided how she intends to vote on the Health Care bill. Her staffer told me that she is waiting for a cost analysis by the CBO and has not yet made a decision. I said, "I am her constituent, residing near Fort Lupton, and I would like to encourage her to vote NO. I think if she votes yes then this won't be the United States of America any more and if she votes no she will become one of a handful of national heroes."
I was asked for my name and contact information, which I gave. (Not that they couldn't have guessed I'm a registered Republican anyway.)
Her D.C. office number is: 202.225.4676
UPDATE: 3/18 4:25pm MDT
The verdict is in: GUILTY
Salsa Clinic Staffing
Things are looking up for our Mexican Health Care venture! Insty links to this NEJM Survey of physicians who might "Go Galt" if ObamaCare® passes. There's some up and down and the leftist slant of NEJM's readership shows through in spots ("0.8% feel income will 'improve dramatically' with a public option." -- kinda hope that's not my doctor...)
But the money quote for us is:
Health Reform and Primary Care Physicians
* 46.3% of primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.
To which I say "Don't Go Galt, Go Kranz!" Join us in sunny Puerto Viarta at a free market hospital serving North America and the world.
Perfect - just as US citizens are being evacuated from six cities in Mexico, and a travel advisory is being issues warning of travel in three Mexican states. The US consulate in Juarez still has chalk outlines and blood on the carpets.
The timing is conspiring against you. It's not to late for Costa Rica...
Posted by: Keith Arnold at March 17, 2010 11:25 AMWe're going to bid Costa Rica against Mexico. Each will have to make a convincing case for security.
In defernce to your opinions, brother ka, I can assure you that Juarez is out. No, really, Keith has spoken!
Posted by: jk at March 17, 2010 11:40 AMThink of bullets and death threats as part of the working environment, which is a legitimate market force (cost of doing business). It's not me - the market has spoken.
Fair competition between Costa Rica and Mexico - I do love free market solutions!
Posted by: Keith Arnold at March 17, 2010 1:12 PMI have no proof but still suspect that the violence is in the sleazy border towns (the only part of the country I frequent, curiously) and that higher-end, more modern tourist locations are fairly safe.
Posted by: jk at March 17, 2010 1:48 PMMarch 16, 2010
Grame Frost, Call Your Office
We all have a favorite kind of story or blog post. I'll readily confess mine is exposing the huckster prop in a Democratic "feel their pain" pitch.
I suppose it goes back farther, but it all started for me with Grame Frost the 12-year-old poster boy for SCHIP. Way back in 2007, mean ol' President George W Bush vetoed the expansion of SCHIP (I do enjoy reminding right-wing Bush haters of this). So the Democrats chose young Grame to deliver their radio response. He pulled the heartstrings as he was recovering from a serious accident and his medical bills were affecting his parents.
Well, Dad turns out to be a hyper-partisan and a loser. He quit a good job to start his own woodworking business. The more one looked, the less sympathetic the family appeared.
I invoked their name on these pages in July of 2008. The Nunez family, in George Bush's Evil Amerikkka, could not afford meat. They were highlighted on an NPR story. But the 'R' is for radio, and once people saw the extremely obese family, sympathy rolled off a bit.
Today, FOXNews via Gateway Pundit brings us Natoma Canfield. She was President Obama's prop in Ohio -- follow the link to hear the President say "I am here for Natoma."
Natoma has cancer and is dying in the street without care after being kicked out of her home for failure to pay her medical bills and has nothing to eat or wear or...no....wait a minute, this just in: No, it appears she is in a top flight cancer center receiving care after 12 years of not working and dropping her insurance. She will get financial aid and will not lose her house:
Lyman Sornberger, executive director of patient financial services at the Cleveland Clinic, said "all indications" at the outset are that she will be considered for assistance."She may be eligible for state Medicaid … and/or she will be eligible for charity (care) of some form or type. … In my personal opinion, she will be eligible for something," he said, adding that Canfield should not be worried about losing her home.
"Cleveland Clinic will not put a lien on her home," he said.
Well, I'm glad that ended so well, aren't you?
"Yeah, it's a good thing the president went there to pressure the CC to do the right thing" say Obamacare apologists.
You love to write 'em and I love to read 'em.
Posted by: johngalt at March 16, 2010 2:51 PMThanks for the link, man. I had heard about her last night, in a naturally sympathetic segment on CBS radio news. Knowing only that she appealed to Obama to force others to pay for her care, I expressed my feelings thusly to a friend: "She can f------ die, for all I care."
My sentiment has not lessened. She was paying $5000 annually for insurance? For crying out loud, she had cancer, so that was quite a reasonable rate. And her insurance, presumably, is privately bought and therefore higher than group insurance. My high-deductible policy, between what my employer and I pay, is more expensive!
Even $8000 annually, considering her cancer could have returned -- and did -- is not bad at all, considering her health history and what she could cost the insurer. Cancer can be so managable these days that her insurer could easily spend half a million dollars for the rest of her life on all the drugs and treatment to keep her alive.
There were some excellent comments. "This is just a Henrietta Hughes redeux."
Indeed. It sounds like her real problem is (1) not working a steady job, and (2) refinancing a house that should have been paid off years ago.
"Obama has reinvented the Potemkin village. It used to be that Communists would create fake prosperous villages to deceive gullible Westerners into thinking Communism was a success. Now we have Comrade creating fake suffering in order to persuade gullible liberals that free markets are a failure."
We can call them "Obama's Nikmetop victims."
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 16, 2010 4:27 PM"Nikmetop" -- I like it.
At my brother-in-law's suggestion, I watched some of the "one-minute speeches" on CSPAN today. The Republicans seemed to have facts or procedural arguments, but the Democrats all had a letter from a constituent.
Ms. Canfield did everything wrong and is still receiving care in a top-notch institution. Her bills will be paid (thanks, Perry!) and she will keep her house. I love it.
I'm thinking I need to write one of those heart-tugging letters. How a middle-class family in a small town in flyover country received amazing, truly life-saving care, ran up more than a half-million in bills, and then kept their home and lifestyle thanks to insurance that was anything but "Gold-plated" or "Cadillac."
Here's another one for you in a bit of a different vein:
Lance Lewis was paralyzed 20 years ago from falling down the stairs backwards. His employer, Core States Bank, kept up his insurance which provided him with in-home 24/7 nursing care. That care has been uninterrupted for 20 years, through no less than 5 bank mergers. With the last merger, from FU to Wells Fargo, Wells says they no nothing about the nursing and insurnace care deal that Lewis has. Lewis, of course, has nothing documenting this deal he cut with a bank five mergers ago.
Not to lessen the plight of Mr. Lewis, but in the volitile banking industry, shouldn't it be his responsibility to make sure that his insurance follows through the merger? Furthermore, I don't think that any of the Banks, from Core Staes on through Wells, has a legal obligation to conitue Lewis' insurance and it was damned genreous that they did for so long.
Besides being a poor case to illustrate the need for Obamacare (which was, make no mistake, the intent of the article) it highlights the need for separating health insurance from the emplooyer--a conservative idea, if I'm not mistaken, and one that makes no appearance in the 2,700 page abomination that our president is currently campaigning for.
Posted by: Lisa M at March 16, 2010 7:22 PMWow--I apologize for the horrid typos. I guess I shouldn't post while I'm in class.
Posted by: Lisa M at March 16, 2010 7:31 PMU typ bettr n me. I did convert the long url to a link. You can always email me anything you'd like changed -- or just give up and accept an author's login around here already.
Posted by: jk at March 16, 2010 7:39 PMMarch 15, 2010
In Markets We Trust II
Last Friday, Jack Calfee asked if health insurance profits are so healthy, why weren't large firms like Walmart, Microsoft and the like diving in. I mean, who would miss a chance to bilk an unsuspecting public out of -- wait for it -- $66?
Mark Perry at The American links to the Calfee piece and adds the $66 figure to the discussion:
Using the industry profit margin of 2.2 percent last year, it means that insurance companies make only about $66 on average per policy in profits for individual coverage, and less than $140 in profits for each family policy.
Wow! Two-point-two percent profit! Man, why doesn't every business give up the stupid things they do and hop into this lucrative pool?
A related statistic I heard is that the total profits of health insurance companies would pay the health care costs of Americans for 4 days out of each year.
- I think I heard this on Mike McConnell's radio show last Sunday night. (It's a mediocre show that KOA switched to as a cost-cutting measure, IMHO.)
Posted by: johngalt at March 16, 2010 11:12 AMThat's what you get when you put heartless capitalist corporations in charge of programming. Jeez, NPR has great stuff on the weekends...
Posted by: jk at March 16, 2010 11:28 AMQuote of the Day
Dear choir, today's sermon:
America has the finest health care delivery system in the world. Let's not forget that and put it at risk in the name of reform. Desperate souls across the globe flock to our shores and cross our borders every day to seek our care. Why? Our system provides cures while the government-run systems from which they flee do not. Compare Europe's common cancer mortality rates to America's: breast cancer - 52 percent higher in Germany and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom; prostate cancer - a staggering 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway; colon cancer - 40 percent higher in the United Kingdom.Look closer at the United Kingdom. Britain's higher cancer mortality rate results in 25,000 more cancer deaths per year compared to a similar population size in the United States. But because the U.S. population is roughly five times larger than the United Kingdom's, that would translate into 125,000 unnecessary American cancer deaths every year. This is more than all the mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, cousins and children in Topeka, Kan. And keep in mind, these numbers are for cancer alone. America also has better survival rates for other major killers, such as heart attacks and strokes. Whatever we do, let us not surrender the great gains we have made. First, do no harm. Lives are at stake. -- Dr. Milton R. Wolf, Barack Obama's second cousin once removed.
Analysis above is, of course, predicated on the notion that extending longevity and quality of life are the intended goal of the health care system.
Posted by: johngalt at March 15, 2010 3:15 PMOw! You're sadly correct. Silly cousin that went into medicine instead of politics probably assumed that.
Posted by: jk at March 15, 2010 3:51 PMGive Thanks for What Divides Us
I have been meaning to ask whether any reproductive-rights ThreeSourcers had found new respect for pro-life legislators since they became the best chance to kill ObamaCare® and keep the last vestige of freedom in these United States.
But then I saw this, and I am laughing too hard to type:
That's especially true given yesterday's report indicating that at least seven of Stupak's faction have confirmed they will not vote for a reform bill without a change in the abortion language.Another single-issue conflict with a different House faction also reared its head: The Hispanic Caucus is now publicly threatening to torpedo reform because of the Senate bill's ultra-restrictive language prohibiting illegal immigrants from buying health insurance through the state-run insurances exchanges that would be set up. At least one high-profile former yes vote, Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez, has said that he'll switch his vote to no if the immigrant restrictions aren't changed. (For more detail on this conflict, see the Reason Foundation's Shikha Dalmia.)
Strange bedfellows indeed.
March 11, 2010
Napolitano on Obamacare
I hadn't seen this before. It's from last October and even if you've seen it, watch it again. Among other things the judge explains how federal government lawyers act to prevent unconstitutional laws from being judged so in court.
Hat tip: Home page of the Bill Cunningham Show
UPDATE (3/15): For those who didn't listen, and just because I want to see it in print, here is one of those other things the judge said: [closing minute]
"These gatherings are more important than anything you can imagine. Because in the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its maximum hour of danger. You are that generation! This is your role! Now is that time! Freedom must be defended from every assailant in every corner of this country, from outside the country, from inside the country, and especially from the government that wants to take it away from us. [applause] God bless you."
March 8, 2010
An End to Rationing!
President Obama decries insurance companies that "freely ration health care based on ... who can pay and who can't."
John Stossel highlights Don Boudreaux's reply:
Not only insurers, but all producers who greedily refuse to supply persons who don't pay should be set aright. Now I'm sure that YOU don't ration the supply of the books you write according to any criteria as sordid as requiring people actually to pay for them. But our society is full of people less enlightened than you.For example, the typical worker rations his labor services according to who pays and who doesn't. That must stop. Oh, and supermarkets! Every single one rations groceries according to who pays. Likewise with restaurants, clothing stores, home-builders, furniture makers, even lawyers! You name it, rationing is done according to who pays. Indeed, my own county government has been corrupted by this greedy attitude: if I don't pay my taxes, the sheriff takes my house ... Preposterous!
I look forward to your changing this selfish and unfair system of rationing that for too long now has kept Americans impoverished.
This is classic. However, it is also worth noting that Obama wants to ration healthcare based on those who can't pay.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 9, 2010 4:40 PMQuote of the Day
Liberals don't think the middle-class insurance subsidies are large enough. Big Labor hates the "Cadillac tax" on high-cost health coverage because extremely generous benefits typically come out of collective bargaining. The pro-life Democrats led by Michigan's Bart Stupak can't abide federal funding for abortion. Everyone detests the enveloping corruption, such as the Nebraska Medicaid bribe for Ben Nelson, which has become so politically toxic that the opponents now include Ben Nelson. -- WSJ Ed Page
March 3, 2010
Umm, Not Exactly
C. L. Gray is not an investment banker, but he is "an internist based in Hickory, N.C." and "president of Physicians for Reform" whatever that means, and he's written an editorial for Investors.com that purports to explain "Why Obama Can't Give Up On Reform."
Gray's thesis is this: "It may be that the president believes the inalienable rights of "We the People" come from government, not from God. Driven by this worldview, the attempt to place health care under government control will continually re-emerge."
This is likely correct, but it better explains why Obama won't give upon reform, not why he can't. The latter reason, it seems to me, is that he expects large numbers of Democrats to be flushed down the electoral toilet at every opportunity given voters to pull the chain. They may as well have something consequential to show for it when their 60-vote majority is a distant and infamous memory.
But looking deeper into Gray's analysis I couldn't ignore the following passage.
Sen. Harkin's statement reflects the worldview behind the French Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789, not the American Declaration of Independence of 1776.The last sentence of the opening paragraph of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man reads: "Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen."
By appealing to an unknowable, deistic Supreme Being, the rights of man rested on the generosity of the State. A change in political power opens the door to a change in the rights of man. Man cannot confer inalienable rights.
In stark contrast, the American Declaration of Independence appealed to a knowable, personal God — the Creator of life itself. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
According to the Declaration of Independence, inalienable rights do not arise from men, but from God.
Maybe it takes a non-theist to notice this but what exactly is the difference between "the Supreme Being" and "God?" According to Gray's analysis, the entire defense of an individual's right to his own life rests on this difference. If it arises from the "knowable" and "personal" God the question becomes, knowable and personal to whom? This is no more concrete and objective than the French Rights of Man he rightly criticizes, for it rests on the opinion of the democratic majority and gives no defense to heterodox individuals.
But where in the Declaration of Independence does the word "God" appear? The word I see is "Creator." The beauty of that word is that it makes no difference whatsoever who or what an individual's creator is because the fact of his existence is de facto proof that he has one. In essence, "I am, therefore I have rights." Magister dixit.
"howcum the anti-theist French and Russian revolutions made such a hash of things, when the relatively devout American succeeded?"
Francis Schaeffer probed that very question in his book "How Should We Then Live?" and makes a strong case for the difference being explained by the dominant views in each case of the nature and value of man. Oddly enough, I don't have a copy of it with me at the moment.
I bow to no man in my respect for Locke - whose work I trust is highly valued among ThreeSourcers - but consider how heavily Locke draws on the foundational work of Samuel Rutherford. While it oversimplifies to say that Locke secularizes the principles Rutherford found in theologic terms, that's a workable thumbnail sketch.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at March 4, 2010 1:19 PMNo more posts like this, jg, clearly nobody around here is very interested or has deep feelings bout this. Nice try, though.
Interesting book, ka, and available on Kindle for $9.99. Reading the reviews, I am clearly not their target demographic, but is good, no? A good friend of this blog turned me onto Michael Novak's "Spirit of Democracy which I adored." Recommend I hit [OK] ?
jk: I'm a firm believer in test-drives. I'll bring it tomorrow, violate a few copyright laws by scanning a sample (gaaaah! Anarchist!), and you can decide for yourself. Truth in advertising: I will confess to having read it while at Berkeley (see adjacent post, and I read it for pleasure, not as an assigned text), thirty-some-odd years ago.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at March 4, 2010 4:18 PMMight lead to some interesting discusion -- but as far as protecting my $9.99, don't worry. Its being a Kindle book, one can order a free sample and usually get TOC and the first chapter or so. The sample is on the way.
Posted by: jk at March 4, 2010 5:02 PM"howcum the anti-theist French and Russian revolutions made such a hash of things, when the relatively devout American succeeded?"
The outcomes were different because the cultures were different. It wasn't really that one group believed in God while the other two didn't, but that one believed in unalienable rights from God while the other two were based on rights from the state.
The American "revolutionaries" were colonials who, by the time of the revolution, had become accustomed to 150 years of being left alone. This was enough time for notions like the divine right of kings to dissipate while people earnestly believed new ideas, revolutionary ideas, such as "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
The French and Russians had no such desire to be left alone as individuals, no tradition of liberty. It's a romantic notion that the poor masses forced the rulers to abdicate, but it's not the entire story. The masses were rightfully angry at their respective aristocracies for centuries of abuses and oppression, but the anger of the former was focused by self-serving tyrants who seized the opportunity for power.
The French masses were pleased with the idea of a strong government to give them the "rights" that they needed to recognize they already had. The Russians weren't quite sure, and the Bolsheviks happened to have enough force to turn the second revolution into a lasting government.
I haven't read Schaeffer's book and probably won't, but this is my answer.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 4, 2010 10:58 PMIn answer to jk's question, pe is right. It's a case of correlation and not causation. First, the statist revolutions in France and Russia were not merely "anti-theist" they were anti-individual in every respect. Second, the American government isn't at all "devout" but her citizens are free to be so, or not. The key distinction between the revolutions you set out to compare and contrast is not theism but statism - the first two started out with statism while we've only just come 'round to it in the postmodern era.
Incidentally, this is why I distrust and oppose statists (secular or devout) far more than the theists per se.
Posted by: johngalt at March 8, 2010 3:11 PMMarch 2, 2010
Otequay of the Ayday
The author of 'A Simple Solution to Many of Our Problems' dropped by to defend the reputation of his intellect in our comments section. CA invited us to peruse his essay on Health Care Mythology, which I did, and found this comment on the pre-tax treatment of employer provided health insurance:
I certainly agree that this structure raises costs, but if you have a simple problem like this, you fix it, you do not say "hey, let's try communism."
Did anyone watch Obama's Health Care Summit? Did any of the geniuses there point this out? Didn't think so. Not in so many words, anyway.
CA's 'Health Care Mythology' is well structured for emailing to our "innumerate" (good word CA) relatives but I couldn't find a direct link to the individual essay. Maybe someone can help me here. In closing, I enjoyed the hockey references and erudite humor but alas, found it sadly lacking in Heinlein quotes. [Be patient -it's in there.]
Centennial State ThreeSourcers now have to login before 1AM (MST) to get a shot at QOTD. Wow.
Posted by: jk at March 2, 2010 12:30 PMPretty soon it's going to be Quote of Tomorrow!
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 2, 2010 12:55 PMI suppose I should have titled it 'Otequay of Esterdayay.'
Posted by: johngalt at March 2, 2010 2:37 PMMarch 1, 2010
Mexican Mayo
"I think they call it 'Salsa, jk...'"
Nope, I am thinking of a Mexican Mayo Clinic (or perhaps Costa Rica) that will be an Atlas Shrugged facility for health care. We'll take money and we'll sell real Clifford Asness insurance. We'll hire providers who did not go to Med school to be GS-7 Government employees, or who don't want to join AFSCME.
Whatever happens up here it's gonna be bad. The full brunt of ObamaCare may or may not be avoided but look at Massachusetts:
Last month, Democratic Governor Deval Patrick landed a neutron bomb, proposing hard price controls across almost all Massachusetts health care. State regulators already have the power to cap insurance premiums, which Mr. Patrick is activating. He also filed a bill that would give state regulators the power to review the rates of hospitals, physician groups and some specialty providers. Those that are deemed too high "shall be presumptively disapproved."Mr. Patrick ad-libbed that he had "a whole bunch of pals here who are in the health-care field, and I saw the color drain out of their faces." Little wonder. The administered prices of Medicare and Medicaid already shift costs to private patients while below-cost reimbursement creates balance-sheet havoc among providers. Now the governor wants to import these distortions to save the state's heavily subsidized insurance program as costs explode.
The feds will enact some pieces, more states will do more. And pretty soon -- if not now -- you'll be able to staff a whole hospital in a sunny modern hotspot with disaffected staff. I am guessing, like Atlas, that you will attract the best in every category.
Affluent Canadians go south to avoid the privations of socialism. I wondered where Americans would go. Why not South? I believe there is already quite a bit of medical tourism in Costa Rica for specialty items like dental reconstruction and joint replacements. Why not a whole hospital?
Vamanos muchachos?
Sounds like the beginnings of an excellent business plan. You didn't mention drug testing, however. What's your prescription there, pardon the pun?
Posted by: johngalt at March 1, 2010 3:01 PMWe'd be subject to the stringent drug regulations of our host country.
I think India and Costa Rica do a lot of trials, that could be a good revenue source.
Posted by: jk at March 1, 2010 3:42 PMFebruary 27, 2010
The Summit in Four Minutes
ThreeSources and Heritage.org have just saved you SEVEN HOURS! Now you can catch up on all that Curling footage you Tivoed...
Senator Grassley has an awesome sound bite in there that opponents should pick up on. "Unconstitutional" doesn't mean anything to anybody who doesn’t read ThreeSources. His explanation of the unprecedented nature of government forcing you to buy something is very strong.
Lookit me, cheering on Sen. Grassley, I guess I am a pragmatist!
February 25, 2010
"A simple solution to many of our problems"
... is how Clifford Asness summarizes his ideas for health insurance reform.
Ignoring pre-existing conditions might sound compassionate, but it is equivalent to declaring that a fire-insurance company must charge the same amount for a modern house with smoke detectors and interior fireproofing as for a century-old, wooden-frame former stable, complete with some hay left over, and a basement full of painting supplies.(...)
The desire to help those with pre-existing conditions is laudable. The way to do this is to help. If someone needs more medical care than he or she can pay for, direct state subsidy is far more efficient than making insurance companies pretend that the patient isn’t ill or at high risk of becoming ill. We can separately debate the degree of generosity of this subsidy, but it is efficient and honest. Making insurance companies play “don’t ask, don’t tell” with health status is neither.
Wait a doggone minnit - this Asness character is an investment banker! Never mind. Say, how much was HIS bonus last year?!
Very pleased to read your comment CA, and I'll check out your website soon. I take the blame for "labeling" you an investment banker. I made the leap from "capital management" to "investment" to "investment banker." I mostly used it as an opportunity for sarcastic TARP humor.
I'll not speak for brother Perry (and I'm sure he'll speak for himself) but as I said above, "Good play!" (Since you wouldn't know, that was a reference to one of our contributors' excellent football analogy for the American experiment in self-government.
And, if you have a moment, are you interested in commenting on our discussion of the Mount Vernon Statement?
Cheers, [not the] johngalt
Posted by: johngalt at March 1, 2010 3:53 PMWe have to move minds on who pays and how it is taxed. If the let's-not-have-socialism side of the discussion is wrapped in a pretty red ribbon of "let the bastards who didn't prepare die in the street in agony" then I think we're going to get ObamaCare.No, JK, we do not have to compromise here. You're just allowing the temperature to turn up a little bit more each time. The line must be drawn somewhere and kept there, not moved every time a political fight brews.
Liberty can finally win when you stop compromising and point out the collectivists' lies. Just because I oppose socialized medicine does not mean I advocate people dying in the street, and anyone who claims that about me is a damned liar.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 3, 2010 11:31 PMNo, JG, it's not a first down. It's making an onside kick on the first down and bumbling it badly.
Read his tripe again: he talks a good line about people overusing insurance and not realizing costs, but he's advocating further collectivism as the cure.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 3, 2010 11:35 PMI think I am a capitalist.Asness, I don't know how old you are, but here's a free wake-up call: you're no capitalist. You may work with capital, you may base your business on turning capital into ever-increasing amounts of capital, but you're not a capitalist.
A real capitalist operates his business and lives his life by the principle that your transactions are always voluntary for both sides. A real capitalist does not advocate the taking of someone's money (even through "taxation") and redistributing it to others. You talked a good line at the start, but in the end you're talking about taking my property so that other people can be "subsidized" in their health care costs.
Even if we ignore the immorality there, where's your practicality? How will people realize health care costs when someone else is helping pay for them? And where do you draw the line? You know, or should know, that politicians will dole out Other People's Money to people who don't necessarily need it. Recall that maximum income for SCHIP benefits is 300% of the poverty line. Because you do not realize the state monstrosity you are advocating, "moron" is a very applicable term to you.
If you want to help, then establish your charity to help poor families with health care costs and encourage others to donate. Or strike a deal with a doctor that if you give him $X, he'll give a certain number of hours each week for free treatment of poor families.
"I am an objectivist (on the board of TAS and decent size donor also to ARI if that counts for anything). I would vote for no subsidy. I do believe any redistribution that's not voluntary is theft. But I'm trying not to fight every battle in every place.TAS being what? I know the ARI, in fact someone of some status there, and I can also say this: you are not an Objectivist. If you don't accept all of Rand's principles, including liberty without compromise because it's based on principles, then you have no right to call yourself an Objectivist.
"There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody's ideas. Provided that you give appropriate credit, you can make any mixture of ideas that you want; the contradiction will be yours. But why do you need the name of someone (or their philosophy) with whom you do not agree in order to spread your misunderstandings - or worse, your nonsense and falsehoods?"
You evidently have no principles. You're willing to sell them out because it's easier to do something this way.
What I suggest in this article would be a far better system with the growth of the state far smaller and clearer than what's being suggested by Dems or Republicans.Read my first comment again, the last paragraph where I talk about "efficiency" not making something necessarily moral or just. You're talking about making criminal acts more efficient. You claim that you believe involuntary redistribution is theft, but why do you want to make that more efficient? You should want to stop it dead in its tracks.
Zyclone B was pretty damn efficient too, do you disagree?
We can argue how much of a subsidy (including our preferred zero) later. But first we need to get people to understand some of the basics (which my article tries to do).Actually, we can argue "how much of a subsidy" now: zero. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 3, 2010 11:55 PM
No, Perry, I am not allowing them to turn up the heat a little -- It's about 170F in my pot and I am trying to get them to turn it down.
Equalization of the tax treatment for health plans, interstate purchase of insurance and expanded health savings accounts would have a huge effect on health care. Yet none of those explicitly changes the balance of subsidy or the distribution of payment between producers and leeches.
My point (and I'm guessing Asness's) is that we can concentrate of correcting those structural imbalances without at the same time perusing the reduction of subsidies that we'd all prefer.
Lastly, to be clear, I was not summarizing your position pejoratively, I was seeking to remove that arrow from the quiver of the collectivists.
How do you think you'll "get them to turn it down" when your compromises are only turning the temperature up? That's exactly what you're doing, you know. Every time you'll accept something "because the alternative is full-blown socialized medicine is another expansion. Smaller, yes, but it's still a few degrees hotter.
"Equalization of the tax treatment for health plans,"
But by that you've clearly stated that everyone should pay taxes on insurance -- why not the other way around? Should all rape victims be penetrated as the one most violated?
"interstate purchase of insurance and expanded health savings accounts would have a huge effect on health care."
These are a good start, I don't deny that, but they are not enough. The government needs to get the hell out -- completely.
"Yet none of those explicitly changes the balance of subsidy or the distribution of payment between producers and leeches."
And that is precisely why each compromise, even though it may appear to be on the side of individual liberty, will not work.
"My point (and I'm guessing Asness's) is that we can concentrate of correcting those structural imbalances without at the same time perusing the reduction of subsidies that we'd all prefer."
There was a great classic Trek episode about two warring planets. They set up a pretty efficient system of electronic warfare so that neither planet would experience infrastructural destruction. People just had to be good citizens and report for obliteration after the computers calculated their "deaths" from successful simulated attacks. Clearly this was more efficient than real war, but it still didn't make it better. People will get used so used to the "efficiency" that they'll forget and consequently stop demanding their God-given rights to something better.
Kirk's solution was to destroy the computers. Without the electronic "compromise," both sides realized that it was either peace or death. There was no in-between choice that would allow them to get accustomed to what they should abhor and therefore fight against.
"Lastly, to be clear, I was not summarizing your position pejoratively, I was seeking to remove that arrow from the quiver of the collectivists."
I know, and we both know you know me well enough that I know you wouldn't misrepresent me. But collectivists do deliberately misrepresent, using a hundred different strawmen, and we must start calling them out on it.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 4, 2010 11:19 PMFebruary 24, 2010
Quote of the Day
Well, if Hitler, Hennessey and Hoyer are right, then in a couple of months the partisans on the left are going to be ramping it up from angry to screaming mad, after they are teased, led on, and frustrated all over again. -- Jim Glass at Scrivener.net
Rivaling Extreme Mortman's famous Send Hoyers, Guns and Money,
Posted by: jk at February 25, 2010 10:59 AMThe Master
Michael Barone: Obama's nanny care insults the American spirit
You are victims. You are helpless against the wiles of big corporations and insurance companies and you need protection. You need the government to take over and do things you cannot do for yourself.That is the thinking of what David Brooks calls "the educated class" that favors the Democrats' health care bills. Members of this elite spout tales of woe of people denied coverage or care with the implication that there but for the grace of government go you. So sign on and the government will take care of everything.
We try to distill arguments down to their original essence around here. Michael Barone is good at this (as well as many other things). His "Hard Amerce, Soft America" is just such a distillation.
I'm glad to see him call out David Brooks in the second 'graph here. Many are looking for politicians to exhibit purer principle, I'd like to see some of the elitist establishment conservative pundits like George Will, David Brooks and Peggy Noonan take down a peg or 16.
February 23, 2010
Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead
She's not only merely dead, she's really most sincerely dead!
With apologies to EY Harburg, who would have championed government health care, the lyrics seem apt: Rep Steny Hoyer is breaking the news.
AP: WASHINGTON – Democratic congressional leaders confronted the reality Tuesday that they may not be able to pass the comprehensive health care overhaul sought by President Barack Obama. Republican leaders prepared to do everything in their power to make sure they can't.Democrats saw the sweeping health bill that Obama unveiled ahead of a bipartisan health care summit Thursday as their last, best chance at a top-to-bottom remake of the nation's health care system that would usher in near-universal health coverage. But some were clear-eyed about the difficulties after a year of corrosive debate and the loss of their filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate.
Damn, I thought you meant perhaps breaking news about a California senator...
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 23, 2010 9:36 PMDon't get my hopes up, Perry - plus, you'd have to specify which one. And don't forget a California Speaker of the House.
Perhaps a list would be in order.
That being said, there's an order of magnitude between "may not be able to pass" and "the wooden stake has been driven through its heart and we've burned the dismembered remnants with fire." I've learned never to start carving names into tombstones 'till the body's in the ground...
Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 24, 2010 11:02 AMI'd rather beat her at the polls!
Yes, Keith, this was meant to be a bold display of blogging bravado. I have been cautions up 'till yesterday (and I still don't for a second believe AGW is going away).
But my friend Perry would tell me to examine the source. And it's Steny Freakin' Hoyer! Ding Dong indeedy!
I'm not ready to uncross my fingers yet, JK. This is an idiological battle. If Obama/Reid/Pelosi can use a procedural trick to pass the bills, they will do it. I think they would all gladly lose control of both houses in the next election in trade for passage of a program that will forever cement socialized medicine, and therefore long-term Democrat advantage, into the fabric of our nation. If a few Blue Dogs get tossed in the street, well, they had it comin'.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 24, 2010 12:39 PMProb'ly right. I'm just walkin' on sunshine today.
John Fund calls it 15%:
The best health-care analysts I know say Democrats have perhaps a 15% chance of threading the needle and getting a comprehensive bill signed into law. But even that success could be costly politically if voters came to believe Democrats had ignored the public's feelings and rammed through a bill anyway. The most recent surveys show that 61% of the American people want Democrats to put aside the existing bills and start over.
Yes the Speaker is all in, but some of her caucus like their jobs.
Posted by: jk at February 24, 2010 1:00 PM
That's true, JK, there's a third I missed. Wouldn't matter much to me who -- merely hearing bad news about one would make my day.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 25, 2010 9:32 AMQuote of the Day
"The President's Proposal," as the 11-page White House document is headlined, is in one sense a notable achievement: It manages to take the worst of both the House and Senate bills and combine them into something more destructive. It includes more taxes, more subsidies and even less cost control than the Senate bill. And it purports to fix the special-interest favors in the Senate bill not by eliminating them—but by expanding them to everyone. -- WSJ Ed PageUPDATE: Professor Mankiw is not really on board either:
Very, very strange. You would think that all those future Nobel-prize-winning economists working for the President would explain to him the history and economics of government price controls. Imposing price controls certainly wasn't President Nixon's finest hour.Maybe President Obama should instead follow in President Ford's footsteps and start wearing a WHINE button on his lapel, for Whip Healthcare Inflation Now, Egads!
Feckless would be one step better than counterproductive.
February 22, 2010
Seen This Before
ObamaCare 2,0: Obama Unveils His Future Vision of Better Health Insurance Through Price Controls
Heh. Hat-tip: John Stossel (Commenter, actually.)
February 9, 2010
We're All Keynesians Now...
If you didn't have enough reasons to dislike President Nixon (EPA, anybody?) -- he had a peculiar take on the laws of supply and demand.
President Nixon signed the CON law because he thought America had too many hospitals. He thought decreasing the number would lower health care costs. But that was ridiculous economics. Limiting the number of suppliers raises costs.
This is from a nice John Stossel post explaining that we don't really have a free market in health care at all. To build a hospital, you have to prove need.
We're all complete morons now, more like it...
February 8, 2010
Crisis Me This.
John Stossel points out that, while Reuters grimly intones "Heart disease 'will kill 400,000 Americans in 2010'" they don't mention:
.
Or:
January 29, 2010
Speaking of Health Care...
Don't make the mistake of believing the Health Care Bill is dead. They're still trying to give us the same problems that Canadians have. But in Canada they're way ahead of us. They're already figuring out innovative ways around the socialized medicine scheme, with its 4 month waits for an MRI and 8 month waits to remove a brain tumor as shown in this YouTube video. KOA Radio's Jon Caldera, he of the Colorado Constitutional Reform Initiative, interviewed [audio link] Canadian Rick Baker of Canada's Timely Medical Alternatives and they discussed a specific case with the wait times I mentioned earlier. The conclusion they reached was that, while Canada has Universal Health Care Coverage the U.S. has Universal Health Care Treatment. This is because in Canada it is against the law to pay for private medical treatment - so many of them come here to spend their money. And it's damned affordable to boot. Baker quoted the customary price for a heart bypass procedure in the U.S. when billed to an insurer at $80,000 to $120,000. His cash client paid $16,000. Mister President! Mister President!
Here are the latest fees and wait times published on Timely's home page-
Thanks for the great segue. We have been trying to acquire an amazing new therapeutic device for my darling bride.
It has been eight weeks of forms and tough slogging: dispiriting as the treatment has shown such promise. The other day, it was formally denied by Insurance (enjoy it while you can, boys...)
I'm kidding, of course, but not kidding that as soon as I gave them a credit card number, this lethargic process sped up pretty quickly: "Can we FedEx it to Erie for Saturday delivery Mister Kranz?"
Too little attention is given to the empowerment that patients would feel if they were truly customers -- and how much less when the are, like UK and Canadian subjects, just tasks.
Try Googling It, Mr. President
John Stossel's suggestion. I would never speak to the President in such tones.
Stossel links to Peter Suderman's Reason piece with the less imperative headline:
"Here, Obama, Let Me Google Some Health-Care Reform Alternatives For You"
Suderman provides links to a few good alternative suggestions on health care reform. For a President who said "If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."
Yeah, like you can really believe anything you read on the internet.
Posted by: johngalt at January 29, 2010 2:43 PMThe devil will tell you a thousand truths to slip in one lie. Obama is so brazen that he'll say two nice things to imply that the next three are also good:
"bring down premiums"
How many times have we mentioned that the feds should stop infringing on the freedom of people to buy policies from across state lines?
"bring down the deficit"
Seriously, it's an easy thing to do after quadrupling it. You could keep it at 390% of previous levels and still claim you reduced it.
"cover the uninsured"
Why? When I was single, I was uninsured and wanted it that way. Like lots of younger people, it wasn't worth spending money on insurance I wouldn't use. I paid for doctor bills and prescriptions out of pocket.
"strengthen Medicare for seniors"
Why should I want to strengthen a program that is designed to make me pay for others?
"and stop insurance company abuses"
If you don't like what your insurance company is giving you, then stop f------ doing business with it. This is a lion chasing down a gazelle, but only with permission.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 31, 2010 9:39 PMJanuary 21, 2010
218 - N for Nonzero, Positive Values of N
Pelosi: House lacks votes to OK Senate health bill
WASHINGTON – Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she lacks the votes to quickly move the Senate's sweeping health overhaul bill through the House, a potentially devastating blow to President Barack Obama's signature issue.
You're Next, Senator Bennet!
Senator Bennet:I donated a small amount of money to Scott Brown's candidacy in Massachusetts and was extremely happy to see him win.
I respectfully suggest that you represent your constituency and vote against health care when it returns to the Senate from conference.
And I would also ask that you join Senator Webb in insisting that no significant vote takes place before Senator-elect Brown is seated.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
January 20, 2010
From the Rally
I busted into jg's post to add a link to Colorado rally videos. But this one needs an embed, Neurosurgeon Sanat Dixit:
January 19, 2010
Constitutional Ban on Obamacare
On deck for Colorado: "A ballot initiative to amend the Colorado Constitution to exempt Colorado from Obama Care."
Thank you Independence Institute!
UPDATE (from jk): Interviews/videos from the rally!
I presume to speak for the bunch of us when I say, well, silly us for pointing out that trite part about "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..." The name "United States" means, of course, the national government and not the nation.
GWB said it correctly, albeit for the wrong reason. The Constitution IS just a goddamn piece of paper, because it can be ignored. That's part of why I don't believe in it anymore.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 19, 2010 7:57 PMWhen it is disregarded, it is hard to believe, Perry. And yet, for the first half of our country's existence, it protected liberties quite well -- at least liberties of those who it was written to protect. Even into the Early 20th, it guided Taft, Harding and Coolidge.
It put some brakes on FDR and provided a legal foundation to Loving v Virginia, Beck v Communication Workers, and most recently CD v Heller.
All of which encourages me to say that when we follow it, it is a very good system of governance. I don't know how we'd ever get that train back on the track (toothpaste and tube being a better comparison). But if I started a new nation today, I would happily take the US Constitution as a legal foundation. I have seen none better.
January 17, 2010
Most Motivated Votahs. Evah.
Insty links to Boston Conservative Talk Show Host (and you thought you had a rough job!) Michael Graham's blog post "Brown Supporters: The Most Motivated Voters Ever?" I corrected the spelling in my title to provide regional flair.
I ran campaigns for six years, and I’ve been watching campaigns for years more, and I’ve never seen the “We’ve got to win this race” attitude from regular voters like I’m seeing for Scott Brown.In a typical campaign, the hardest part is getting people to actually do things—show up at events, make phone calls, etc. They all talk a good game, but what you usually end up with is a hard core group of activists begging folks just to put a sign in their yards. That’s why money is so important—so campaigns can pay people to do the work. Even Obama had to use money to get his “community activist” campaign off the ground in early 2008.
Scott Brown is having the opposite problem. People are begging for stuff to do, and the campaign can’t keep up with the demand. On Saturday, driving between Ashland and Littleton, I saw more people displaying home made signs than printed ones.
I'm daring to believe. A squeaker, we must remember, is a strong signal to legislators with purpler constituencies. A win would be the biggest stand for freedom since they tore town the Berlin Wall.
January 13, 2010
So, How's That Reconciliation Thingy Working Out?
Jimmy P suggests, not so well, lining to Igor Volsky:
- Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY): “Normally you’re just dealing with the Senate and they talk about 60 votes and you listen to them and cave in, but this is entirely different,” he said. “I’m telling you that never has 218 been so important to me in the House.”- Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY): “We keep hearing them squeal like pigs in the Senate that they had a tough time getting to 60,” Weiner said. “Well, it wasn’t particularly a picnic for us to get to 218. Generally speaking, the Senate kabuki dance has lost its magic on those of us in the House.”
- Rep. Pete Defazio (D-OR): “They only got two votes to spare in the House. I think this will be a tougher negotiation than they think.”
Well, I'll be. Satan's house* really is divided against itself and cannot stand. Warms the very cockles of my heart.
* With apologies to Matthew 12; I'm being liberal in applying this to both the House and the Senate.
Posted by: Keith at January 13, 2010 3:06 PMJanuary 7, 2010
Lost the Post, Lost CNN
The normally solidly Democratic Denver Post Ed Page:
Despite repeated promises of transparency by Obama and Democratic leaders, the House and Senate will forgo the usual approach of combining bills through a conference committee, which would allow for floor debate and television coverage, and instead craft a compromise behind closed doors.Democrats say Republicans, who have rejected the plan, could otherwise filibuster the process, delaying negotiations and the legislation.
But Democratic leaders even rejected a request from C-SPAN to allow cameras to capture the important negotiations. That's an outrage
Et tu CNN?
Jon Stewart is even better than Jack. 'nuff said!
Posted by: Jim Glass at January 8, 2010 6:20 PM
Jeez, Jim could you issue fainter praise?
The question is: if Obama's lost "Jack", has he lost the middle of the country? Even if he has, I'm afraid our Senators have all designed Daschle-parachutes for themselves, such that the money & the hours will be better once they're freed from elected office to become true, trough-feeders! As such, all this is for naught, and we're gonna get Ried's healthcare rammed down our throats, to the delight of the lawyers & lobbyists.
I really hope this genie can be mostly put back in it's bottle....
Posted by: nanobrewer at January 9, 2010 12:08 PM"Rammed down our throats" is right, but it's better than the alternative - shoved up our Barney Frank.
Posted by: johngalt at January 9, 2010 3:33 PMAs maybe the only Obama voter around here I will say it, maybe not completely lost, but getting close. I am cynical enough to have not taken all his specific campaign pledges too seriously, but his track record is getting ridiculous, he can't even end the don't ask don't tell policy? The health care posturing (I refuse to call it a debate) pits Pelosi and Reid and cohorts who are more interested in appearing to be doing something grand than actually doing something useful against flamethrowers talking about killing granny. Really, how many of those pull the plug shouters actually have a DNR clause in their will? I do, and so do millions of Americans, many of us have already made our decisions about what we wish to define our end of life. Holding up support until regulations are put in place to prohibit use of federal health care funds for abortion? Really, in the huge issue that is health care and all its possible negative ramifications that is the best you could come up with?
Posted by: Silence Dogood at January 10, 2010 11:28 AMJanuary 6, 2010
Watch It Again
Yup, everybody's posting this, and yup, I did not bother to watch because I have seen it before. But Allahpundit says " Lies this shameless, especially from the lips of our modern-day Lincoln-Jesus, must be cherished." And he has got a point.
Bonus, web-only feature. Follow the Hot Air link to see Robert Gibbs actually face some tough questions on this.
It's a classic like "Gone with the Wind" or "Wizard of Oz." Who can get tired of watching it? Someday, it may get released in IMAX or 3D.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 6, 2010 7:18 PMEmpty promise of the first order, but who really thinks televising the grandstanding and posturing over small clauses in a 2000 page piece of junk legislation is really going to improve it? There has been 9 months in which to bring out real debate and we get "kill granny". Pardon me if I don't think 5 minutes of C-Span coverage allowed by Democrat controlled conference rules will be used to voice real issues versus party platitudes.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at January 10, 2010 11:50 AMJanuary 2, 2010
We're All Huskers Now!
"Call off the Dogs!" says the deeply deliberative Senator Ben Nelson. Who stood up to his own party in a matter of deep conscience until the Senate Bill made provisions about Federal funding of abortions gave his State $100 Million. You know the guy I'm talking about -- another Damn Webster if I ever saw one!
The "dogs" in this instance being 13 state attorneys general who were suing against the "Cornhusker Kickback." Senator Webst -- I mean Nelson, said that it would be fixed.
How would the kickback be fixed? The memo explains: "Senator Nelson said it would be 'fixed' by extending the Cornhusker Kickback (100% federal payment) on Medicaid to every state."
In no time, we'll all be drinking free bubble up and eatin' rainbow stew!
Hat-tip: Instapundit
December 28, 2009
Elections Matter
Sprint showed us what it would look like "If Firefighters Ran the World."
Senators Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Richard Durbin and Christopher Dodd show us what would happen "If the Mafia Ran the World."
Problem is, the Sprint ad was hypothetical and the Senate's actions are all too real. It can legitimately be argued that the Democrat party has become a full-fledged criminal syndicate. Just listen to Judge Napolitano.
Is what we are seeing today much different than if a majority of Mafioso had been elected to Congress?
jg: that's SO not true. If the Mafia ran the Federal legislature, they'd be running it at a profit.
Ha.
Posted by: Keith at December 28, 2009 2:37 PMNot to mention that whatever you kick up would be far less than current taxes...
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at December 28, 2009 2:54 PMPerry: great point. I hear that, since Red China is no longer buying our T-bills, one of the administrations went down to the docks last night to borrow a few trillion dollars from a guy. The guy turned him down, saying that Uncle Sam couldn't afford the vig.
Posted by: Keith at December 28, 2009 2:58 PMYou think congressmen aren't profiting from their activities? Why else you think they do this "thankless" job - benevolence?!
I know you were joshin' but all kidding aside, the analogy fits like a glove.
Posted by: johngalt at December 28, 2009 4:07 PMIf the analogy fits, you must aquits...
Posted by: jk at December 28, 2009 4:28 PMMeet Your New Nurse!
Am I racist to post this because this particular, brain-dead, corrupt Union thug happens to be of African descent? You decide.
The teamsters are blockading blood donations at the Red Cross in Philadelphia (home to a certain football team). But, compassionate lot that dey is, dey did allow one shipment to go through to save the life of a two-year old. But the rest of youse? Dey got grievances!
I cannot even continue. Read Liberty Chick's post on BigGovernment (from whence I lifted the picture), then John Stossel's take.
When we have a union disgruntled over a pay freeze that has resorted to blocking a blood donation delivery, on its way to save the life of a 2-year old child, from reaching a hospital, we have a problem. When we have unions that control the majority of health care, home care, nursing home care, child care, pharmacy, radiology, and public workers in this country, we will have a catastrophe. -- Liberty Chick
Are you racist to post this? If you'd said "At last it can be told where the 'Bloods' got their name; now explain the 'Crips,'" then maybe. (Blood bank - pretty funny what I did there, huh?)
Otherwise, I vote no.
Posted by: Keith at December 28, 2009 2:42 PMDecember 24, 2009
Collectivism in the Heath Care Bill
I know you're all shocked. Stick with me a minute.
In a superb guest editorial in the WSJ, Dr, Scott Gottlieb provides a comprehensive enumeration of reasons that the current Senate bill is bad for physicians and providers. Most will not be a surprise, but I had not seen this little gem before:
Next, the plan creates financial incentives for doctors to consolidate their practices. The idea here is that Medicare can more easily apply its regulations to institutions that manage large groups of doctors than it can to individual physicians. So the Obama plan imposes new costs on doctors who remain solo, mostly by increasing their overhead requirements—such as requiring three years of medical records every time a doctor orders routine medical equipment like wheelchairs.The plan also offers doctors financial carrots if they give up their small practices and consolidate into larger medical groups, or become salaried employees of large institutions such as hospitals or "staff model" medical plans like Kaiser Permanente. One provision, laid out in Section 3022, allows doctors to share with the government any savings to the government they achieve by delivering less care—but only if physicians are part of groups caring for more than 5,000 Medicare patients and "have in place a leadership and management structure, including with regard to clinical and administrative systems."
Round 'em all up so they are easier to control! These are Doctors we are talking about.
Consolidation has a great track record in business and is important. But no serious person ever claimed it improved innovation. Our new medical overlords are so considered somebody will discover a new treatment that costs money.
December 23, 2009
Two More Months of Freedom?
Politico’s Mike Allen and Alexander Trowbridge have some bad news for Democrats, especially in the Senate, where Harry Reid has kept the chamber locked in battle over ObamaCare for weeks in an attempt to hit the finish line by Christmas. Barack Obama plans to put the health-care overhaul on the back burner until after the State of the Union address, pushing any conference between the House and Senate off until February. Instead, Obama plans a “hard pivot” towards jobs and the economy.
Let him screw up jobs and teh economy for awhile, that sounds far less dangerous.
Funny Gub'mint Account -- Mai Non!
James Pethokoukis points out: "On this double-counting issue, I dont know if this will pan out. But if it does, boom goes the dynamite."
The key point is that the savings to the HI trust fund under the PPACA would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs. Trust fund accounting shows the magnitude of the savings within the trust fund, and those savings indeed improve the solvency of that fund; however, that accounting ignores the burden that would be faced by the rest of the government later in redeeming the bonds held by the trust fund.
One tires of saying it but: if they did this at Enron, there'd be jail time...
The FoxNews.com story is here.
Republicans, emboldened by a new letter from the Congressional Budget Office, accused Democrats on Wednesday of "Bernie Madoff accounting" for double counting the savings from Medicare as a means to pay for the Senate health care bill.
I took a quick look through "all 12,634 news articles" on the same subject and only this one referred to the "double-counting" letter. Said letter from CBO director Elmendorf, by the way, is linked at the bottom of the FNC article.
Posted by: johngalt at December 23, 2009 1:16 PMAwesome quote, Keith -- I forwarded it to Jimi P.
Posted by: jk at December 23, 2009 1:19 PMCut 'em some slack, jg, they had their whole staff fact checking Sarah Pain's political puff book. Can't do everything y'know.
Posted by: jk at December 23, 2009 1:20 PMAnd that's another thing - What does it say that with all those "fact checkers" reviewing her book the best attack the progressive media can mount against Palin is Visorgate?
Posted by: johngalt at December 23, 2009 1:27 PMI thought the Social Security "trust fund" farce was bad enough. It's a form of double-counting because those bonds will also have to be redeemed eventually. Meanwhile, surpluses are used to mask the current deficit while future obligations are merely on another ledger (and so are not reckoned against any year's budget). Are we surprised the feds didn't stop there?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at December 23, 2009 1:37 PMKen Shepherd of Newsbusters.org tweets; "WaPo devoted 19 staffers to today's Style frontpager on the Salahis. Why not put that much energy into detailing crap in health care bill?"
Posted by: jk at December 23, 2009 2:39 PMQuote of the Day
Duquesne Light carries extra weight here because health-insurance industries are far from natural monopolies, so that regulating their rates calls for an extra dollop of judicial scrutiny. At this point, the Reid bill is on a collision course with the Constitution. I take it for granted that, constitutionally, the federal government could not just require all private health insurers to liquidate tomorrow, without compensation. -- Richard Epstein
Sigh, I've had the pleasure of meeting Epstein (and having a chance to talk about a paper of his that I discovered preceded an idea I had) and know he's brilliant, but he's so naive here, and also wrong.
Fine, so the federal government will compensate insurers (rather, their owners) for being driven out of business. How will that be done? The people, whether through taxation or the Federal Reserve monetizing more debt. This isn't, as Lenin said, capitalists selling the rope that will be used to hang them. This is Nazis making us dig our own graves.
It's such a lose-lose situation that the best we could hope for is that insurance company owners will be paid out based on crashed stock prices. That means, on top of all the destroyed wealth, our taxes will not have to increase as much, or the Fed won't print as many new dollars, to compensate us for any shares we might own. Lots of people, via 401Ks and regular mutual fund holdings, have shares of publicly traded insurance companies that they don't know about.
Now, Epstein mentions "the constitutional guarantee that all regulated industries have to a reasonable, risk-adjusted, rate of return on their invested capital." And where is that? None of that phrasing exists in the Constitution. The only argument toward such a notion is merely interpretation, based on the takings and equal protections clauses.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at December 23, 2009 2:08 PMI did not read Epstein's position as being as benign toward this as you saw it. I will go through it again.
What interested me was the backdrop of precedent for such a takeover and how the current Health Care Bill seems far outside it.
I submit, for your approval, the closing line as an alternate QOTD:
The Supreme Court should apply the constitutional brakes to this foolhardy scheme if Congress doesn't come to its senses first.Posted by: jk at December 23, 2009 2:21 PM
I wasn't thinking he was "benign," just naive in the part about, "constitutionally, the federal government could not just require all private health insurers to liquidate tomorrow, without compensation." Even if that happened, what's the actual consequence? The people have to pony up the money.
I like your closing better, but I don't trust Kennedy to, you know, follow the document he's sworn to uphold. Remember his vote on the Kelo case? Yes, it's called a "decision," but it was still a vote like any other.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at December 23, 2009 4:02 PMDecember 22, 2009
The Best Health Care Bill Money Can Buy
Lining up at the trough after the slop has been poured -- are they not?
Nelson Says More Senators Seeking Special Treatment in Light of Nebraska DealNebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, who has faced a heap of criticism for appearing to trade his vote on health care for millions in federal Medicaid money, said he's considering asking that the Nebraska deal be stripped from the bill. But he said other senators are looking for special treatment in light of his success.
Hat-tip: @JimPethokoukis
I usually avoid FNC's Greta VanSustern. Her show is routinely the tabloid segment of the evening. But I give her credit for her guests, her commentary and her interviews during this healthcare debate. Last night she had Nebraska's governor on [video here] and they discussed how he had called Senator Nelson's bluff on removing the Nebraska Windfall from the bill:
Governor Dave Heineman joins us live. Governor, so will you be asking Senator Ben Nelson to tell the Senate that you guys don't -- Nebraska doesn't want that $100 million? Are you going to ask him to do that?Posted by: johngalt at December 23, 2009 1:36 PMGOV. DAVE HEINEMAN, R - NEB.: Well, we've already made it clear, Greta, we want all these special deals removed. In fact, this afternoon, our other United States senator, Senator Mike Johanns, introduced an amendment to strip all of the special interest deals from this bill, and the Democrats objected! That is really unfortunate. All these special deals should be removed from the bill.
AP Speaks Truth!
Constitutional? What's That?
Give the 111th Congress props for one very difficult feat: they are making GOP Senators look really, really good.
DeMint and Ensign have forced a new vote:
The Senate on Wednesday will have to take an unplanned vote on whether the Democratic health care proposal is constitutional.Sens. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and John Ensign, R-Nev., on Tuesday raised a point of order against the legislation on behalf of a caucus of conservative senators.
Ensign said the bill violates individual freedom of choice by requiring people to purchase health insurance or be subjected to fines and penalties
Well done guys and gals! Strictly procedural, but a good --nay, great -- marker to lay down.
He Hate Me
Capturing my thoughts in the wake of the Nebraska (and Louisiana and Vermont and Massachusetts and Connecticut and NEVADA) windfalls.
love it. nice XFL connection.
Posted by: AlexC at December 22, 2009 5:27 PMDecember 21, 2009
A great WSJ Editorial
Coals to Newcastle. But I break my Facebook pledge against politics again with this comprehensive argument against the Health Care bill and current partisan tactics.
I highly recommend everybody's sharing it with a few people who will dislike it.
I'll even give them a Quote of the Day:
Even in World War I there was a Christmas truce.The rushed, secretive way that a bill this destructive and unpopular is being forced on the country shows that "reform" has devolved into the raw exercise of political power for the single purpose of permanently expanding the American entitlement state. An increasing roll of leaders in health care and business are looking on aghast at a bill that is so large and convoluted that no one can truly understand it, as Finance Chairman Max Baucus admitted on the floor last week. The only goal is to ram it into law while the political window is still open, and clean up the mess later.
That is a great editorial, and reading it makes one wonder why every voice in the land is not screaming NOOO! Talk radio America is understandably pissed, of course. But in the gigantic gulf that is the most bitterly divided electorate in U.S. history, we have the likes of this from another newspaper in the same town: A Bill Well Worth Passing. No wonder only 51% of public opinion is against it.
Posted by: johngalt at December 22, 2009 8:07 AMThanks for the link. I didn't realize this:
Despite all the exaggerated Republican rhetoric that the bill will lead to fiscal disaster, it has been carefully and responsibly drafted so that it is fully paid for without busting future budgets.
Hey, if it's good enough for the NY Times...
Posted by: jk at December 22, 2009 1:07 PM
S'pose the NYT Ed page ever used the words "carefully" or "responsibly" during the eight years of the Bush administration? Me neither. But the current administration and congress are apparently now deserving of those adverbs because ...
Posted by: johngalt at December 22, 2009 2:55 PMStatistically, the Giants have one great thing going for them -- the Broncos have a knack for beating the champs in the regular season, even when we have a miserable year. In '68, we beat Namath's Jets, we beat the Pats and Colts recently in their championship years. I'd say y'all are on the way!
Posted by: jk at December 22, 2009 3:22 PMMilitia Time!
Thanks to Senator Sheldon Whitehose for giving the opposition a viable plan:
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) today took shots at those who are not supporting the health care legislation. During a floor speech, he excoriated Senate GOP members for up holding the pending health care bill and accused their supporters of being birthers and fanatics in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups. He started off by citing an editorial from the Manchester Journal Inquirer, which used insults like "lunatic fringe.":
Looking like armed revolt may be our best plan...
Hat-tip: Instapundit
I've been asking - how many times now? - at what point we're at the Concord Bridge. Perhaps in our next Constitution, we'll add some language about forbidding the involuntary redistribution of wealth by government, along with banning bills being written in secret and voted on during the dark of night.
Posted by: Keith at December 21, 2009 11:57 AM"... in our next Constitution?" The present one forbids most of the evils of big government. And yet, here we are.
The reliance upon SCOTUS to render a Constitutionality judgement effectively absolves the congress from having to even consider the question. "Are you serious? Are you serious!?"
Just enact the thing and live with what the pragmatic Court will let you get away with, years and thousands of billable attorney hours later.
The only thing that kept past congresses and administrations from doing what we see today was conscience and honor.
Posted by: johngalt at December 21, 2009 3:17 PMjohngalt, you capture my frame of mind full and proper. But for a few of the Amendments (regarding the direct election of Senators and direct Federal taxation, f'rinstance), I like our present Constitution a lot. The problem is, it's not obeyed.
Truth be told, I was also channeling the last few pages of Atlas Shrugged, which I had really hoped you would have caught - given your nom de plume.
What's becoming painfully clear to me is that there are multiple components necessary to preserving the Republic: a Constitution as good as ours, a Federal government that will govern in accord with that Constitution, and an educated voting populace willing to hold that Federal government accountable for governing the way thye Constitution says. Many have said that our Imperial Congress disregards the Constitution entirely, but we also have an electorate that keeps sending the Barney Franks and the Nancy Pelosis and the Ted Kennedys (well, okay, Ted Kennedy's not getting re-elected this go-round without a crystal ball and a ouija board) back to their annointed posts. Constitution be damned, the people have figured out how to vote themselves the public treasury. Thank the unwashed 52% for that one, though this goes back at least to FDR's days.
I'm out of solutions. I'm not convinced that the 2010 or 2012 elections will be honest. See this, for example:
http://nicedoggie.net/index.php/archives/3776
If the voters do not or cannot right this, then the sole remaining options become armed revolution, secession, or sitting back and accepting it. That last one is the least appealing.
Posted by: Keith at December 21, 2009 4:05 PMDecember 19, 2009
It's Time
Likely past time. But Senator Cornyn offers a site that allows you send an email to seven Senators -- including my illustrious Senator Bennet.
I sent the mails and made a small gift. If any ThreeSources felt they could join me:
Your message was sent to:
Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln Senator Michael F. Bennet Senator Evan Bayh Senator Byron L. Dorgan Senator Ben Nelson Senator Arlen Specter Senator Jim WebbI have Multiple Sclerosis and my wife is recovering from a stroke.
Both of us need advances in treatment and therapy that will be severely impeded by this bill.
I would support interstate purchase of insurance, normalization of tax status between employers and individuals, and would consider a well structured plan to aid those who cannot acquire or afford insurance.
The current package does none of this. It will drive up government costs and taxes -- and make future health care worse.
Please vote NO! (I especially urge Senator Bennet because I live in Colorado).
December 18, 2009
Why "Jump?"
Kim Strassel notes that "Barack Obama emerged from his meeting with Senate Democrats this week to claim Congress was on the 'precipice' of something historic." (Roger Kimball suggests "precipice" instead of "threshold" as a Freudian slip.)
The polls are bad and getting worse, but Strassel offers what I fear to be the real reason so many will jump:
So why the stubborn insistence on passing health reform? Think big. The liberal wing of the party -- the Barney Franks, the David Obeys -- are focused beyond November 2010, to the long-term political prize. They want a health-care program that inevitably leads to a value-added tax and a permanent welfare state. Big government then becomes fact, and another Ronald Reagan becomes impossible. See Continental Europe.The entitlement crazes of the 1930s and 1960s also caused a backlash, but liberal Democrats know the programs of those periods survived. They are more than happy to sacrifice a few Blue Dogs, a Blanche Lincoln, a Michael Bennet, if they can expand government so that in the long run it benefits the party of government.
Should I congratulate them for principle? Strassel compliments my
Yes, Senator, you've got to break some eggs to make an omelet, don't you?
Here's hoping the good citizens of Colorado break his eggs next November.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at December 18, 2009 12:10 PMGood lord, I hate this ridiculous use of "historic." Every time some politician or spinmeister uses it, it's merely empty rhetoric to imply something is good.
Hitler invading various European countries was "historic." Russia and China starving millions of their people was "historic." Fourteen thousand French dying in a heat wave was "historic." Now hundreds of millions of Americans subjected to rationed socialized medicine will be "historic."
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at December 18, 2009 12:15 PMI like to make omelets with the "magic bullet," a small infomercial high speed blender that subjects eggs to 600,000,000 RPM rotating knives until fluffy.
Metaphorical image implanted? Good: Jane Norton 2010!
Posted by: jk at December 18, 2009 12:39 PMCommenters appear to be missing the point of the article. Sure Bennet will lose his job. Dems expect him to be defeated in 2010. But once the insidious health care entitlement has worked its rotten magic on the will of the electorate the Democrat "party of government" can celebrate an even stronger urge to "vote for thems what took kare of usn's."
This is the looming gambit for 21st century America, and therefore the world: Do a plurality of Americans want to be sheeple, or the last best hope for man on Earth? It's clear what the Democrats think the answer is.
P.S. Here's the Kim Strassel missing link - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704238104574602232786471914.html
Posted by: johngalt at December 19, 2009 5:48 PM
Y'all are missing the point: the Dems are busy making themselves parachutes with D-A-S-C-H-L-E spelled across the tops! Who needs a job in the Senate when you can become a healthcare-civil-servant for life (or better: a lobbyist for same!). I feel verrrry badly for this....
It will take a true conservative landslide and some powerful leadership like we've not seen in a decade, to tear down what's being built into this bill.
Posted by: nanobrewer at December 20, 2009 12:18 AMNo, not missing the point (though I did have the link wrong - thanks, jg (since corrected).
I would prefer a "No" vote to an electoral landslide any day of the week, but a consolation prize is a consolation prize.
Dark. Damn. Days. And I don't mean the Solstice.
December 17, 2009
Evolution to Extinction
Sanctimonious progressives ridicule social conservatives for refusing to acknowledge the validity of the theory of evolution. Too bad they are too dense to see the obvious parallel with their refusal to acknowledge the lessons of history. But IBD's Michael Ramirez sees it.
I thought they all died in the Ice Age. These dinosaurs oughta stay away from the Gore Effect:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/03/gore-effect-strikes-again-giant-dc.html
December 16, 2009
Kill the Bill!
Tipping point? Status Quo was a pejorative term last week:
NBC/WSJ Poll:
As the Senate sprints to pass a health-care bill by Christmas, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that those believing President Obama's health-reform plan is a good idea has sunk to its lowest level.Just 32 percent say it's a good idea, versus 47 percent who say it's a bad idea.
In addition, for the first time in the survey, a plurality prefers the status quo to reform. By a 44-41 percent margin, respondents say it would be better to keep the current system than to pass Obama's health plan.
It's a shame that the federal legislature's job isn't to (a) carry out the will of the people and/or (b) legislate in accordance with the Constitution. Were it so, this choice would be easy.
Congressman Crockett, pick up line two; there's a Horatio Bunce who would like a word or two with you...
Posted by: Keith at December 16, 2009 3:39 PMDecember 11, 2009
Quote of the Day
This last-minute, back-room ploy shows again that Democrats are simply winging it as they rush to pass something—anything—that can get 60 votes by Christmas. President Obama praised the proposal as "a creative new framework," while Finance Chairman Max Baucus told the Washington Post, "If there's 60 Senators who can reach agreement, I'm for it." Now there's a model standard to use for reordering 17% of the U.S. economy. --- WSJ Ed Page
December 8, 2009
We're Certainly Not Nicer Than Canadians.
Hat-tip: Instpundit
December 4, 2009
Quote of the Day
Indeed. My take: If healthcare is as important as they say, why would we trust Congress to run it? -- Professor Glenn Reynolds
December 2, 2009
Gimme Thirteen Minutes
Health Care is a complex topic. But this Reason TV piece closely matches my views -- even citing my favorite example. It is a great thing to share with honest supporters of ObamaCare:
Hat-tip: Instapundit
November 30, 2009
Do It Yourself Blog Post
Off to an appointment, so you'll have to do this blog post yourself:
Link: http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2009/11/nicholas-kristoff-obamacare-and-the-broken-window-fallacy.html
Title: Nicholas Kristof, Obamacare, and the Broken Window Fallacy
Don't forget to hat-tip: Professor Reynolds...
UPDATE: If you don't have time, Michelle Malkin (jk links to Michelle Malkin -- mark the date!) does a great job, awarding Kristof the prize for "Quite possibly the crappiest NYTimes column for Obamacare ever."
Bainbridge gets points for the Bastiat reference, but what Malkin grabs is that the object of pity in this ObamaCare paean already qualifies for government healthcare, but (don't laugh, this gentleman is truly suffering) he cannot secure the services of a physician because the reimbursement rates are too low!
"Bastiat: He was one of those Ayn Rand disciples, wasn't he! She was an extremist nutjob and he is too!"
The preceding was a pre-enactment of a relativist's "counter-argument."
As for me (and Rand, and Heinlein): TANSTAAFL.
Posted by: johngalt at November 30, 2009 2:59 PMNovember 24, 2009
May As Well Buy a Boat
I'm aware that not all ThreeSourcers share my appreciation of Megan McArdle. But she has written a gem that demands linkage. McArdle is unimpressed with the argument that we may as well do ObamaCare. because Medicare is going to bankrupt us anyway:
Anyone who has dated a manic-depressive has heard some version of this argument. "I can barely make ends meet now, so I might as well use my tax refund check to buy a boat! After all, if I can't figure out a way to fix my budget, I'm going to go bankrupt anyway."
The premise is fun. The serious treatment she gives to an American bankruptcy is a bit disturbing in its casualness.
Professor Reynolds suggested reading the whole thing. Do what you want.
November 23, 2009
We Know What You Are, Senator...
On the wild chance somebody doesn't know this joke, here's the Cliff's Notes® version (best in a Groucho Marx voice...):
He: "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
She: "A million dollars, I'd have to think about that..."
He: "Would you sleep with me for $20?"
She: "No, you think I am some kind of whore?"
He: "We know what you are, now we're haggling over price!"
Punchline implanted? Segue to WSJ Editorial:
Take Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu, who claims to have grave concerns about the bill's cost. Those worries became less pressing when Majority Leader Harry Reid added language on page 432 of the 2,074-page opus that would raise the bill's cost by increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for "certain states recovering from a major disaster." Guess which state is the only one that would qualify under that wording?This political gratuity was quickly reported as costing $100 million, but Senator Landrieu made clear after her floor speech that her vote couldn't be bought that cheaply. "I will correct something. It's not $100 million, it's $300 million, and I'm proud of it and will keep fighting for it," she told reporters.
My work here is done.
We know what she is: a thief, and she's proud of it.
That's a great joke, and very illustrative of a point of logic that I've used before. On a friend's blog, some Brit was criticizing Bush for not doing enough to hunt down Osama. So I asked what it's worth. More than one dollar? Certainly. One hundred billion dollars? For one man who's hiding for his life and thus effectively contained, no, $100 bil isn't worth it. OK, so now we know that it's somewhere between the two numbers, and we can narrow it down from there.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 23, 2009 1:05 PMUm, don't all 56 states qualify on the grounds that the election of Barack Obama was a "major disaster?"
Jus' askin.'
Posted by: johngalt at November 23, 2009 2:59 PMHere's another gem I heard on the [highly recommended, 6pm on Denver's KHOW] Jason Lewis Show (some other Minnesnowtan guest-hosting):
Harry Reid's persuasion of Mary Landrieu (Democrat-Louisana) ((hey, where have we heard THAT title before?)) is the modern version of - The Louisiana Purchase.
Posted by: johngalt at November 24, 2009 2:52 PMIt's Disgusting!
The folks at Reason boil down most of the complexities of Pharmaceutical economics into a nice, watchable seven minute video.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
November 17, 2009
Perfect Description of Democracy!
WASHINGTON – When it comes to paying for a health care overhaul, Americans see just one way to go: Tax the rich.That finding from a new Associated Press poll will be welcome news for House Democrats, who proposed doing just that in their sweeping remake of the U.S. medical system, which passed earlier this month and would extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.
UPDATE: JammieWearingFool suggests that other results from the poll are not quite so encouraging (to the collectivists).
Bleeping hell, the poll is pure horse excrement. JWF had some excellent points with what the MSM left out. Let me point out the BS in what they did:
conducted by Stanford University with the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Right there, you know it has no objectivity. The RWJF are "nonpartisan" socialists who advocate single-payer health care.
The poll tested views on an even more punitive taxation scheme that was under consideration earlier, when the tax would have hit people making more than $250,000 a year. Even at that level the poll showed majority support, with 57 percent in favor and 36 percent opposed.In other words, 43% (flatly opposed and those "unsure") still didn't support that tax, which means a large minority still didn't believe in taxing a small percentage (
For example, 77 percent said the cost of health care in the United States was higher than it should be, and 74 percent favored the broad goal of reducing the amount of money paid by patients and their insurers. But 49 percent said any changes made by the government probably would cause them to pay more for health care. Thirty-two percent said it wouldn't change what they pay, and just 12 percent said they would end up paying less.For example, 77 percent said the cost of health care in the United States was higher than it should be, and 74 percent favored the broad goal of reducing the amount of money paid by patients and their insurers. But 49 percent said any changes made by the government probably would cause them to pay more for health care. Thirty-two percent said it wouldn't change what they pay, and just 12 percent said they would end up paying less.The 23% who don't think health costs are higher than they should be are well-insured by their employers (government workers, current/former union labor). They're also the 26% of reducing costs, because they have no need to concern themselves.
Half of the polled think they'll pay more for health care. This means that of the minority who want to "soak the rich," at least 8% think they'll pay more even with soaking the rich.
The 44% who think they'll pay the same or less are clearly those who want others to pay for it, whether through tax hikes on "the rich" or because they already have government-supported plans. They don't need to care if total costs go up, only what they're paying.
Forty-eight percent in the poll were opposed to new taxes on insurance companies, and 42 percent were in support. Fifty-one percent opposed raising taxes on drug and device makers, while 41 percent supported that approach.
But 72 percent of people polled said insurance companies made too much profit, compared with 23 percent who said they made about the right amount of profit. And 74 percent said drug companies made too much profit, versus 21 percent who said they made about the right amount of profit.In other words, 30% of the polled think insurers make "too much profit" but understand it's a bad idea to tax someone who's providing a service you need. And 33% of the polled think drug makers make "too much profit" but don't want them taxed, either.
People who told pollsters they generally supported Congress' health care overhaul plan were also more receptive to new taxes to pay for it. Taxing health care companies, drug companies and equipment manufacturers eked out majority support from that group.Even if this had hard numbers for "eked out majority support," this is all statistically meaningless. You can't quantify "generally support" when asking someone a question. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 17, 2009 11:56 AM
Nicely played, Perry. Superb analysis.
Posted by: jk at November 17, 2009 12:03 PMOh, I forgot that the blockquote tag doesn't span across paragraphs. So above should read like this:
But 72 percent of people polled said insurance companies made too much profit, compared with 23 percent who said they made about the right amount of profit. And 74 percent said drug companies made too much profit, versus 21 percent who said they made about the right amount of profit.In other words, 30% of the polled think insurers make "too much profit" but understand it's a bad idea to tax someone who's providing a service you need. And 33% of the polled think drug makers make "too much profit" but don't want them taxed, either. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 17, 2009 8:26 PM
Perry: perhaps that poll should have two questions, like this:
"Q: Do you think health insurance companies make too much profit, not enough profit, or about the right amount of profit?"
"A: Definitely, way too much profit."
"Q: What was the health insurance industry's average profit margin last year?"
"A: Ummmmm... I dunno, but it was way too much."
Answer: 2.2 percent. Less than the government garnered from the health insurance companies.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091025/ap_on_go_co/us_fact_check_health_insurance
Posted by: Keith at November 18, 2009 11:22 AMI remember that. Calvin Woodward has written some "fact checks" that poke holes in Republicans' claims, but more than a couple about Democrats' too. Clearly he must be sent to a re-education camp!
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 18, 2009 3:54 PMNovember 13, 2009
"Very Fair"
Hat-tip: Heritage
"We want to make sure that everyone has access to health care... We all have to do our part."
Yes, you will do your part to pay for everyone else, or she'll send you to jail.
To hell with that bitch. **** her.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 14, 2009 4:13 PMPelosi: "Do you think it's fair if somebody says, 'Well, I'm just not going to have it and if I get sick then I'll just go to the emergency room and send the bill, uh, to YOU.' That's my view on the subject."
Instead she wants ALL of us to send the bill to Robert "It's too expensive - we're gonna let you DIE" Reich.
Posted by: johngalt at November 14, 2009 5:10 PMNovember 12, 2009
Quote of the Day
So now the mandate is like a tax? Which is it? I'm not exactly sure what's untrue about Rep. [Dave] Camp's statement. If you don't pay your taxes, what exactly happens? You go to jail. You don’t get prosecuted “in theory.” Men with guns come to your home and take you away. -- John Stossel
November 11, 2009
You Haven't Suffered Enough!
I don't know how many commercials are in this series; this is the second that Instapundit has posted. The first subject ended up coming to America for care, this woman got treatment after begging doctors for two years:
There's a BB King tune, he sings "Went down to the welfare office to get myself some grits and stuff. The woman said you ain't been around long enough! Everybody wants to know why I'm singin' the blues..." I cannot imagine hearing "you have not suffered long enough -- others have been on the list longer."
But of course that will not happen here: we Americans are so much kinder and more generous than Canadians and our government is so much more efficient than theirs -- no doubt our version of socialized medicine will rock!
She deserved it! Single mom? What was she thinking? She should have had an abortion! Filthy breeders like this shouldn't get anything!
So let me get this straight - Canada's national health said she couldn't get treatment because "you aren't old enough." But Robert Reich said "if you're very old we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs ... it's too expensive so we're gonna let you die."
So you can be denied because you are too old OR because you're too young. Or too rich, poor, smart, dumb, white, black, fill-in-the-blank.
Posted by: johngalt at November 12, 2009 5:35 PMNovember 9, 2009
Somebody has to say something
The lead editorial in the WSJ today captures it pretty well:
The bill is instead a breathtaking display of illiberal ambition, intended to make the middle class more dependent on government through the umbilical cord of "universal health care." It creates a vast new entitlement, financed by European levels of taxation on business and individuals. The 20% corner of Medicare open to private competition is slashed, while fiscally strapped states are saddled with new Medicaid burdens. The insurance industry will have to vet every policy with Washington, which will regulate who it must cover, what it can offer, and how much it can charge.
We've lost our liberty and privacy, we've demolished the greatest engine of innovation for improving quality-of-life ever created, and we've signed up for complete middle-class serfdom. But THANK GOD for the work of those brave blue dog Democrats who stood tough and stripped out abortions!
I guess I am still enough of a partisan hack that I can at least appreciate the possible bloodbath for the Democrats in 2010. But this has come one step closer than I thought. I figured something would pass the House (the old line was "you could pass a ham sandwich in the House") but I did not expect anything this bad to pass.
On to the Senate. I am thinking of writing Senator Bennet today with a pledge to donate $1000 to his opponent if he votes for it. Good idea?
Agreed here: not sure what to do, but just as sure that something needs doing. I wrote Polis hoping he'd be more conscientious than politically short sighted (he's on record as being a deficit hawk, yes?).
Also agreed there's no point in writing Udall; he put his brains into a gov't bailed-out hedge long ago.
Posted by: nanobrewer at November 10, 2009 12:50 PMIs he? I'll take your word for it, nb. I guess I thought that Rep Polis was truly representing his constituency; I am guessing you and I are the only two people in his district that do not want gub'mint health care. I sat in on a telephone town hall and we are outliers.
Sen. Bennet would be the most vulnerable and the soonest up for election. I think that's a good place to put the screws.
November 7, 2009
What are You In For, Kid?
"Not having health care."
PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to JailJCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail
Friday, November 06, 2009
Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
No surprise to ThreeSources, all government mandates are ultimately enforced by guns and jail time. I wonder that some enterprising 527 could not make a good TV commercial by juxtaposing this with footage of Then-Senator Obama ridiculing rival candidate Clinton for mandates.
Hat-tip: Ann Althouse who asks "Is this what the Democrats mean to inflict on the unsuspecting public that believes it is getting health care? What chaos lies ahead?"
Don't knock it, there is free health care in prison.
Sigh, will we ever see realistic discussion on what kind of health care should be provided IF we go down the path of supporting it with taxes? The $15K/year quoted is based upon a current health plan with coverage for doctor's visits and prescriptions. Again I look at my auto insurance (required by law) that includes $500K of bodily injury coverage for about $1K/year. I also pay for fire department coverage in my property taxes, but the fire department does not come out and trim my trees or apply a yearly fire retardant to my roof. Nor do they clean up or pay for water damage if they should have to extinguish a fire in my home.
Sadly this would require our wonderful members of Congress to stand up to the insurance industry, and I see two chances of this happening, fat and slim.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 8, 2009 10:41 AM"Sadly this would require our wonderful members of Congress to stand up to the insurance industry, and I see two chances of this happening, fat and slim."
Do you really think the insurance industry has power over Congress, not the other way around? The only "health insurance industry" we have right now is the state-by-state monopolies that Congress so graciously permits.
As has been stated here and on countless other blogs, no small part of the problem is that leftists want everything covered, effectively down to the tiniest sneeze. Couple that with massive pay reductions (the only way socialized medicine can "save costs"), and maybe we'll have our own when doctors and nurses quit.
It's been asked often, "Once we have socialized medicine, where will Canadians go?" And how will they get cheaper pharmaceuticals? A major part of the health care "reform" is that the feds will force down drug prices. But right now Americans subsidize Canadian prices, because of Canadian price controls. Americans are willing and able to pay extra for our medicines, even though a foreign government is screwing us, so Canadians are getting a free ride from us. However, when our own government "negotiates" the lower prices, oops: our pharmaceutical manufacturers won't make enough of a profit to sell the drugs, or create new ones. Game over.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 8, 2009 11:50 AMDo I really think that health insurance companies have power over Congress? Yes. Money is power. You don't get to have congressional power without being in Congress. You don't get to be in Congress without getting elected, and you don't get elected without money. That money buys influence because it can be withheld. Legislation can be written to push more of that $15K/year into the coffers of private insurance companies. Those companies are not losing money by providing more coverage, on the contrary, the more elaborate the coverage they can supply, the more money they make. They have no interest in having mandated coverage if that means smaller coverage plans. More profitable to provide $15K plans or nothing.
Pharmaceutical research and manufacturing is actually worse than you indicate as US regulations are forcing R&D to Europe. We support the price controlled countries drug costs and lose the jobs and tax base provided by R&D.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 8, 2009 12:17 PMYou're confusing money and influence with actually having power. Lobbyists use money to influence legislators, but there is no guarantee it will get them anywhere. Think about it: Microsoft, sitting on tens of billions in cash reserves, couldn't stop the anti-trust investigations. Money is no guarantee of power.
Insurers, that is, existing insurers would like everyone to be forced to buy plans from someone, but that isn't going to happen. Why hasn't it happened already? Because the intent all along has been no less than the "public option," because leftists don't believe in private insurance. Leftists want the government to control health care.
"That money buys influence because it can be withheld."
Lobbyists don't withhold money; they try to spend more than the competition. What you're thinking about are endorsements, typically from union groups, and that money flows in the reverse: a teacher's union will support a candidate with the expectation of getting lucrative contracts.
And yes, I know the dire situation of pharmaceuticals. I was only making one small point about when pharmaceutical companies shrug with care-givers.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 8, 2009 8:06 PMSilence finds the diamond: the trouble with health insurance is that it ain't insurance -- it's prepaid medical. I'd bend his analogy worse and say it's like if auto insurance covered gas and oil changes.
But I will argue with his (sorry, sd) "Democratic Talking Points" that big money insurance companies are the culprit. Sure, there's some rent-seeking behavior and most of the current players probably do not want the rollicking interstate competition that we do. But I have to think that some (rhymes with Lauren Stuff-it) could see the opportunity.
I am far more concerned about the nannies and the small time special interests that have ensured that every policy covers aromatherapy, acupuncture, chiropracty, &c. Without going into the merits of each, sensible people might pick a less expensive policy that covers, oh let's say, doctors and hospitals, with otehr treatments to be paid out-of-pocket.
The opposition to Geico health plans that we both want are not the evil, profit bound, heartless insurance companies. The roadblock is nannies who want to use health care to control our lives.
Did I ever mention how safe I feel that New York State mandates that my health insurance cover uterine cancer and hysterectomies?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 9, 2009 1:07 PMNovember 3, 2009
Let Freedom Ring!
We have not had too much good news, I will make the most of it.
Blue Dogs would be dog-foolish to ignore the off year elections. Now, Leader Reid says they'll debate health care while looking down the barrel of midterms.
WASHINGTON – In a blow to the White House, the Senate's top Democrat signaled Tuesday that Congress may fail to meet a year-end deadline for passing health care legislation, leaving the measure's fate to the uncertainties of the 2010 election season.
UPDATE: James Pethokoukis 10 quick observations about Election Day, 2009
UPDATE II: Michael Barone underscores that the results imperil health care legislation:
I cannot imagine that Congressmen Nye, Perriello, Connally and Boucher have not already accessed the websites which have shown the position of their constituents in a contest which, while like all governorship contests has its own specific features, was also in its contrast on issue positions reasonably congruent with those prevailing on national issues. And I can certainly respond with sympathy if any or all of these incumbents responded to these numbers with a two-word comment of which I will relay only the first word which is, “Oh.”The 2009 election results are certainly not going to make it easy for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to round up the needed 218 votes for Democrats’ health care bills.
He also mentions Westchester County, a race that brought a cautiously optimistic email from Perry.
Longmont, to me, was as big as VA and NJ as far as a ray of sunshine in this country! Tonight the grownups won and won in a big way here.
Posted by: Terri at November 4, 2009 12:28 AMLongmont race news here:
http://www.timescall.com/news_story.asp?ID=19036
I don't know any of the Longmont candidates or positions but I did very much like this report:
"Boulder County voters also appear to be turning down the request to extend an open space tax."
Proving you can fool most Boulder County people only 19 out of 20 times.
Posted by: johngalt at November 4, 2009 1:18 AM
What was with Benker, and a lawsuit against Firestone?!? I've been out of the State for nearly half the year, so have no idea what's been going on to the town just north of "my town."
Short version:
A megachurch bought land east of Longmont and wanted to develop it and annex to Longmont. Longmont said yes. A petition was started to say no and elections held in 2008 ended up in a new council changing their minds and saying no.
The church said, "Ok" and convinced Firestone to annex the land.
Then there is something with multiple annexations and rights of ways, but bottom line, the old city council was suing to keep Firestone away from the Longmont border.
Posted by: Terri at November 4, 2009 1:25 PMSpeaking of good news, this 2-week old Karen Travers post on Jake Tapper's 'Political Punch' is the 2nd "most Dugg" story on ABCnews.com.
"Vice President Joe Biden said today that if Democrats were to lose 35 House seats they currently hold in traditionally Republican districts, it would mean doomsday for President Obama’s agenda.
Biden said Republicans are pinning their political strategy on flipping these seats.
“If they take them back, this the end of the road for what Barack and I are trying to do,†the vice president said at a fundraiser for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) today in Greenville, Delaware."
I hope they continue to push just as hard next year for climate change schemes and healthcare reforms, but with exactly the same degree of legislative success.
Posted by: johngalt at November 4, 2009 3:15 PMNovember 2, 2009
A: Eleventy-One!
Q: Frodo, how many new bureaucracies would be created by Speaker Pelosi's new health care bill?
Hat-tip: @mkhammer
Worst Bill Evah
"The health bill [Speaker Pelosi] unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a 'critical milestone,' may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced." So begins a long and thoughtful editorial in the Wall Street Journal today -- and it does not let up from there.
The editors enumerate its flaws and suggest -- rightfully -- that the flaws are features, not bugs: the goal is to complete FDR's vision.
Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.
Full of choir preachin' for ThreeSourcers, but if you are looking for a serious article to share with someone in the other side, this one is very very good.
October 26, 2009
Quote of the Day
The health-care debate is part of a moral struggle currently being played out over the free enterprise system. It will be replayed in every major policy debate in the coming months, from financial regulatory reform to a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon emissions. The choices will ultimately always come down to competing visions of America's future. Will we strengthen freedom, individual opportunity and enterprise? Or will we expand the role of the state and its power? -- AEI Chief Arthur Brooks in a great guest editorial on health care in the WSJ
October 22, 2009
Paying for the Baucus Bill
And this or a future Congress would never revoke Medicare cuts...
Thanks to James Pethokoukis who adds "If those Medicare cuts don’t happen, forget about it, gang."
UPDATE: Also read the whole thing at Scrivener.net about off-budget accounting gimmicks and the SS trust fund.
UPDATE II: And the Andrew Biggs piece Scrivener links to.
October 21, 2009
Healthcare Handgrenade
What if the entire healthcare reform debate rested on a false premise? (It does.) What if a prominent and respected thought leader on the "government option" side of the debate made a public statement that exposed the false premise and he was videotaped to prove it? (He has.) Alas, probably nothing but I'll shout it from the rooftop anyway.
The existing "treat on demand" mandate for American hospitals is based on the premise that "we can't let sick people die" just because they can't pay for their care. Somebody should remind Robert Reich, who said:
And by the way, we are going to have to, if you are very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for a couple of months. IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE SO WE'RE GONNA LET YOU DIE. [1:15]
"It's too expensive, so we're gonna let you die." These nine words are so important to the future of the free world that they mark my first EVER use of bold underlined italic all-caps. EVER!
So the obvious question for Mister Reich and every other hypocritical, disingenuous mouthpiece for healthcare "reform" and "compromise" is this:
"If we can let old people die then why can't we let sick people be sick? Even if it means they might die?"
If it is acceptable for the government to deny medical treatment to patients with no fault other than their advanced age (even if they would have had the means and the will to pay for their own care before you "fixed" the healthcare system) why isn't it acceptable for hospitals to deny medical treatment to patients who can't pay for it (even though the public and private means to be prepared for those costs are ubiquitous and could be made even more so?)
"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills." - Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 22, 2009 9:48 AMNot to worry, JG. That can all be solved with a sufficient donation to the DNC.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at October 22, 2009 3:32 PMOctober 20, 2009
1502 Pages of Fun!
Don Surber adds a little perspective to the Baucus Health Care Bill:
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy: 1,216
Stephen King’s The Stand: 1,141
Atlas Shrugged: 1,192
War and Peace: 1,296
Complete Sherlock Holmes: 944
Ben Hur: 620
That should NOT be taken as a criticism of any of the fine books you cite, and should not engender any snide remarks about my epic-length comments, thankyouverymuch.
Posted by: Keith at October 20, 2009 6:59 PMHeh. Us????
Posted by: jk at October 20, 2009 7:45 PMThink of it as pre-emptive confession - I know how long-winded I can be...
Posted by: Keith at October 21, 2009 11:22 AMHeh, I know the feeling too, Keith. I've recently been accused of making people afraid to comment on another blog. The person said I was long-winded, blah blah. Since it came from a leftist, it means I'm doing my job to spread truth and debunk their lies.
Jefferson said something about never using two words when one will do. His writing exemplifies his advice and still remains beautiful.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 21, 2009 11:32 AMJefferson's Health Care Bill would have looked like this:
"The right of the people to earn sufficiently to pay for their own medical care, obtain insurance to indemnify such care if they desire, select their own physicians, and make their own medical decisions, shall be neither infringed by the government, nor encumbered by taxation."
Forty-five words. Any improvements to be offered?
Posted by: Keith at October 21, 2009 11:54 AMFour more words: "This means you, Pelosi."
Unfortunately it is now commonplace to ignore words, even those in the Constitution. The latest example was even lauded on these pages as "a step toward increasing liberty."
Rather than firing off memos that pick and choose which federal laws are to be enforced, change the effin' law!
Posted by: johngalt at October 21, 2009 12:12 PMOctober 19, 2009
The Ultimate Public Option
I had a blog post brewing in my head when I woke up this morning. Curiously, Blogging God James Taranto has thieved it:
British health care, it seems, resembles American elementary and secondary education, in that the government has a monopoly but there is an expensive private opt-out--and many of those who run the monopoly avail themselves of the private system. If you like the public schools, you'll love ObamaCare!
Taranto is following up on a story that British Heath Care workers will be given taxpayer-financed private care. Else, socialized medicine will kill all the providers. Beautiful, isn't it?
But I had two thoughts on education (all my family members are teachers, I'm a dead man if one of them ever stumbles on ThreeSources). The first is the title: public education is the ultimate public option. No, there's no law to keep us from opening up the ThreeSources Academy of Reason and Civics and Advanced PE, but all of our students will have to pay for both public education and our inflated tuition. The government will regulate how many days are taught and have great influence on our curricula. Lastly, if we do well and attract attention, we can be denied building permits, accreditation, fire code clearances, &c.
We can swim but they completely own the pool. A serious person cannot help but see that health care would be just like that. Crappy substandard care for all, and an escape of quality and innovation that only the rich could afford. Progressive, indeed!
The other point is that innovation in a sector is frozen to the time government takes over. The highly subsidized and regulated passenger railways are frozen at WWII technology, British Health Care in 1975 all the time. And American education has not progressed an inch since Wilson was President (most would say it has fallen). In spite of communications, Internet, advances in access to books and information, and ubiquitous, inexpensive computers, schools have seen no improvement.
Medicine has made startling gains, but it might be 2009 forever. Shame
It is no surprise that British medical providers - the creators - must be appeased else even these socially-minded Europeans would strike from the system they know to be a travesty on the public. My exhortation to them is, "Revolt brothers!"
The "reformers" even admit that medical innovation would cease under their guidance. Just listen to Reich: "But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents. Thank you." [1:50]
Dear cousin writes today that she'd like to see everyone work together and "try to find a compromise on health care." Sigh. Where does one begin? The general public, as cousin writes, is "honestly just not that interested." They simply want an end to the dispute.
Posted by: johngalt at October 19, 2009 5:30 PMOctober 17, 2009
Pick a Side
Union Thug or "Ignorant" worker?
October 16, 2009
Obama the forthright
Is President Obama disingenuous? I've been searching for evidence of this to share with a dear cousin who believes that Sarah Palin is, but Barack Obama is not. My handicap is that her chosen news sources are all on television: FOX, KERA, ABC, CBS.
I wonder if this editorial The Baucus Bill is a Tax Bill would make any impression on her?
Most astounding of all is what this Congress is willing to do to struggling middle-class families. The bill would impose nearly $400 billion in new taxes and fees. Nearly 90% of that burden will be shouldered by those making $200,000 or less.
Somewhere between $360,000,000,000 and "one dime" is a broken campaign promise. Unfortunately, it was in a newspaper. Worse yet, on the opinion page.
I would just mention Obama's big campaign pledge -- Anybody in the lowest 95% would have no tax increase. This has not proven to be true. The WSJ ran a nice Op-ed a month or so ago on the subject....
Posted by: T. Greer at October 17, 2009 2:58 AMPerhaps it's in the eye of the beholder, but I see a large disconnect between the promises of post-partisanship and post-racial identity, &c. versus the reailty of bare-knuckle, Chicago, Democratic, we got the votes and don't need-you governance.
Posted by: jk at October 17, 2009 8:05 PMClearly the WSJ is run by right-wing extremists who bitterly cling to guns and religion. They will be the first to go to the Saint Obamus Re-Education Camps for the Economically Insensitive.
Saint Obamus hath promised much unto the 95%, and yea, do any of ye doubt him?
Indeed, the parable of the virgins is now thus:
Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto twenty virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom, Obamus.
And one was wise, but nineteen were foolish.
They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:
But the one wise took oil in her vessel with her lamp.
While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.
But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for me and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
And Obamus appeared and said, Verily I say unto you, unfair are you to the others, and I shall take of your oil and redistribute unto them. It mattereth not that you have been faithful and watching, for lo, thou hast been economically insensitive in not giving despite their foolishness.
And so Obamus took her oil, and it being insufficient for the needs of all, soon all their lamps went out and none had any light.
("Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher)
And there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth, for they realized that Obamus had no light of his own.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 18, 2009 10:57 AMVerily I worry about thee, Brother Perry, but thou mak'st me laugh.
Posted by: jk at October 18, 2009 11:26 AMKing James construction notwithstanding, Brother Perry, that was an outstanding and thoroughly appropriate use of that parable! I would call that positively... inspired...
Posted by: Keith at October 18, 2009 5:18 PMYes TG, the "no tax increases for those earning under $250,000" was the campaign pledge I intended to show was false. Although none of these new taxes are part of any legislation that's already passed and been signed by him, is it?
I'm reminded of another campaign pledge - that proposed legislation should be "posted on the internet" for four days prior to a vote to ensure "transparency" and to "hold the government to account." Yeah, right.
Posted by: johngalt at October 19, 2009 1:37 PMOctober 13, 2009
If We've Lost Senator Snowe
If we've lost Senator Snowe, we've lost the effete, New England elitist incumbent RINOs who are bent on self-preservation over principle!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul
UPDATE: OH MY GOD! Now Senator Collins! Unbelievable! What a surprise!
This was the biggest non-surprising story of the day. Who really thought she would NOT go along with this? (Other than people who were shocked at Arlen Specter becoming a Democrat.)
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 13, 2009 5:29 PMWhat's this??? Arlen Specter a Democrat???
Posted by: jk at October 13, 2009 5:34 PMHeh, well, let's say you were in a coma starting in 1964, and came out just before he made his announcement.
"What's this??? Arlen Specter was a Republican???"
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 13, 2009 8:41 PMRobert Reich Speaks Truth
Advisor to President Obama and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich describes ObamaCare in a 2007 speech:
Hat-tip: The Humble Libertarian Blog via Insty
This is perfect. Are you certain it isn't doctored?
I was compelled to share the link with my family email group, along with this follow-up:
OK all of you pro-healthcare reform family members out there, which of these "realities" would you like to see?Posted by: johngalt at October 13, 2009 1:55 PM- Health care for young, healthy people is going to cost more.
- No more "technology and drugs" for the very old in the last couple years of your life. "It's too expensive, so we're gonna let you die."
- Less innovation in pharmaceuticals so you won't live any longer than your parents.
That Robert Reich - he's such a hateful tea-bagging redneck!
(Can you believe the audience applause after "we're gonna let you die?" Simply stunning.)
I was concerned as well. But watching Secretary Reich for a few years on Kudlow & Co., it has quite a bit of verisimilitude. It's part of the progressive conceit: you gotta break-some-eggs-to-make-an-omelet.
They cheer because they see life as zero-sum -- and they're not old. That's more life for me! Right?
Posted by: jk at October 13, 2009 2:43 PMTwo words: Logan's Run.
Posted by: johngalt at October 13, 2009 2:47 PMFollowed by Soylent Green.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 13, 2009 8:42 PMThis speech made it to Rush Limbaugh's show today. JK scooped 'im!
He highlighted the same line that made such an impression on me:
"WE are going to LET you die."
Crap. This means that I am just like Limbaugh... a "bigoted, hateful racist homophobe." How can I face myself after this?!
Posted by: johngalt at October 14, 2009 6:50 PMQuote of the Day
Hard to pick from two choices in one WSJ Editorial. The Ed Page chides industry lobbying groups for trying to appease Congress and only now seeing that ObamaCare will not be a great deal for them. Choice one is "and we thought you had to be smart to get into med school," but I think I'll have to go with:
All of these lobbies should have known better. The insurers have been especially foolish, given that ObamaCare has all along been about converting them into public utilities. Washington will design benefits and set prices—and now there's even talk in the House of a windfall profits tax. The CEOs of Aetna, WellPoint, UnitedHealthcare and the rest deserve to be sued for destroying shareholder value through political malpractice. If nothing else, this exercise provides an object lesson in the wisdom of the Washington adage that "if you're not at the table, you're on the menu." The industry is "at the table"—as the main course.
UPDATE: A belated QOTD on the same topic yesterday:
The AMA goes to bed with the Obama administration, and predictably wakes up with fleas. -- Don Luskin
October 12, 2009
Lunch Reform Initiative
Got this via email today. Two months old but still current.
Obama children's private school reforms its lunch policy to be more "fair."
She called the president a racist! HA.
Pretty interesting artsy blog here. iOwnTheWorld.com
October 8, 2009
Game Over
Halfway through our victory lap and the starter's gun puts a .38 into our thigh.
Sorry for the tortured metaphor, but I really believed that citizen activism had killed socialized medicine in the United States. We had a great August recess and I thought that reason was going to prevail.
We had August; President Obama has four years. And it's over. Rasmussen polls last week showed support for reform returning, and the new CBO numbers are a death knell. People who are watching Katie Couric instead of reading ThreeSources are hearing that we can cover the uninsured and cut the deficit. Damn, that Obama really is a wiz.
The WSJ headline (again news pages) took me aback: "New Math Boosts Health Plan." I thought that was "new math" as in "if math were a color..." or "how does this differential equation make you feel?" But no, they were talking about the new CBO numbers.
Crisis averted! Our brave legislators have found a way to tax us enough to give us all health care hooray!
UPDATE: Our friends at Heritage are not impressed:
Enter Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT) who was determined to manipulate the CBO’s scoring system as best he could and deliver a deficit neutral version of Obamacare. After months of working directly with CBO staff, Baucus scored a victory for Obamacare yesterday when the CBO released a preliminary analysis purporting to show that the Baucus bill would reduce deficits by a total of $81 billion over the next decade. The New York Times awarded Baucus with the headline that the White House has been searching for since the debate first began: “Health Care Bill Gets Green Light in Cost Analysis.” But this headline and the accompanying article are fundamentally dishonest. As the Politico reported yesterday: “While the media and lawmakers often shorthand a CBO letter as a “score” or “cost estimate,” today’s CBO letter is neither. Because the bill is still in “conceptual,” or layman’s terms, CBO’s letter today was a “preliminary analysis.” For it to be an official cost estimate, the bill has to be translated into legislative language.”
Okay, so now everybody who follows @Heritage (27,913) are against it and everybody who reads the New York Times...
UPDATE: Insty links to two polls that look much better for the side of liberty: Quinnipiac oppose 47-40 and Pew 47% oppose, 34% favor. Strange, I wonder why AP highlighted the more favorable polls. Probably an oversight.
I knew it wasn't dead. Baucus said that the lack of a public option was a victory, because as he unequivocally stated, he just wanted something that will pass the Senate.
In other words, he didn't care that he got everything, just that he got something at this stage. The boiled frog doesn't notice the temperature gradually rising, remember?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 8, 2009 11:55 AMBy the way, did you see the latest Big Lie? This is as egregious as anything in months.
They will be spending $82.9 billion a year for 10 years, but because there will supposedly be $81 billion total over those ten years cut here and there, they can claim it will "reduce the deficit."
Anyone who claims this is a liar condemned to hell, and anyone who believes this should follow.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 8, 2009 12:08 PMBad day to wake up this morning.
Last week, we celebrated the revelation that the hockey stick was broken, and the foundational data for the entire climate-change theory was proved to have been cherry-picked. Armed with this inconvenient truth (sorry, guys, I just had to say it), the conservatives should have been able to drive a wooden stake through the heart of Cap-and-Tax once and for all. This morning, I read that Senate Republicans are caving.
Last week, we watched as the number of people opposed to socialized medicine grew daily, especially among the "strongly opposed" category. Republicans were suddenly in a position to stand their ground and forcefully dig their heels in which the public cheered. Now I read that, because the CBO has fudged the numbers and publicly pretended that Obamalamacare will ONLY cost $829 billion, some within the GOP are ready to once again snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory.
It makes me wonder: exactly at what point will we find ourselves standing on the Old North Bridge? What will it take for Americans to fight back?
Posted by: Keith at October 8, 2009 12:32 PMI think what it will take to fight back is a better plan. Congress in the past two decades has simply become the for and the against with the party holding the chairmanships pushing their agenda and the minority railing against it. Competing ideas are crushed early in committee. I am strongly against a government health care plan, but equally strongly against the current system. The day is fast approaching where my only pay raise will be a slightly lower increase in my insurance deduction. If we could spend less time screaming about killing granny and a little more talking sense that would be great. Has the Republican health care plan really been reduced to the birth and death plan – we want you born (no abortion) and we will spare no expense to extend your death, the time in between you are on your own?
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 10, 2009 9:19 AMSilence, good to see you. We have devolved into some serious choir preaching because I don't think we have any internecine differences on health care.
Let me step back. I see nothing, nada, zip in the Baucus plan or HR3200 that would make things better. I know that's a bold assertion, but I'll stand by it.
If there were a big messy compromise where we shoveled more money at SCHIP and dictated terms to insurers but allowed interstate purchases, tort reform and a flattening of the tax imbalance between employers and individuals, then we could argue whether it was worth it.
Yet the Democratic advantage allows them to pass a bill that only transfers power to government. Holy cow, even Senator Susan Collins isn't in.
Don't know if I misread your comment about "The Republican Plan." I would say that it has been characterized the way you describe, reduced to that by the opposition but I think the GOP legislators have been pretty good about pushing tort reform, interstate purchases and tax equivalence.
With tort reform, the devil is in the details. It could help reduce defensive medicine. At the same time, suit for redress remains an important right; I am leery of tampering with it.
I'd love to talk less about death panels and abortion and illegal immigrants and I have said that many times on these pages. Yet you must admit that as the government takes over these decisions, all three of these rear their heads as unintended consequences. Gub'mint's buying: do we pick up the tab for Tina from TJ? Unprotected Eunice for Utah? Half a million in experimental surgery for Great grandma?
I'd prefer government made none of those choices and I consider it the least important part of the debate (We're going to give up our liberty as long as we don't pay for abortions?). But if government is going to decide, why can't people ask what the decisions would be?
The status quo has some serious flaws. But we've seen Congress break a million things as they rush to "do something!" And I feel we risk ruining one of the greatest most innovative and most important industries ever.
October 7, 2009
Citizens vs. Subjects
Robert E. Moffit of the Heritage Foundation provides: a good look at the freedom implications of an individual mandate, versus its efficacy in "At What Cost To Freedom?: Obama's Individual Mandate Is a Bad Idea."
Meanwhile, Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) has unveiled a Senate Finance Committee draft that also has an individual mandate. It would levy a penalty of up to $3,800 on families for what the president calls "irresponsible behavior," by which he means health-care choices of which he disapproves. In Obama's usage, "personal responsibility" is selective; it doesn't extend to the question of taking responsibility for one's health care. That's the government's job. Of course, federal officials will have outside help in deciding for the rest of us. Powerful special-interest groups and health-industry lobbyists will do all they can to make sure that their favored medical treatments, procedures, drugs, and devices are part of the "bare minimum" that every plan must include.
October 6, 2009
You're Ruining Health Care for This?
The only argument the left has for ObamaCare is the idea of near universal coverage. I would not trade quality, innovation and privacy for it, mind you, but it is compelling to suggest that most every American would be covered.
Well, except for 25 million. WSJ (News pages, not my wingnut buddies)
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that an earlier version of the Senate Finance bill would ensure health insurance for 91% of Americans -- leaving about 25 million people without coverage. The CBO's estimates for the latest version of the bill are due out this week; it is expected to cover fewer people. About 85% of Americans currently have health insurance.The industry concerns illustrate one tension at the heart of the latest Senate bill. Key industries bought into the measure -- and agreed to absorb cuts in reimbursements -- on the expectation that millions of new customers would be brought into the health-care system. The weaker the mandate to buy insurance, the fewer the new customers.
In addition, if the bill leaves many Americans without coverage, that would undermine President Barack Obama's goal of bringing near-universal health insurance to the U.S.
The thesis of the article is that many of the industry players who went along because they stood to gain from universal coverage are now realizing that they get the full pro quo without so much of the quid.
I don't think any ThreeSourcer will cry as the rent-seekers are hoisted on their own petard (ow!). But I suggest that the supporters are losing their only convincing argument. We are going to go from 40 million to 25 million uninsured -- and this is worth destroying the whole system?
Jussaminnitt.
The new Obamalacare plan will cover all but 25 million Americans? The last number I heard, there were presently only 30 million Americans without coverage (43 million only if you include "persons-of-questionable-and-potentially-spurious-documentation*"). So we're supposed to be mortgaging our future and signing over our souls to the nannystate in return for the minor uptick of five million persons, who will join the rest of us in having crappy medical services rationed out to us by the Obamalacare czars.
Talk about the law of diminishing returns - with a vengeance!
* (Euphemism to avoid an undesired tangent working its way into this thread)
Posted by: Keith at October 6, 2009 5:51 PM* You mean we're not covering Linux users?
Posted by: jk at October 6, 2009 5:55 PMTouche, JK! That would be referring to the Linuxem, who are here illegally from Linuxembourg.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at October 6, 2009 6:49 PMScore one for jk - I see I walked into that one, and I'm sure there's a joke out there whose syntax starts with:
man Obamalamacare
And I seriously doubt THAT man page would have undocumented placeholders or would be distributed to the community without first having been read by those responsible for its creation.
That being said, if I wanted Obamalamacare, I could compile it myself from the source code.
Posted by: Keith at October 6, 2009 6:53 PMLike Global Warming the supposed goal has been redefined. In this case, from "insure everyone" to "affordable for everyone and no pre-existing condition limitations." (And all hospitals will smell like honey and roses from now on...)
But in the end, no, they're not destroying health care for any of these things. They're doing it because American health care must be destroyed because it makes all of the government systems of the world look so bad by comparison.
Posted by: johngalt at October 7, 2009 1:26 PMSilly Ronnie's Revenge
Referencing Paul Krugman's astonishment that Ronald Reagan "was a fierce opponent of Medicare's creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.)" I would turn your attention to a WSJ Editorial today: The War on Specialists.
My friends continually tell me my fears are overblown and "nobody is talking about a government takeover." Umm, what do you call this then?
The chunks Team Obama took out of cardiology RVUs are especially drastic. The basic tools of heart specialists—echocardiograms (stress tests) and catheterizations—are slashed by 42% and 24%, respectively. Jack Lewin, who heads the American College of Cardiology, said in an interview that the crackdown will cause "a horrible disruption" that will force many community and independent practices to close their doors, lay off staff or make senior patients wait days or weeks for tests and services.Cancer doctors get hit because the Administration believes specialists order too many MRIs and CT scans. Certain kinds of diagnostic imaging lose 24%.
These are Medicare changes right out of the Baucus bill. Senators will decide, and in the wisdom of the world's most deliberative body, Cancer and Heart Disease are clearly the best places to cut costs.
Hey, if EPA is "wise" enough to discover that the gas which nourishes all plant life is a pollutant then why question the health care wisdom of Congress?
Do these folks have a PhD in Omnibenevolent Omniscience? I guess I chose the wrong subject in which to major.
Posted by: johngalt at October 6, 2009 1:34 PMSeptember 20, 2009
The Good News, the Bad News
The Good News: James Pethokoukis: Awful Healthcare Poll for the White House
– 37 percent understand the president’s plan
– 17 percent believe the plan is deficit neutral
– 20 percent believe funding will come from a fine on the wealthy.
– 32 percent actually support the president’s plan
– 40 percent have no idea how is being paid for
– 34 percent think everyone other than Congress will be pushed into public plan
Bad News: Megan McArdle, they're going to do it anyway, even though it will cost them the House.
I assume that the CBO is going to score all these largely imaginary savings, and that this will make it very hard to keep the bill from passing, because legislators are, natch, more concerned about the appearance of fiscal rectitude than actual conservative budgeting. Conservatives can, and should, raise the reasons to believe that hits bill will cost more than its CBO score allows. But frankly, the public is probably going to accept the CBO numbers.I think that ramming through the bill on a party line vote makes it very likely that the Democrats will lose the house in 2010; the American public doesn't like uniparty votes, especially on something this controversial. A lot of liberals have gotten angry at me for saying this, but it's not a normative statement; it's an observation.
In the middle: Jude@HughHewitt.com is a bit more optimistic that legislators will save their own skin:
Rasmussen reports 56% of likely voters now oppose the reforms President Obama is threatening to push upon them, and when you look at the "Strongly Oppose"(44%) vs. "Strongly Favor"(24%) the picture is even bleaker in terms of public support for this broad, governmental takeover of the health sector. Still, this is not the time to get complacent, because His Royal Self is going to flood the weekend airwaves with his toothy smile and reassuring rhetoric, appearing on five Sunday morning network shows (excluding FOX) and then Letterman on Monday night
Me? I share McArdle's fear that the Democrats are completely "all in" and they have the votes. ObamaCare it is -- I just hope they pay the hefty price. I guess that makes your ThreeSources optimist more pessimistic than the other three. Of course, McArdle is not cheered by a 2010 House turnover. It would be a bad trade for ObamaCare, but it would be something.
Let's assume that the 37% who said they understand it actually do understand it.
Clearly, the next two lines, though they add up to the same 37%, cannot possibly be people who truly understand it.
However, the "34 percent [who] think everyone other than Congress will be pushed into public plan" are a subset of those who truly understand it.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 20, 2009 2:53 PM
> Democrats are completely "all in"
Lucky for us, they're dubiously being lead by Pelosi who can't maintain a clear course (witness 5, count'em FIVE proposals sloughing around). I think Blue Dogs have been lead astray a time too many (stimulus, budget...) and are just as likely to being their own set of howling.
Obam-UH (as my best friend calls him) is similarly sloppy with his diction, direction and decisions.
Fingers crossed, as many as I can wrap around one knuckle.
Posted by: nanobrewer at September 20, 2009 8:58 PMHope you're right, nb. If the Broncos are 2-0, I am starting to believe anything can happen. And like my beloved "Donks," we benefit from less-than-world-class opposition.
Perry, you made it farther than I did at subdivision. A lot of those numbers seem self-contradictory. But I agree with Jimmy P that they all sound pretty bad for the Administration.
Posted by: jk at September 21, 2009 10:25 AMSeptember 18, 2009
Quote of the Day
I have often wondered at the smugness at which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind -- yet what is it they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? ... Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in the operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it -- and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't. -- Ayn Rand, in an obscure novel call Atlas Shrugged.Hat-tip: Paul Hsieh: Is Your Doctor Getting Ready to Quit?
Excellent companion to my prior post. Huzzah!
Posted by: johngalt at September 18, 2009 8:06 PMI like the quote a lot, but will no doubt incur the wrath of my blog brothers when I admit that I do not remember the character of Dr. Thomas Hendricks in "Atlas." Was he the one who shot J.R.?
Posted by: jk at September 19, 2009 11:35 AMHe's clearly not one of the more memorable ones. And there were so many you may be forgiven for remembering them only as "that doctor who went on strike" or "that bum that was almost kicked off the train." The names are too numerous and serve mostly to, in my opinion, give an insight into the character of the individual e.g. "Wesley Mouch." With a name like that he could have founded ACORN.
Posted by: johngalt at September 19, 2009 7:51 PMCan we talk about healthcare reform?
In a family email dialog about healthcare reform my brother asked a first cousin once removed: "I can't believe that you would be supportive of socialized medicine - are you?"
The cousin replied,
"Generally speaking yes I am. Although I don't think any of the proposals on the table are perfect.
But you shouldn't be worried. Even if a perfect bill was drafted, it won't pass. Politicians are incapable of getting tough things done."
What follows is my contribution to the thread. It's important to first note that the cousin and his wife (the first cousin not-removed) both happen to work in the airline industry.
You know, it's interesting that you say that. I happen to support socialized air travel. I think that everyone should be able to get the same access to free jet trips whenever they need them, regardless of their ability to pay. I believe that air travel is a right and that people who provide it should not make such an obscene profit! I am sure that airfares would be much lower if there was a single payer system so that efficiencies and economies of scale could come into play. In addition, it is absolutely unconscionable that the super rich can fly in first-class comfort simply because they happen to have so much more money than anyone else. I think that first-class service should be abolished so that coach will be available for more flyers at the same total cost. And who on earth thinks that the elderly should be flying? Those people have lived full and rich lives already. We need to leave the thrill and growth opportunities that flying offers for younger people who will get more “adventure memory years” from each flight than those geriatrics would.And before you ask, no, I don't support socialized engineering services. Engineers are highly trained professionals who have taken the individual initiative to learn the specialized skills and principles that they apply to important needs of society. By taking away the right of individual engineers to offer their services on a free market at the highest price that any customer is willing to pay him the excellent engineers will have no incentive to work harder and more ingeniously than the sad-sack chair-warming engineers do. The result would be that the engineering profession as a whole, and all of the productive enterprises that depend on engineering excellence would be crippled with mediocrity and malaise.
Fortunately I am quite certain that the politicians in Washington, responding to the clear and complete understanding of the distinctions between air travel and engineering, would never dream of applying the same centralized government control over the wages and careers of engineers that I am advocating for airline corporations and their money grubbing employees. Yeah, just them ... and the doctors. Leave us engineers - and the lawyers - alone.
I'm glad to hear you're on board!
Well, I laughed -- and bet that the ThreeSources choir gave up some halleluiahs.
But airlines are a tough sector, and if cuz is already predilected to accept ObamaCare, I bet your plan sounds pretty good.
The Innovation Tax
I posted last week that it was ingenious for the health care reform bill to stop innovation so that it would not have to pay for it when the bills are going to the people that passed it. A Wall Street Journal editorial shows "How Max Baucus knifed the medical devices industry."
Supposedly the Senate’s version of ObamaCare was written by Finance Chairman Max Baucus, but we’re beginning to wonder if the true authors were Abbott and Costello. The vaudeville logic of the plan is that Congress will tax health care to subsidize people to buy health care that new taxes and regulation make more expensive.Look no further than the $40 billion "fee" that Mr. Baucus wants to impose on medical devices and diagnostic equipment. Device manufacturers would pay $4 billion a year in excise taxes, divvied up among them based on U.S. sales. This translates to an annual income tax surcharge anywhere from 10% to 30%, depending on the corporation.
I'll do something I criticize others for. I'm sick of the town hall criers who personalize every issue and cry on candidates' shoulders to get promises of help in (usually collectivist) policy.
But I will personalize this with some good news. I am in the early stages of trying a Bioness machine and early results are promising. This machine senses pressure in my heel and gives me a zap of current at the right time to walk. It might replace a clunky plastic Ankle Foot Orthotic (AFO) that I have worn since I was diagnosed with MS in 2003. Or I might wear it on my "good leg" to improve its function.
Time will tell -- but it was fun to see my foot moving on its power, even if Skynet was controlling it.
The political point is that this machine costs a kazillion dollars. My wife is looking at a hand version and, while they've been too chicken to give me a price yet, it's clear that if we both bought one it would bump up GDP a couple notches next quarter. It would be pretty tempting for government to give a guy a plastic AFO (only $600!) but it is the difference between real walking and umm, whatever it is I do. Let's not tax these guys out of existence.
Amen ditto.
Posted by: johngalt at September 18, 2009 3:16 PMProfoundly Unconstitutional
Can we start an adverb of the day feature? Here's a must read guest editorial from David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey
Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a mandate, however, would expand the federal government’s authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional.
[...]
The elephant in the room is the Constitution. As every civics class once taught, the federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers, with the states retaining broad regulatory authority. As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers: "[I]n the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects." Congress, in other words, cannot regulate simply because it sees a problem to be fixed. Federal law must be grounded in one of the specific grants of authority found in the Constitution.
Amen.
Wow, if the three branches of the federal government followed those rules we would see some real howls about their inability to "get things done." Those Constitutionalist guys must be crazy!
(tongue -> cheek)
Posted by: johngalt at September 18, 2009 3:14 PMRivkin is going to be on Fox and Friends weekend tomorrow, discussing this issue in the final half hour. Don't know if they're taking calls, but you might give it a try.
Posted by: outragedpeople at September 18, 2009 9:31 PMSeptember 17, 2009
Professor Mankiw Translates CBO-ese
The CBO scores the Baucus Plan favorably over the next decade (whereupon it spirals out of control). But the scheme of tax-for-ten to pay-for-seven fools the Congressional Budget Office.
Mankiw provides an excerpt from the text and adds this handy translation:
Let me try to put CBO's point in a more familiar setting:Your friend Joe, who says he want to lose weight, asks you for an extra slice of pie after dinner. Naturally, you are doubtful about the wisdom of the request.
"Ahem, Joe," you whisper, "Aren't there a lot of calories in that?"
"Yes," he says, "but the pie is part of a larger plan. I am committed not only to eating that slice of pie but also to going to the gym every day for the next week and spending at least half a hour on the treadmill. The exercise will more than work off those extra calories."
"But that's what you said last week, when you asked for an extra piece of cake. And you never made it to the gym."
"Yes, I know," Joe replies ruefully, "but this time I really mean it....Can you please pass the pie?"
September 16, 2009
John Galt MD
That's Professor Reynolds's headline for an IBD Editorial. (If I saw brother JG with a rubber glove, I would run for the hills.)
The link was also sent to me by a physician friend, who wishes retirement were an option. "In addition to the restrictions Obamacare will impose on the level care I can provide, the deleterious effect on medical innovation, and the decrease in salary, I am sure it will also bring an avalanche of new paperwork and busywork that will make me less productive and more frustrated. A mid-life career change is sounding more appealing every day."
Disturbing that the President got the AMA on board early -- the illusion is well set that the medical community is firmly behind him. But the IBD Ed Page begs to differ:
Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.
It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.
Presently the citizens of Canada routinely travel to America to pay cash for medical treatment they can't get "for free" in their own country. I have a question for your physician friend: If our government starts rationing care and slashing provider reimbursements can't you envision a massive "back-alley" medical industry popping up, with physicians making house calls for cash using either a fee-for-service or subscription service payment plan?
I find it ironic that the procedure likely to be least rationed under the future "health care utopia" we're being tempted with is the safe, legal and "rare" abortion. They may not seem so rare when compared to, say, diagnostic MRI's or hernia repairs.
Posted by: johngalt at September 16, 2009 5:41 PMOh, and I DO have rubber gloves by the way. Fear not - I use them only for painting.
Posted by: johngalt at September 16, 2009 5:42 PMMaybe ACORN could set up little illegal clinics staffed with young Guatemalan physicians.
The medical tourism thing might really take off though -- Costa Rican and Indian facilities.
My question for your physician friend was 100% serious. It falls under the heading, "You can't elimnate the human yearning for liberty by making it illegal." Examples abound throughout history: Prohibition; Slavery; USSR.
Posted by: johngalt at September 17, 2009 12:21 PMSeptember 15, 2009
A Nepolitano Trifecta
Andrew Napolitano three-fers in the WSJ Ed Page today:
1) He questions whether ObamaCare is Constitutional. I have been driven crazy by the lack of time and space devoted to this in the commentary. But then again, with Representatives like Mister Clyburn...
Last week, I asked South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate the delivery of health care. He replied: "There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do." Then he shot back: "How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?"
[dramatic pause. Repeat. "How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?" ]
2) He preemptively demolishes the lame "Commerce Clause" response we are all expecting in the event any of them ever actually do have to defend it.
Applying these principles to President Barack Obama's health-care proposal, it's clear that his plan is unconstitutional at its core. The practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services to the human body. In almost all instances, the delivery of medical services occurs in one place and does not move across interstate lines. One goes to a physician not to engage in commercial activity, as the Framers of the Constitution understood, but to improve one's health. And the practice of medicine, much like public school safety, has been regulated by states for the past century.
3) He answers my concern that I was undermining my belief in Federalism by seeking interstate trade in insurance
The same Congress that wants to tell family farmers what to grow in their backyards has declined "to keep regular" the commercial sale of insurance policies. It has permitted all 50 states to erect the type of barriers that the Commerce Clause was written precisely to tear down. Insurers are barred from selling policies to people in another state.That's right: Congress refuses to keep commerce regular when the commercial activity is the sale of insurance, but claims it can regulate the removal of a person's appendix because that constitutes interstate commerce.
Not bad for a brief column.
Napolitano is a hero of mine. I nominate him for President Brother Keith's Attorney General.
Posted by: johngalt at September 15, 2009 1:34 PMHe's already passed one of my litmus tests - a right proper smackdown of the abuse of the Commerce Clause.
"There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do." True enough - of course, were an honorable man to say that (a qualification which unfortunately eliminates most of Congress), his next words would be "... and therefore we need to stop doing those things."
"How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?" Answer: Amendment Ten, in case you've never bothered to read it, Congressman Nitwit.
Posted by: Keith at September 16, 2009 7:44 PMSeptember 14, 2009
Smarter Than I Thought
Really, I should give the Obama Administration more credit. Call it what you will (I choose "evil"), this goes beyond incompetence: paying for the new health care entitlement with a huge surtax on medical devices. You not only raise revenue, but you keep them from coming out with all those expensive new life-saving devices that cost so much. Tigerhawk:
This tax would be without regard to profitability, so it would amount to a capital tax on start-ups and a massive income tax surcharge on profitable companies, varying as net margins do. In the case of my own mid-sized company, the tax would be the equivalent of a roughly 20% surcharge on our net income (in all likelihood raising our economic tax rate well above 50%) or 50% of our research and development budget, depending on how you want to look at it.Any way you look at it, the proposed tax is a calculated effort to divert capital from the medical technology industry to other uses in the economy, because new medical technology drives costs that are now going to be assumed by the government (or at least will be if the Senate leadership gets its way). Of course, innovative medtech also extends and saves lives, and makes them more comfortable and more productive. Which is, after all, the point of medicine.
No sir, the point of medicine is reelection and incumbency. You'd think a smart feller would figure that out...
Medicine operates under the Hippocratic Oath which states: "First, do no harm [to the patient.]"
Government operates under the Hypocritical Oath which states, "First, do no harm [to the established bureaucracy.]"
For the life of me I cannot imagine a beneficial way to combine the two - medicine and government - but Paul "The Troll" Krugman gives it a try.
Posted by: johngalt at September 14, 2009 2:36 PMSeptember 13, 2009
Brother's Keeper
In April I made a case for Sarah Palin to embrace her Christian morality but to denounce imposing it on everyone through the power of the state. Contemporaneously I commented on another blog, though I can't find it at present, to advise a fellow commenter that among the Christian principles she espoused, altruism is used by the statists to justify their athiestic brand of collectivism.
On the occasion of the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, President Barack Obama took another step toward proving me right.
We honor all those who gave their lives so that others might live, and all the survivors who battled burns and wounds and helped each other rebuild their lives; men and women who gave life to that most simple of rules: I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.
That "most simple of rules" will come in mighty handy during debates over publicly funded health care, won't it?
No, mister president, I don't agree. To every man I meet - in my town, in my country, in the world - I can tell him I am his brother, but not his keeper. Nor is he mine.
And most people don't realize that Obama wants to make you your brother's keeper, without shouldering any of the responsibility himself.
He could inspire people, set an example, etc., but then again we don't need to elect a "president" for that.
"It is, indeed, important to notice that my argument so far supposes no evil intentions on the part of the Humanitarian and considers only what is involved in the logic of his position. My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we 'ought to have known better', is to be treated as a human person made in God's image." - C.S. Lewis
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 13, 2009 8:20 PMSeptember 12, 2009
At last, a long-term thinker!
I wondered about this remark in the President's speech last Wednesday:
If we can successfully slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.
"Can that be right," wonders I? Surely the POTUS has some figures to back that up. If that's true, than the Peter Orzag scenario has some foundation.
Ed Morrissey gets a little help from King Banaian, whom he describes as "everybody's favorite economist." With all die respect, I have lots of favorite economists. But Banaian concedes this is true. Providing that your idea of long term is more than 363 years.
In a ten-year window, even if Obama delivered what he promised twice this week, it would save a grand total of $33 billion dollars — and that’s for the whole industry. If the government covered a third of the costs, the total deficit reduction over ten years drops to a mere $11 billion dollars. At that rate, how long will the “long run” need to be to save $4 trillion dollars in deficit spending? It would have to be 363 years and five months.
As John Maynard Keynes said "in the long run we'll all be dead." But who cares as your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren cross that $4Trillion savings mark. It will be a proud day for the republic and will cement President Obama's legacy.
September 11, 2009
What could Possibly Go Wrong?
A Don Surber reader:
Let me get this straight.We’re going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn’t read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s nearly broke.
What possibly could go wrong?
September 10, 2009
Dear Senators Udall and Bennet
Sent to both today. If the President is just going to repeat his position, I don't see why I shouldn't.
I watched the President's speech last night and remain unconvinced that the current proposals for reform will have positive outcomes.The President claims that his opponents are lying or do not understand -- yet he never concedes there are several valid objections to current proposals.
Whether the government is going into the insurance business or dictating terms for current providers (or, my fear, both at the same time), this will retard innovation in both funding and treatment.
His assertion that it can be paid for out of waste seems contrary to the history of government projects and publicly run entities.
Medical records are my most private personal documents and I do not trust government to manage them properly. The news has lately been full of incidents of compromised access to government records in passports and elsewhere.
Lastly, President Madison famously asked a legislator to "lay his finger on the part of the Constitution" that allowed the government to undertake internal improvements.
This level of intervention in our most private affairs requires such a stretch of Constitutional purviews, that the document becomes only fit for defining the minimum ages of office-holders.
Please vote against any legislation that increases government involvement in health care.
Did you see this?
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/09/10/9948/
Bennett and Udall have been called to task for questioning current proposals.
Posted by: Terri at September 10, 2009 4:21 PMNice, Terri. My respect for them just doubled (from 3% to six, but they gotta love the slope!)
Posted by: jk at September 10, 2009 4:26 PMI wonder how many people who tuned in last night exclaimed, "Gee, now that you lie to me that way I totally agree. Why didn't you lie to me that way in the firstplace? All those other lies were a complete waste of both of our time!"
SSDD (same "stuff" different day)
Posted by: johngalt at September 10, 2009 5:01 PMFollwing up on Terri's link I'd ask my Colorado blog brothers and sisters to contact both of their Senators to support the actions that got them called into the principal's office.
Posted by: jk at September 10, 2009 5:57 PMDone and done.
Dear Senator [Udall or Bennet],
I just finished reading a report by Jake Tapper of ABC News that said you are one of sixteen Democratic senators who "have expressed concern about if not downright opposition to key elements of President Obama's health care proposals, particularly his push for a government-run public health care option..." and that you were "summoned to the White House" for a meeting with the president.
I am writing to commend you on your independence from the coercive threats of party leadership in their reckless and unconstitutional rush to turn so many of America's ideals upside down. You seem to know in your heart that despite the impressive and persuasive rhetoric of the president, many of his policy goals are just plain "wrong."
According to Edward S. Ellis in his book 'The Life of Colonel David Crockett' a farmer named Horatio Bunce in then Senator Crockett's home state of Tennessee expressed his displeasure with one of the senator's floor votes thusly:
"But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
Again, thank you for your independent thinking and please remember that like those of you who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, a majority of Americans hold that foundational document of our government higher than they do any particular political party.
Sincerely,
Eric Rinard
Fort Lupton, CO
Awesome -- thanks!
Posted by: jk at September 11, 2009 4:36 PMQuote of the Day
It's early yet, but this opening sentence of an Examiner Editorial is pretty solid:
President Obama’s address to Congress and the nation Wednesday evening was yet another illustration of his seemingly endless ability to soar to genuinely impressive rhetorical heights without ever landing back on truthful ground.
Sometimes the prevarications were so obvious that not even the president's most ardent supporters – like the news staff of The New York Times - had to concede that he was playing fast and loose with the facts.Now that says a lot.
"That is technically true,†the Times carefully admitted, "but there is a real possibility that existing policies could change as a result of the legislation. The government, for instance, would set new standards, and employers that already offer insurance would have to bring their plans into compliance."We already saw on the campaign trail that Obama has exceeded the singular characteristic of Soviet Russian rhetoric: lying by telling a truth. (Something that Star Trek TNG used well when modeling Romulans after Soviet Russia.)
You can keep your plan and your doctor, it's true -- Obama didn't say anything about not forcing changes to your plan, or restricting your doctor.
Obama said "no federal dollars" will fund abortions under his proposal and "the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."And amnesty is on the table for next year, so it will have plenty of time before Obama's socialized destruction of our health care system begins in 2013. Redefining someone from "illegal" to "legal" is just a matter of new law.
But even without that, Hispanic advocacy groups like La Raza are so wholeheartedly for this plan (that won't cover illegals, remember) that they're saying if it passes, they won't push for amnesty. To clarify what they're saying, they won't bother to push for amnesty. Do you have to wonder why for more than a second?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 10, 2009 11:34 AMI am concerned, Perry, that a shift of focus to abortion or immigration shifts the focus to what the President can sell as "partisan objections."
The government is going to take over 17% of GDP, have unprecedented access to my private information, and will be in a position to make life or death decisions. If the discussion gets sidetracked to "will we fund abortion?" or "will we fund care for non-citizens?" then we have lost.
Posted by: jk at September 10, 2009 12:05 PMHere here!
I have been saying that a lot lately, haven't I?
Posted by: T. Greer at September 10, 2009 8:55 PMOh, you know me well enough that I see it as only part of the whole. I'm just saying it's another of the myriad lies being thrown at the American people, who are stupid enough to think "health care should be free, we're rich enough."
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 10, 2009 9:47 PM@tg: you're the scholar, is it "Here here!" or "Hear hear!"
Posted by: jk at September 11, 2009 12:02 PM"Hear, hear!" It's a reference to our auditory sense.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 11, 2009 6:28 PMSeptember 9, 2009
Obamacare: The Movie
This thought occurred to me last week, but I can't claim to be the first: The futuristic scenario painted by the Obamacare proposal, H.B. 3200 is remarkably similar to the 1972 sci-fi film 'Soylent Green.' Rick Carpenter at "Right Wing vs. The Wingnuts" blog posted his take last month:
What is interesting to me is that in the movie, the euthenasia of old people is a government-run program. Under ObamaCare, we are starting with 'death panels'.What is discovered about the food product Soylent Green at the end of the movie seems far-fetched, in that they used the remains of the dead to produce the food wafers. I use the word 'seems' instead of 'is', because the Obama administration has already done some things that are so far-fetched and corrupt that I can't put anything outside the boundaries of their morals (lack), their conscience (lack), their defense of the Constitution (betrayal), or their love for the sovereignty of America (hatred).
Think Rick and I are just two of the strange ones? Jonah Goldberg is nearly with us.
Now, I don’t think Soylent Green-style solutions are coming down the pike. (...) But every nationalized health-care system to one degree or another rations care based on the quality of life and number of “life years” a procedure will yield. That’s perfectly reasonable. If you put me in charge of everyone’s health care, I would do that, too. That’s a really good argument for not giving me — or anyone else — that power.
"Don't break things up in the name of progress..."
President Obama is scheduled to lecture congress this evening. First, let's watch Sgt. Joe Friday and Bill Gannon lecture him.
"Show me how to get rid of the unlimited capacity for human beings to make themselves believe that they're somehow right and justified in stealing from somebody."
Circa 1950?
Oh, and Happy 09/09/09. (It doesn't deserve its own post, but just so's everyone knows we noticed...)
September 6, 2009
Rep. Mike Rogers
A good politician in Michigan -- who knew? I am not familiar with Rep. Rogers, but there are some good parts in this speech:
Hat tip Right Minded Online, via an email link from a high school friend on Facebook. Mark A. Rose of Right Minded Online seems to Phillies fan. This may interest some ThreeSourcers.
The reason cancer survival rates are lower in Canada and the UK than in the US is because their governments suffer from a philosophical cancer: altruism. Ours is also so afflicted, but not yet terminal. Obama represents the metastasis. Only the power of American individualism and our desire to sustain the Constitution can achieve the life-saving remission.
Three Sources fact check:
According to wikiquote the phrase, "You can't make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak" was misattributed to Lincoln in 1942 and no less than Ronald Reagan has repeated the misattribution. It comes from "The Ten Cannots" by William J. H. Boetcker (a German immigrant).
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
The Refugee doesn't care if he attributed the quote to Joe Biden. After a speech like that, Mike Rogers for President! Talk about clean and articulate...
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at September 8, 2009 7:57 PMNational Health Care - as in private insurance companies who can compete directly for our business at a national level. Who's with me! I'll even buy it from that annoying gecko.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at September 9, 2009 1:00 AMAs usual, Silence, in an odd-number year we agree completely. Mister Buffet and his little lizard are indeed the answer. You buy your own health insurance online and you visit the nurse practitioners in Walgreen’s, CVS and Walmart for routine care. To get the bill signed, I'll even go for refundable tax credits to help low income workers afford it.
Kum. Bay. A.
(I don't even mind the gecko, except that every one of his is one fewer of the Geico cavemen spots -- truly the best commercials of all time.)
Dead Horse?
I just fear this particular dead horse will rise up and bite us in the ass.
They'll pitch the public option and some of the more expensive items, this will give the blue dogs and moderate republicans cover to support a bill full of mandates and expanded government coverage.
They'll abandon their dream of getting there in one bill, but the "compromise" will put more people on public health care, make it harder for private insurers and take the crazy whacked hybrid system even further from the free market.
Victory laps all around -- and the next time the collectivists are in power it will be easier to kill off the last little bit of free market medicine.
Hsppy Labor Day from Mister Optimist!
Posted by: jk at September 6, 2009 11:32 AMPelosi said a few days ago that she could support a bill without a public option, as long as it's "mandated" in "the future."
A few weeks ago, I left this comment on someone's blog, when it first appeared that Obama was backing off:
Don't open the champagne just yet. Here's what will happen:
1. The public option will be dropped to make the bill more palatable, to gain "bipartisan support."
2. The new bill will regulate insurers so much that they'll be driven out of business by these "consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives." Here is the Trojan horse. If these "cooperatives," which will be seeded by tax dollars, are not a "public option," then what are they?
3. Voilà , Obama & Co. will say, "Now we definitely need a public option to replace the lack of coverage that private insurers can no longer provide." The "cooperatives" will be expanded and given carte blanche with tax dollars.
It's not hard to foresee this. We know the tricks well enough.Nothing, and I mean nothing that Obama and his thugs do should surprise us. We've seen it all before, not from Obama, but in every bad thing ever done by any president. And he's only been in office for just over seven months!
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 6, 2009 9:00 PMAh blah, I forgot to put blockquote tags around 2, 3 and 4, and up to "We know the tricks well enough." You all can still understand what I'm saying, though.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 6, 2009 9:03 PMSeptember 2, 2009
Lee Marvin Health Care
A new study published today by the National Changing Diabetes Program deals another blow to the Obamacare myth that increased preventive medical care will lead to long-term health cost savings. From the Washington Post:
Using data from long-standing clinical trials, researchers projected the cost of caring for people with Type 2 diabetes as they progress from diagnosis to various complications and death. Enrolling federally-insured patients in a simple but aggressive program to control the disease would cost the government $1,024 per person per year -- money that largely would be recovered after 25 years through lower spending on dialysis, kidney transplants, amputations and other forms of treatment, the study found.However, except for the youngest diabetics, the additional services would add to overall health spending, not decrease it, the study shows.
This is consistent with CBO findings reported earlier this month, says WaPo. "In its own analysis of preventive care, CBO said earlier this month that the cost of making cancer screening, cholesterol management and other services broadly available is likely to far outweigh any savings ultimately generated."
"There's no free lunch here" said Michael J. O'Grady, a senior fellow at the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. [No kidding!]
I enjoyed the summation of this news by FNC's Stuart Varney this morning: "It's basically saying that if you drink a pint of vodka and three packs of cigarettes a day and die at 50 your medical care will cost less than if you take care of yourself and live to 85."
So if lawmakers really want to lower overall healthcare costs they should be mandating this, which I dub - the Lee Marvin * Healthcare Plan.
* An iconic and accomplished actor - one of my all time favorites. A man's man who, though he may have been more careful in life, did more than his share of drinkin' and smokin' on the screen.
August 28, 2009
Quote of the Day
Brother Johngalt's representative, I believe:
"There's going to be some people who are going to have to give up some things, honestly, for all of this to work, but we have to do this because we're Americans." -- Rep Betsy Markey (D - CO)
Correctamundo. We're so proud!!
Thanks for bringing me the quote. Now I can juxtapose it with this one from a campaign mailer before the election. And I quote:
"I promise... I'll always fight to protect your hard-earned money."
(That was so instantly recongnizable as complete bullcrap that I've saved the mailer to this day.)
There were two other pre-election promises there but neither one of them was "I promise I'll make sure that some Americans will have to give up some things."
Posted by: johngalt at August 28, 2009 3:24 PMDon't you remember?
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton, 2004
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 28, 2009 9:14 PMAugust 27, 2009
Showing ID at Townhalls
Awesome.
How dare you ask for ID at the polling place. How dare you. You racist.
But we have to show ID before asking a question of the !@#$!@ we voted for?
This whole townhall endeavor is not going well for the Democrats.
Jim Moran, Democrat of Virginia, for the record.
(tip to JWF)
Seeing that he wants us to prove that we have the freedom of speech and the right to redress, perhaps he in support of us showing ID at the voting booth too. Right?
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at August 28, 2009 10:58 AMI apologize for mdmh, I had no idea we had a racist here.
Posted by: jk at August 28, 2009 11:12 AMAnd I apologize for jk not recognizing that, like "climate change denier" the term "racist" is a badge of honor. But by racist I mean human racist.
Posted by: johngalt at August 28, 2009 3:07 PMAugust 26, 2009
Eleventh Amendment As Tort Reform
This great, VA service is coming soon to a hospital near you:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. - At least 1,200 veterans across the country have been mistakenly told by the Veterans Administration that they suffer from a fatal neurological disease.One of the leaders of a Gulf War veterans group says panicked veterans from Alabama, Florida, Kansas, North Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming have contacted the group about the error.
Denise Nichols, the vice president of the National Gulf War Resource Center, says the VA is blaming a coding error for the mistake.
From Don Luskin who pairs it with a Paul Krugman endorsement.
And this is the government that they want to manage medical care for all the rest of us. Vote of "no confidence," anyone?
Posted by: Keith at August 26, 2009 1:20 PMDear Leader Reid
A good idea from Hugh Hewitt:
$25 to defeat you, Senator Reid. I have MS and cannot believe that the Federal Government will do better at innovation than the free market.Thank you for your time,
John Kranz-----------------------------------------
Danny Tarkanian for SenateP.O. Box 751271
Las Vegas, NV 89136Email : contribution@tark2010.org
Thanks for Your Payment
Payment Detail Item Name Price Quantity Total
My Donation $25.00 1 $25.00
Subtotal $25.00
August 23, 2009
Soldiers defending the Constitution
After defending against foreign enemies those domestic threats are just so much tissue paper. Hoo RAH.
This one may have been posted here before, but just in case...
Jeez, what is it with these soldiers and their "talking points" about the Constitution?
Joe!
Senator Lieberman suggests that the President back off a bit.
WASHINGTON – An independent senator counted on by Democrats in the health care debate showed signs of wavering Sunday when he urged President Barack Obama to postpone many of his initiatives because of the economic downturn."I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy's out of recession," said Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. "There's no reason we have to do it all now, but we do have to get started. And I think the place to start is cost health delivery reform and insurance market reforms."
This drives me nuts. First, it is tacit admission that the "reform" is going to be unbelievably expensive; it won't be less expensive when the economy rebounds. Second, even if we wait until the economy is again strong, we will eventually have another recession. Can we suspend healthcare at that point? Of course not - which means that it will make recovery even more difficult just as it would now. Bad idea now, bad idea in the future.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at August 24, 2009 10:13 PMWell, yes, yes, and hell yes, br -- you are absolutely right.
I was just so happy to see a nominally Democratic Senator peel off for any reason that I posted this excitedly (note the 'bang!')
Opoosing the plan for the wrong reasons is pretty useful this session.
Posted by: jk at August 25, 2009 5:16 PMYes but it's precisely that kind of unprincipled opposition to the ideas borne of bad principles that gets a guy like Lieberman in hot water with the loudest members of the Democrat base. So much so that bad-principled progressive Alec Baldwin has said he will move to Connecticut and challenge Lieberman's senate seat. Oh wait, never mind.
By the way, if Baldwin moved to Connecticut it would be from France, would it not?
Posted by: johngalt at August 26, 2009 3:28 PMFair Weather Federalist?
University of Chicago professor Charles Lipon takes up the banner of enabling a national market for health insurance. This has been one of my biggest hopes -- and it even got an endorsement of sorts from ThreeSources friend Silence Dogood.
The easiest way to see how insurance competition benefits consumers is to look at auto insurance. That's a huge, nationwide market and companies compete intensively for a share of it. Some stress their low prices, others customer service, whatever gives them an edge in the marketplace. Geico and Progressive have been especially aggressive in touting cost savings. State Farm and Allstate certainly compete on price, but they stress service after an accident. That's why Allstate says "you're in good hands," and State Farm says it will be there "like a good neighbor." Other companies, like SafeAuto, focus on drivers who want only minimum coverage to meet state license requirements. In short, auto insurance companies compete vigorously to provide what different consumers want, and they tell them so in national advertisements. Life insurance companies do the same thing. There are even companies that specialize in comparing policies for customers. Competition drives down excess profits and means better, cheaper options for consumers.Ever see an ad touting health insurance? They are rare because the markets are small and companies don't need to compete aggressively on price or service. Introducing such competition would be good for consumers, wouldn't require another Washington bureaucracy and could be done quickly.
I have been waiting for somebody to accuse me of being a fair weather Federalist. Everybody loves States' rights, bit about everybody always seems to have an exception or two in their pocket. Hypocrisy is too pejorative and I am not suggesting a purity test or a census of pinhead-resident-angels. But I love to quote Justice Brandeis's "Laboratories of Democracy." And I salute those who have suggested that some of the facets of ObamaCare should be tried in States, where they could be abandoned after failure.
I know it would be one of the top three changes to health care that would make it accessible and affordable. I'd put it right after employer-tax bias and way in front of tort reform. Am I discarding my Federalist principles? My Tenth Amendment bona fides? What right does the Fed have to tell Vermont that they may not mandate aromatherapy coverage?
I believe this would fall cleanly within the Commerce Clause. The Feds can regulate interstate commerce for the purpose of forming a more efficient market, which is clearly needed here.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at August 24, 2009 10:17 PM"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
Right now, the federal government is "restricting" my commerce across state lines, rather than just "regulating" it. This clause was not intended to give Congress supreme power over what goes across state lines, but rather to give Congress power in state-state disputes so that one state's government couldn't be a jackass. For example, California protectionists might get the legislature to pass a law prohibiting Florida oranges from coming in, or New Jersey might pass a law barring goods originating in New York just from passing through.
Yet no matter how well-intentioned it may have been, when has the federal government (or government at any level) ever made things "more efficient"? The only way government ever can is by staying the hell out.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 25, 2009 11:36 AMYes, br, I think it could pass Constitutional muster -- and I would love to see Wickard v Filburn used on my behalf for a change).
My question is more philosophical: why can't Vermont require aromatherapy coverage in its state? I want the Federal Government to dictate terms to a State, where there is clearly no Constitutional purview. That is fair weather Federalism and I criticize others for it.
The heck with State's rights, (sorry JK)I see this as pragmatism pure and simple. People move among states, companies are likely to have employees in many states, it makes sense. The fact that insurance is a game of statistics means that it favors larger markets. I believe that a national market is a prime factor in other insurance industries ability to complete cost effectively. I want to own my insurance, I decide when to change and when not to and I don't want this limited by my zip code any more than my employer.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at August 25, 2009 10:49 PMSilence, don't you want to look at it from a perspective of freedom?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 26, 2009 11:53 AMAugust 22, 2009
Put Me Down as a No
David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey in the WaPo:
President Obama has called for a serious and reasoned debate about his plans to overhaul the health-care system. Any such debate must include the question of whether it is constitutional for the federal government to adopt and implement the president's proposals. Consider one element known as the "individual mandate," which would require every American to have health insurance, if not through an employer then by individual purchase. This requirement would particularly affect young adults, who often choose to save the expense and go without coverage. Without the young to subsidize the old, a comprehensive national health system will not work. But can Congress require every American to buy health insurance?
The authors say that even by the most aggressive commerce clause precedents -- no way. After McConnell v. FEC, I gave up on the court's saving us. But there is a chance. There is a chance.
Then again, the authors point out that nationalizing health care would work -- just not the mandate.
Good article. But isn’t it already law (I don’t know if this is state or federal) that a hospital must treat a patient in need regardless of their ability to pay? So, the healthy young person who chooses not to carry health insurance gets in an auto accident and arrives via ambulance at the nearest hospital for care, possibly very expensive care. The cost of this care could easily exceed this person’s ability to pay, even with enforcing of bankruptcy laws. At this point, who pays? In the end, me, as an insured person through increases in my health insurance or out of pocket costs. The medical facility will use what means they have to recoup their losses on the uninsured, namely higher costs for their services. So, instead of redistributing the young person’s wealth to the old through forcing them to pay for health insurance they rarely use, we will redistribute the wealth of those who choose to have health insurance to those who choose not to. This is the reason I see for requiring auto insurance, so the insured do not have to pay for the uninsured. The cost of this is quite obvious because most auto insurance plans have a specific item for uninsured motorist protection. We really have the same thing through the method I just described for health insurance; the cost is just more hidden. I wonder how that might change our health care debate if we all had a line item on our health insurance premium that paid for the uninsured?
Posted by: Silence Dogood at August 22, 2009 12:36 PMBut isn’t it already law (I don’t know if this is state or federal) that a hospital must treat a patient in need regardless of their ability to pay?Yes, this has been the case since the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act was passed in 1986. This applies only to hospitals that receive government money, whether "support" or Medicare/Medicaid patients.
The solution, then, is to stop forcing hospitals to accept everyone. Or better yet, to stop giving public money to hospitals, and then EMTALA will be moot.
The solution is NOT requiring insurance, but it would certainly be better if people treated health insurance like auto insurance. Instead of a sensible catastrophic plan (which my wife and I have), people think it's their "right" to get a policy that covers all routine care.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 22, 2009 8:26 PMAugust 21, 2009
'American Lie'
As in, "I lied, lied at every townhall in sight."
If you haven't heard this yet then you're missin' out.
First Principles Health Care Reform Opposition
I am just goofy enough that I would try to plow through HB3200. Silence inquired about it, and a Facebook friend whom I consider fairly non-political told me she read it coast to coast.
I want my legislators to read it, but I confess I have no intention. Call me names, but my opposition is not to details or percentages or cost thresholds -- my objection is to Federal intrusion into the private sector. Perhaps if they had included some GOP softeners like tort reform or interstate purchases, I might be interested. But I don't think there's one thing in those thousand-plus pages that I'd like.
Heather Richardson Higgins nails it:
There are many legitimate concerns raised by these massive plans, and what you hear depends on who you ask. If you ask men, they tend to be most concerned about the legislation's cost and the long-term effect of government controlling such an enormous share of the economy.If you ask women, they worry about the risks of delayed care and the intrusion on their choices. If you ask the elderly, it is the idea of being pushed to quietly accept the pains of old age and settle for the palliative pill rather than the new hip.
All these concerns are real and matter. But the larger point is that Democrats aren't proposing a subsidy to enable people to get the care they need. Rather they want to shift decision-making authority from the American citizen to the government bureaucrat.
These proposals are yet another manifestation of the no-growth, redistributionist mindset, combined with an elitist, authoritarian philosophy of government. To buy into them and ignore the reality they've produced elsewhere is to love humanity more than human beings, and value utopian ideals of equity over the tremendous individual costs they inflict.
In these proposals, human beings aren't individuals with freedom to contract as they see fit and make their own best judgments, but interchangeable widgets for whom rules should be fashioned and enforced based on age, or quality of life, or some other metric. Bureaucrats would evaluate whether one is young enough to warrant a pacemaker or a hip, or sufficiently long gone from a hospital to justify readmission. Medicine would become a one-size-fits-all bureaucracy, not an art, in which the physician would face real risks for deciding that the bureaucratically approved "effective treatment" isn't what works in a particular case.
So spot-on, JG. But you don't necessarily have to have attended baseball games before to be denied future admittance. Lots of UK, uh, football fans are being denied just because of their age, even when they haven't attended games before (because of the long waits).
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 22, 2009 8:29 PMI could get coverage for myself and my older daughter, but my younger daughter and wife have auto-immune disorders and were simply not insurable. I got so frustrated I offered to pay whatever king’s ransom they might demand, but the answer was simply no. This has put a large dent in my plan to eventually strike out on my own and be self-employed.I sympathize with your plight. Now, it's understandable that insurers won't want to take the risk on your wife and daughter, nor should they be forced into it. So you could try to put aside as much as you can in preparation for problems, except that government eats so much of our substance that we run as fast as we can only to stay in place.
Even someone self-employed doesn't qualify. You need to be enrolled in a formal high-deductible insurance policy, which you must buy only from within your state. And Obama dares to tell us that insurance companies are the problem?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 22, 2009 8:34 PMIf your insurance were not through your employer Silence, you would stick with the same insurer you had before the condition was pre-existing, so there is a private sector solution.
I'm gonna get yelled at here, but like Arnold Kling, I suspect a government solution may be required for un-insurable.
Posted by: jk at August 22, 2009 10:03 PMExactly JK, I would be perfectly happy with private insurance if I personally got to pick my level of insurance and the covering company. You are probably right on a government plan for the un-insurable, but the question then is what level of care does that plan provide? This is where health care borders on a "right" in this country. Going back to the baseball analogy, we accept the fact that the rich get luxury boxes and we get stadium seats, but when it comes to medical care too many want (even expect)the luxury box.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at August 23, 2009 12:36 AMA free market is not just the freedom to buy, but the freedom not to sell.
Government, by definition, is force. If you apply a "government insurance" to the uninsurable, you are forcing people against their freedom not to participate. One or both of these will happen:
1. Insurers are forced to provide services to those they didn't want to. They didn't want to because they believe (and most often correctly) that they will lose money on the deal.
2. Everyone else is forced to pay (we use the euphemism "subsidize") for the costs of a few.
Either, and especially both, are immoral and an affront to liberty. They're theft, even if it's done under the guise of "government."
Again, "See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." So it's no different than if neighbors ganged up on the local insurance agent: "Give insurance to M. ____ or we will imprison you!" or "We require that you give __% of your income to pay for M. ____'s medical costs."
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 23, 2009 12:48 PMA bit of friendly, if unsolicited, advice: The minute you begin to think "a government solution may be required" keep thinking. The only reason it may seem like only government can solve the problem is that it took government "solutions" to get things so f___ed up in the first place.
The reason that responsible people wouldn't dream of going without health insurance is that health care is so abominably expensive (despite advancements that should make medicine less costly.) The biggest reason for this is the excessive regulation and liability burdens placed on the industry by ... government. Yaron Brook writes about this in detail, and Ron Paul told CNN's Kieran Chetry about it too.
I too sympathize with Silence's plight but if you think the government is here to help him and his family you are mistaken. (cf. Reagan, Ronald)
Posted by: johngalt at August 23, 2009 6:52 PMDirigo
Today's Latin lesson: Dirigo, meaning "I lead." It is the state motto of Maine and the name of their 2003 universal health care plan was DirigoChoice. I'll confess I thought it read "DingoChoice" as in "Dingoes Ate My Baby," but the name is even more prescient than that.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page reports that Dingo --er DirigoChoice has very similar elements to ObamaCare and was sold under very similar promises.
Despite the giant expansions in Maine's Medicaid program and the new, subsidized public choice option, the number of uninsured in the state today is only slightly lower that in 2004 when the program began.Why did this happen? Among the biggest reasons is a severe adverse selection problem: The sickest, most expensive patients crowded into DirigoChoice, unbalancing its insurance pool and raising costs. That made it unattractive for healthier and lower-risk enrollees. And as a result, few low-income Mainers have been able to afford the premiums, even at subsidized rates.
This problem was exacerbated because since the early 1990s Maine has required insurers to adhere to community rating and guaranteed issue, which requires that insurers cover anyone who applies, regardless of their health condition and at a uniform premium. These rules—which are in the Obama plan—have relentlessly driven up insurance costs in Maine, especially for healthy people.
The Maine Heritage Policy Center, which has tracked the plan closely, points out that largely because of these insurance rules, a healthy male in Maine who is 30 and single pays a monthly premium of $762 in the individual market; next door in New Hampshire he pays $222 a month. The Granite State doesn't have community rating and guaranteed issue.
Perhaps, Dirigante. (They lead? did I get it?) The good people of Maine seek to lead us into the same quagmire of unfulfilled promises, market disruptions and unending expense that they have incurred.
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey: Remember the Maine! Oh, that's good.
"The sickest, most expensive patients crowded into DirigoChoice, unbalancing its insurance pool and raising costs."
Wow, who'd have thought that would ever happen with a government program, that the people who pay the least will use it the most, while expecting The Rest Of Us (because we're "rich") to pay for them?
It's argued that private health insurance is the same kind of "racket," that it's still the healthy who pay for the sick. The difference is that you aren't forced into it. Fat chance with government-run programs.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 21, 2009 1:29 PMAnd costs are controlled for the healthy by refusing to admit people who already have expensive *pre-existing* conditions.
Posted by: johngalt at August 21, 2009 3:37 PMAugust 19, 2009
Life Expectancy Reaches All Time High
In the midst of a health care crisis? MSNBC:
ATLANTA - U.S. life expectancy has risen to a new high, now standing at nearly 78 years, the government reported Wednesday.The increase is due mainly to falling death rates in almost all the leading causes of death. The average life expectancy for babies born in 2007 is nearly three months greater than for children born in 2006.
August 18, 2009
Privacy
The Internet is really one big segue machine. I wanted to blog about privacy of medical info with greater government involvement.
I took somebody to the doctor, and the patient was asked to provide a UA specimen for drug testing. It came with a questionnaire that was pretty intrusive. It turns out that neither the test nor questionnaire was required, but I couldn't help thinking that it contained several questions that I would be queaay answering.
Civil libertarians went apopleptc over a section of the Patriot Act that allowed government to snoop on library records. I can appreciate that's being problematic and feel I could take either side of that debate (I think it was pretty restricted). What I cannot accept is their telling me that library lists are unacceptable, but collecting drug use information is fine.
As they say, what could possibly go wrong? Breitbart::
WASHINGTON (AP) - A fifth State Department worker has been convicted of snooping into the passport files of famous Americans.
Kevin Young, a 22-year veteran of the State Department from Temple Hills, Md., pleaded guilty Monday to illegally accessing more than 125 confidential passport applications for celebrities, professional athletes and a politician.An investigation began in March 2008 after officials discovered unauthorized access of the files for then-presidential candidates Barack Obama, John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
August 17, 2009
At Last, Somebody Asks!
I saw MoveOn.org's "answers to five lies about health care" on Facebook last week. It should have been titled "Five fallacious answers to straw men," but I digress. It got me thinking, a few days before I attended a party that would be chock-full-o-progressives, what my five complaints about health care reform would be: a little elevator talk against HB3200 as it were.
I found it hard to get beyond limited government and enumerated powers. I know we have stretched the idea of enumerated powers around some egregious legislation in the past 100 years, but it got me to wondering whether any "four horsemen" would surface. It also made me wonder why we read so little about any Constitutionality of Federally run, Executive branch managed health care.
Well, Instapundit links to a good post: Is ObamaCare Constitutional? Author Rob Natelson compiles a good list of concerns.
A major goal of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is to limit government power, especially federal power. National health care proposals would increase that power greatly, so it is not surprising that those proposals have constitutional difficulties. Whatever the merits of federal control of health care, moving in that direction is (as former Justice David Souter might say) a change of “constitutional dimension.” The proper way to make such a change is not through an ordinary congressional bill. The proper way is by constitutional amendment.
It seems quaint to even discuss whether something is Constitutional any more (after McConnell v FEC, what could fail?) but, truly if we stretch the Constitution somehow to include this, it ceases to be a framework for limited government and becomes only a document that says how old our legislators must be to hold office.
JK, have you seen any good summaries of HR3200? I actually downloaded it last week and attempted to at least skim through to try to get some facts, but mostly ended up with eyeball whiplash trying to bounce around to all the sections referencing each other. Not to mention a lack of knowledge of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Public Health Service Act, and even the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at August 18, 2009 1:29 AMNope, maybe someone else has. All the summaries I have read are perhaps too agenda driven for your taste. It's funny that you use ERISA as an example, the WSJ Ed Page has done a great job on that. Erisa allows larger companies to offer the same plan across different states.
HR3.2K (sorry couldn't help it) dismantles Erisa but lets existing plans be grandfathered for five years.
So the true line the President should be using is: "if you like your plan and want to keep it, you can for five years, as long as you don't add or remove dependants, or change your name, or your employer doesn't immediately dump a plan it is precluded from adding any members to." Kinda loses its pithiness when you include this, I know. Maybe have one of those drug company guys read the fine print in the background while President Obama talks.
Of course it's unconstitutional. That hasn't stopped the federal government before. The Constitution IS "just a goddamn piece of paper," as is any law that is not enforced.
Check qando.net, whose team has been doing the best coverage I've seen of proposed health care reforms. Even then, they haven't and couldn't possibly cover it all, but you can see additional details in comments. (Anyone familiar with Hayek can understand why this is so.)
Yes, they have their own agenda, but there's nonetheless much truth they expose.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 18, 2009 11:56 AMAugust 14, 2009
Quote of the Day
Harry Reid: Protesters are "Evil-Mongers." Remember how Democrats and media made fun of Bush for talking about "evildoers?" But those were just terrorists, not people who, you know, opposed the Obama Administration's agenda. -- Professor Glenn Reynolds
Republican axis of evil: Iran, North Korea, al-Qaeda
Democrat axis of evil: Republicans, Fox News and talk radio
-- and a certain former Governor of Alasks.
Posted by: jk at August 14, 2009 5:32 PMAugust 13, 2009
This is rich
After years of blocking legislation to require valid identification to vote and branding Republicans as "racists" for supporting it, some Democrats are apparently requiring photo ID to attend their town hall meetings.
In Texas, Rep. Gene Green's office is requiring town hall attendees to present a photo ID that proves they live in his district.On his Web site, Green says "due to a coordinated effort to disrupt our town hall meetings, we will be restricting further attendance to residents ... and verifying residency by requiring photo identification."
Illegal aliens should be able to vote, but people angry with government should not be allowed to speak. Is this still America?
No big, br, they can just show their Union card.
Posted by: jk at August 13, 2009 7:57 PMGreat IBD Editorial on this.
Posted by: jk at August 14, 2009 12:29 PMThe Transportation Crisis
Shannon Love compares transportation costs to health care.
In 1900, most people walked to work, school, shopping and socializing. The percentage of the average household’s budget devoted to transportation was so low that the Census bureau didn’t even bother to collect data on it. Today, the average household spends 21% of its budget on transportation. It’s the second biggest single cost after housing yet people take such spending for granted and easily factor it in to their personal budgets. We do so because transportation costs rose slowly over the course of the last half century while other costs, such as food, decreased. Decade after decade we gradually became used to spending more and more for transportation till now the average middle-class family easily accepts spending several thousand dollars a year in transportation costs.
Love goes on to speculate about the governmnet action that would be required if your employer funded transportation was suddenly taken from you. Great stuff.
She started off well. Very well. "In 1900, health care consumed only a couple of percentage points of the average families budget because medical science couldn’t actually do much." Exactly. What we have today is everyone wanting the health care equivalent of a Ferrari (U.S. health care is the best in the world and is the most expensive because it IS the best) without having to pay for it.
Unfortunately, Shannon doesn't understand the liberty issue. She wrote, "We should establish compulsory medical savings account for everyone that works. People should be required to deposit a fixed percentage of their paychecks into those accounts." This was indeed unfortunate. How can she then write a couple of paragraphs later, "Better, just like transportation, we would all have the power and freedom to chose our own health care ride"?
If you're forced into something, there's no "freedom" involved. She was on a roll until then.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 13, 2009 3:21 PMMs. McArdle Again
In this case, I think that the political logic of an expensive new health care plan will push us faster and further towards price controls on key inputs, and somewhat hamfisted "one-size-fits-all" standard-of-care recommendations. I am reinforced in this belief by the fact that many of the people pushing health care reform are also enthusiastic proponents of . . . price controls on key inputs, and national standard-of-care recommendations. I don't trust them when they ask me to focus on just this bill right here.They shouldn't trust me either. Except they should, because I'm being right out front about this. I don't want this bill, and I don't want any other bill that increases the number of people for whom the government pays for care. I may point out why you shouldn't want this bill, and I will try to be intellectually honest about it--i.e. focus on things the bill actually is likely to do, rather than "death panels". But I wouldn't like it any more if it was more like something you want. In fact, I'd probably like it less.
I have a background thread with a family member that was launched by the McArdle post I highlighted last week. Maybe she knows my niece, but it is funny how well she has followed and countered the objections I have encountered: on time, in order.
At the end of the day, this is a first principle on which I won't budge. I do not want more government involvement, however it is structured.
UPDATE: Her rationing argument makes the WSJ "Notable & Quotable:"
Robert Wright notes that "we already ration health care; we just let the market do the rationing." This is a true point made by the proponents of health care reform. But I'm not sure why it's supposed to be so interesting. You could make this statement about any good:"We already ration food; we just let the market do the rationing."
"We already ration gasoline; we just let the market do the rationing."
"We already ration cigarettes; we just let the market do the rationing."
And indeed, this was an argument that was made in favor of socialism. (No, okay, I'm not calling you socialists!) And yet, most of us realize that there are huge differences between price rationing and government rationing, and that the latter is usually much worse for everyone. This is one of the things that most puzzles me about the health care debate: statements that would strike almost anyone as stupid in the context of any other good suddenly become dazzling insights when they're applied to hip replacements and otitis media.
The rationing is, first of all, simply worse on a practical level: goods rationed by fiat rather than price have a tendency to disappear, decline in quality, etc. Government tends to prefer queues to prices. This makes most people worse off, since their time is worth much more than the price they would pay for the good. Providers of fiat-rationed goods have little incentive to innovate, or even produce adequate supplies. If other sectors are not controlled, the highest quality providers have a tendency to exit. If other sectors are controlled, well, you're a socialist.
Hear hear! I read some of the stuff I wrote three years ago and come away with the conclusion that I was a daft idiot. Holding onto things like this is not worth it. Better to change a person to your side than to hold a grudge against them because they were not in the past. And hey, to be honest, we need as many allies as we can get right now.
Posted by: T. Greer at August 13, 2009 2:53 PMIf McArdle will repudiate what she wrote before, then I'll change my attitude toward her. But that's the point: she has not, she's admitted she's no Randian, yet she has the brazen disingenuousness to use "Jane Galt."
"To want" something is fine, but you need to distinguish that from McArdle's "I want government to..." beliefs. Just because I don't trust government doesn't mean I don't want peace, freedom and justice for all -- I just don't believe that government is capable of providing those things without destroying them equally (or to a greater extent) elsewhere.
Jefferson's idea of "public education" and today's concept are entirely different. Jefferson was not promoting a government monopoly like today, but a supplement so that the poorest of the populace could still get educated. If you read his letter of 1813 to John Adams, it's true that his plan involved taxation, where the more successful are forced to pay for others' children, but recall that taxes then were so much lower than today. We fought a revolution partially over a few pence per pound of tea, you know. And his plan was, in fact, quite elitist in how it wanted to separate the very best. It also would be decried today by teachers' unions because control would be purely local: there was no such thing as a school board, a city council or a state legislature governing hundreds or thousands of different schools.
My opposition to SCHIP is that it subsidizes the middle class. I don't object to ensuring health care for truly indigent children (I'd prefer a State level program, but that's a bad place to make a stand).My opposition to SCHIP is that it takes from one man and gives to someone else.
See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.
Liberty and libertarianism imply consequences, rights and responsibilities.I'll refer only to liberty, because "libertarianism" has become ridiculously diluted these days. Now, you talk about responsibilities -- which, and to whom? The only "responsibility" in a truly free life is that you take care not to harm others.
I am not at all offended by her suggestion that children and fetuses do not and should not share equally as adults in these. We offer children many special protections. Like McArdle, I think that is either acceptable or would be so impolitic to oppose, that I will let it slide.It's one thing to say that people under the age of majority do not have full rights. Someone under 18 cannot contract without parental or guardian permission, including marrying and getting a job. However, that is a far cry from saying my wife and I, who do not have children yet, should be taxed because our neighbors' children are "a special libertarian case."
Children can be considered a different "case" only because parents have the responsibility for their upkeep. A parent ignoring a child's needs for food and shelter is a criminal, for example. I, however, am not a criminal for ignoring the various vagrants I encounter in the city. In fact, it would not be criminal even if it were a homeless child (not my child, I should specify), because there I have no lawful obligation. Moral, yes, but morality is beyond the scope and ability of law.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 13, 2009 3:08 PMMcArdle's "national standard-of-care recommendations" are the same thing as Palin's "death panels." Those who set the "standard" of care are making life and death decisions.
She portrays herself as reasonable and objective in contrast to Palin, but it seems that she objects to the same provisions as Palin for the same reasons. To me that says both of them are reasonable and objective.
Posted by: johngalt at August 13, 2009 3:15 PMHear hear! I read some of the stuff I wrote three years ago and come away with the conclusion that I was a daft idiot. Holding onto things like this is not worth it. Better to change a person to your side than to hold a grudge against them because they were not in the past.As I said, McArdle has not repudiated what she wrote before. She gives every indication that she believes in a particular level of government redistribution, and she makes her arguments on the basis of "efficiency" and utilitarianism -- not on liberty, as I do.
And hey, to be honest, we need as many allies as we can get right now.No, T, what we need now are principles.
Any "allies" we gain, who do not share the principles of liberty and not redistributing wealth, will be along the lines of allying with the dragon so he'll eat our enemies. It might be good when we "win," but it only means we'll be eaten last.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 13, 2009 3:26 PMPerry- Principles are nice and all, but they do not get you any votes on the Senate floor. Come election season, and we can talk about getting guys with principles in there. At the moment my larger priority is killing this bill.
And if McArdle helps, all the better for us.
I didn't see your comment until now, T. The problem with your idea of "getting votes" is that you implicitly must abandon principles to give a majority of voters what they want. And that majority wants only one thing: to receive as much as they can from the minority.
McArdle is not helping. Do you see what's happening? This bill, this specific bill, will go down. But Republicans are now pressed to offer their own alternatives, their own "reform." Even Wal-Mart has bent over for the feds, hoping they'll be eaten last.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 21, 2009 1:45 PMAugust 12, 2009
Quote of the Day
And these are just some of the falsehoods and misinformation peddled by President Obama yesterday. It doesn't even include his choice to sell Obamacare as The "Post Office" of Health Care Plans. No wonder so many Americans are skeptical. -- Heritage, in a blistering and comprehensive fact check of President Obama's "Pep Rally."Hat-tip: Instapundit
Heh. Universal Heh.
Posted by: johngalt at August 12, 2009 2:18 PMListening to Obama, it sounds like his latest definition of "universal" is available to all. Well, we have such a universal plan today. Pay the premium and the coverage is yours.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at August 12, 2009 3:57 PMI know how to provide universal health care and keep our current private insurance system - preemptive bailout! President Obama announces now that the big health insurers are too big to fail. This allows them to lavish health insurance benefits on the high risk uninsured, keep making profit, and have no fear of huge losses.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at August 16, 2009 10:08 AMAugust 11, 2009
Incentives Matter
I don't get it, somebody help me out.
Companies will not hire less, move operations overseas, or slow company growth because of Federal tax policy -- nope, incentives don't really matter.
But your evil, greedy bastard family physician is going to let your diabetes go because the amputation will pay off her Range Rover:
Hat-tip: @KOSMOSNET
Lies, damned lies, and Obama's town halls.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 12, 2009 11:53 AMBut, but, but...
From the transcript of Obama's "town hall" in Portsmouth, NH today, President Obama answers a question from Ben Hirschenson of Ogunquit, Maine and also Bonita Springs, Florida.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you've been quoted over the years when you were a senator, and perhaps even before then, that you were essentially a supporter of a universal plan.I'm beginning to see that you're changing that. Do you honestly believe that? Because that is my concern. I'm on Medicare, but I still worry that if we go to a public option, period, that the private companies, the insurance companies, rather than competing, because who can compete with the government? The answer is nobody.
So my question is, do you still as a -- yourself now support a universal plan or are you open to the private industry still being maintained?
OBAMA: Well, I think it's an excellent question. So I appreciate the chance to respond. First of all, I want to make a distinction between a universal plan versus a single-payer plan, because those are two different things. A single-payer plan would be a plan like Medicare for all, or the kind of plan that they have in Canada, where basically government is the only person -- is the only entity that pays for all health care.
Everybody has a government paid-for plan, even though depending on which country, the doctors are still private or the hospitals might still be private. In some countries, the doctors work for the government and the hospitals are owned by the government.
But the point is, is that government pays for everything, like, Medicare for all. That is a single-payer plan. I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter, because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based system in this country, with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that, I believe, would be too disruptive.
So what would end up happening would be a lot of people who currently have employer-based health care would suddenly find themselves dropped, and they would have to go into an entirely new system that had not been fully set up yet, and I would be concerned about the potential destructiveness of that kind of transition. All right? [emphasis by jg]
So this is apparently some other fellow...
I am glad, however, to see him explain in the closing paragraph of the excerpt just what one consequence of single-payer healthcare would be. Bravo mister president!
Nazis Against ObamaCare
I hate Illinois Nazis -- even when they're in Georgia:
LEBANON, Pa. – Jeers and taunts drowned out Democrats calling for a health care overhaul at town halls Tuesday, and one lawmaker said a swastika was spray-painted at his office as debate turned to noisy confrontation over President Barack Obama's plan. The president himself was treated more respectfully.
Hmm, sounds pretty serious. What was that about the swastika again? Yes, paragraph 15:
In Georgia, Democratic Rep. David Scott's staff arrived at his Smyrna, Ga., office outside Atlanta on Tuesday morning to find a large, black swastika spray-painted on a sign out front bearing his name. The vandalism occurred roughly a week after Scott was involved in a contentious argument over health care at a community meeting.
Clearly the work of NAZIS AGAINST REFORM. I don't see how a thinking person could doubt it. I am no Nazi, and to prove it, I am going to support National(ist) Socialist Health C -- oh, wait...
jk Turns in His Wife
Dear Ms. Douglass and President Obama:It is with deep sadness and great regret that I alert you to a purveyor of "fishy" information on the Democratic Health Care plan: my wife of 26 years, Riza.
She suffered a severe stroke in 2005 and used quite a bit of medical resources. She was flown to a different hospital in a helicopter. There she underwent 3 1/2 hours of brain surgery, weeks of Intensive Care and then transfer to an inpatient rehabilitation hospital, where she spent two months.
We are both quite pleased that the physicians, facilities, and funding were available to someone of middle class means in the small town of Lafayette, Colorado. But here's the problem. She tells people that those funds, facilities and physicians might not be available under ObamaCare. She has told friends and family that she would not have survived in most countries with socialized medicine and that the care she received is threatened by the current Democratic Health Care Reform Bills.
What a load of hogwash, eh Linda? The President has made it abundantly clear on several occasions that the quality and availability of care will go up and the costs will go down. Clearly, all that is needed is some of that legendary government efficiency and all these goals will be realized. I am sorry that my wife accepts historical precedent and empirical examples over politicians' promises. Perhaps your re-education team can help her out with this.
Anyway, thanks for your time and give my best to the Speaker and Leader Reid.
Your humble servant,...
Tell me you really sent this to them. Please.
My guess: They won't recognize the sarcasm.
Posted by: johngalt at August 11, 2009 11:04 AMYup, flag@whitehouse.gov -- doing my part to keep the country safe!
Posted by: jk at August 11, 2009 11:54 AMIt's nice to know that you got your mind right, Luke. But I'm still betting you can't eat three dozen boiled eggs.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at August 11, 2009 12:15 PMAugust 10, 2009
Woof!
A couple o' tales from the Mother Country, today. First up, Theodore Dalrymple's awesome Man vs. Mutt. Dalrymple (really British Physician and Adam Smith Institute contributor Anthony Daniels) takes up the case that John Stossel made in Canada: private veterinary care has a lot of advantages over a nationalised, public human health care system.
Selfishly, no doubt, I continue to measure the health-care system where I live by what I want for myself and those about me.And what I want, at least for that part of my time that I spend in England, is to be a dog. I also want, wherever I am, the Americans to go on paying for the great majority of the world’s progress in medical research and technological innovation by the preposterous expense of their system: for it is a truth universally acknowledged that American clinical research has long reigned supreme, so overall, the American health-care system must have been doing something right. The rest of the world soon adopts the progress, without the pain of having had to pay for it.
The second story is not so light. It is the tale of a young woman who died in front of her 13 year old son because she could not get care in the NHS.
Debra Beavers, 39, phoned NHS 24 twice in two days before getting a hospital appointment. But a doctor gave what her family described as a cursory examination lasting 11 minutes, before advising her to buy over-the-counter medicine Ibuprofen.
[...]
She was suffering numbness in her toes, swelling around the ankle and leg pains. She contacted NHS 24, who took her details and said they would be in touch.However, Debra's condition worsened and she began to suffer severe chest pains by the early hours of Sunday.
She rang NHS 24 again at 2am and requested a doctor. They instead booked an appointment for her at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, later that day.
Darlene, 44, said: "We now think Debra was actually having a heart attack around the time she telephoned NHS 24. I spoke to her on Sunday morning and she said the pains were so bad, she thought she was going to die.
"She went to the hospital as arranged at 1pm and was back out in minutes. The doctor told her to go home and take Ibuprofen.
"She said he was very rude and, as she clutched her chest, told her 'Your heart is on the other side'.
My niece, responding to the Megan McArdle piece I forwarded, replied with the New Yorker article that shames McAllen, Texas, for providing too much care to people, clearly to line their pocketbooks. (To be fair to the article, the McAllen patients don't display statistically better outcomes from the more expensive care.) But one part of the article sticks out, and I was reminded by the story of poor Ms. Beavers.
I gave the doctors around the table a scenario. A forty-year-old woman comes in with chest pain after a fight with her husband. An EKG is normal. The chest pain goes away. She has no family history of heart disease. What did McAllen doctors do fifteen years ago?Send her home, they said. Maybe get a stress test to confirm that there’s no issue, but even that might be overkill.
And today? Today, the cardiologist said, she would get a stress test, an echocardiogram, a mobile Holter monitor, and maybe even a cardiac catheterization.
"Oh, she's definitely getting a cath," the internist said, laughing grimly.
I remember thinking when I read it, that "if it were your wife, buddy, you'd demand 'a cath.'"
Pity Ms. Beavers wasn't in McAllen. She could have driven up the cost of care and the hospital could have charged her insurance for a catheter evaluation of her artery. Oh, and she would have lived.
"If it would save just a single 39 year-old mother, wouldn't it be worth it?"
But seriously, does the McAllen takedown piece even consider the role that overzealous malpractice lawyers play in over-treatment?
Posted by: johngalt at August 10, 2009 2:29 PMTo be fair, they did, pointing out that Texas passed very tough tort reform measures and that McAllen lives under the same rules as El Paso, which spends quite a bit less.
It's a ponderable question. My gripes were:
a) what makes you think government is better situated to make a Mayo out of McAllen that the market? Explain. Provide examples. Show your work.
b) It is all well and good to statistically laugh derisively at catheter treatment for a 40 (or 39) year old woman. When it's your wife/mom/daughter, most people would be glad to err on safety; most governments would be glad to err on the side of cost savings.
August 7, 2009
Underappreciated Effect of Heath Care on Wages
Keith Hennessey links to a paper that calculates the hit workers’ wages will take under different health care scenarios. Hennessey adds, "In July the health care reform debate looked at the effects of proposed legislation on the federal budget. Congress needs to focus on the effects of their proposed policies on workers’ future wages." Hint: they ain't good.
The post does not lend itself well to excerpting, so I lifted this from a comment:
This is a devastating study for many health reform options now under consideration, and there are troubling consequences beyond those you cite. For example, if health insurance costs continue to rise, effectively crowding out real wage increases, and if reform fails to address the income and payroll tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health care, then income and payroll tax revenues from most labor income will be flat or even falling for many years to come.The split of labor compensation as between taxable cash wages and non-taxable forms is one of the most important economic assumptions CBO and the Administration make when putting together their revenue forecasts. While Members of Congress and the press quibble over a tenth of a point more or less GDP growth, the real action in the revenue forecast is often the allocation of the income generated in the economy, especially the labor compensation split.
UPDATE: Don Luskin has further analysis on this same paper.
Quote of the Day
Every drug that's made is a gift from one generation to the next because, while it may be expensive now, it goes off patent and your kids will have it essentially for free.Whatever the marketplace, if talented people are given resources they're going to keep driving us to having better, simpler, cheaper solutions to problems. And, by the way, if they come up with a better solution but it can't be cheaper—which, in the beginning, most things aren't—nobody says you have to buy it. -- Dean Kamen, holder of more than 400 medical patents (and inventer of the Segway), in a superb interview with Popular Mechanics
Hat-tip: Jimmy P
August 5, 2009
Dear Congressman
Said friend of ThreeSources also shared the IBD Editorial with congressional representation:
Dear Mr. Walz,
I am glad to hear you are worried about the spiraling cost of healthcare. In this context, I am sure you will be interested in reading the analysis published by one of your predecessors, former Congressman Tim Penny. He points out in this article from Investors Business Daily that the cost of healthcare in the segment covered by Medicare and Medicaid has far outstripped the rise in costs among those covered by private health insurance and has far outstripped rises in costs in other areas government spending.
"If in the 40-year span from 1968 through 2007 Social Security went up 25 times, Medicare 85.5 and Medicaid 105.9, why did the total federal budget increase overall only 15.3 times? What held the budget back?It was largely defense. Defense outlays rose from $82.2 billion in 1968 (or 46.1% of the total budget) to $547.9 billion in 2007 (20.1% of the total budget). In dollars, that is an increase of a bit less than 6.7 times. "
He goes on to point out that not only would the proposed plan be fiscally irresponsible but it would inevitably slow progress in medicine and discourage the best and brightest from entering the field. As I pointed out in my previous letter, I am a physician who specializes in a rare treatable, but incurable form of cancer (multiple myeloma). Survival among patients with this cancer has doubled since 2000, but the new medicines are very expensive. I am worried that a system that will inevitably lead to government rationing will jeopardize the quality of care my patients receive. The most effective medicines for this cancer are not routinely available in Canada or Europe. I implore you to vote against any bill that includes a "public option" that will inevitably drive up costs, reduce quality and drive private health insurers out of business.Sincerely,
...
On Tippy-toe
I link to another Megan McArdle post. Not to antagonize any of my favorite commenters, but because she hits another home run. I mailed the other post of hers to several left-leaning friends and received a great response. As I expected, it forced some supporters of National Health Care to question different aspects.
A universal element in the response was criticism of pharma firms' "spending more on marketing than R & D." Take it away, Ms. McArdle:
This makes about as much sense as saying that Dr. Jerry Avorn cannot be that smart because his brain only weighs about three pounds. Presumably, you can't be really smart--really innovative--unless your brain is at least 30 percent of your body weight!This is obviously ludicrous--so why would Dr. Avorn say it about an R&D department? Like your brain, the R&D department is part of a complex system that does a lot of important stuff. You can argue that the R&D department is the most important part of a company, not least because it couldn't survive long without it. I think the same thing about my brain--but I'd still be just as dead without my liver. You certainly can't prove anything about my effectiveness as a journalist by pointing out that it weighs less than my bones.
So how big should a "brain" be? Hard to say. But let's look at some companies that are generally recognized as pretty innovative, and their R&D as a percentage of revenue:
Apple: three cents out of every dollarGoogle: ten cents out of every dollar
Intel: fifteen cents out of every dollar
Genzyme (innovative biotech startup!): sixteen cents of every dollar
US Government: three cents out of every dollar
I can assure Dr. Avorn that any venture capitalist would be happy to invest in these hidebound laggards who haven't had a new idea in centuries. The first few, anyway.
All great! Hat-tip, Prof Mankiw who was taken by the line " But the fact that he mistakes his ignorance for a fact about the universe makes me wonder if pharmacoeconomics is what my college boyfriend's roommate used to do with a few grams of cocaine and a copy of Mankiw's Principles."
August 4, 2009
Stick it to the Middle Class!
Jeffrey Anderson takes to the IBD Editorial Page to wonder why, with all the rhetoric aimed from the Obama Administration toward the rich, why the brunt of the ObamaCare burden will be allowed to fall on the middle class:
A two-tiered system would then emerge: The very rich would take their spots like first-class passengers on the Titanic, paying for fine care and not asking the price. The rest of us would take our spots in steerage class, awaiting the inevitable collision between government-run health care and the iceberg of budgetary disaster.White House budget director Peter Orszag recently opined that "the deficit impact of every other fiscal policy variable" is "swamped" by the deficit threat posed by Medicare and Medicaid. President Obama's solution? A massive new Medicare-like program!
Hat-tip: a friend of ThreeSources, via email
Some Serious None of the Above
Professor Mankiw boils the health care debate down to a false bifurcation:
Why do these two smart commentators reach such opposite conclusions? The essence of the difference, I think, is that Paul [Krugman] is mainly concerned with universal coverage and is happy to put off discussion of the government budget constraint to another day, while Keith [Hennessey] is focused on how the reforms will be paid for and, in particular, on the administration's claim that a major goal of health reform is to put the government on a more sustainable fiscal path.A large part of the policy debate boils down to this: Are you more worried about the problem of the uninsured or about the long-term fiscal imbalance?
If that is the choice, we've all lost. Surely Congress will be able to find some gimmick to "pay for" universal health care, as important as it is to cover the (how many is it today?) 54 million uninsured.
If however, you focus on freedom, or an environment that is conducive to innovation, the argument frames a little more favorably to freedom lovers:
A large part of the policy debate boils down to this: Are you more worried about losing the freedom to pursue your family's best health care strategies or about protecting long-term innovation?
That's an argument to have!
August 3, 2009
The Arlen Specter Shoutdown
Senator Specter and Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius had a town hall meeting at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Sunday.
It did not go well.
Enjoy.
Much more at Panzramic.
Yeah, I saw that -- but I'll happily watch it again! I think the word I am looking for is "Woot!"
Posted by: jk at August 3, 2009 1:04 PMI like the slope!
Jimmy P thinks this is a "handy way of summing up what a rough patch the Obamacrats have been going through, (via Intrade and Baseline Scenario):" I just like to look at it:
August 2, 2009
John Stossel on Health Care
Hat-tip: @ariarmstrong
McArdle Defended
Not from Perry, sadly, but from Ezra Klein and Ben Domenech. Dave @ Classical Values takes them to task and in the process makes some excellent comments that need to be made about free market health care. On Klein:
Finally, he invokes the left's gold standard non sequitur: "Pharmaceutical companies, for instance, spend less on drug research than on administration and marketing." What difference does that make? So do many, if not most, industries, and no one think the government should run them (this notion is discredited even in Communist China). As an argument for nationalization of health research, this is like saying "Mom spends more time watching TV than driving, so let's have the dog drive the kids home after soccer practice."
On Domenech:
They [private pharma companies] do productization research, and only for well-known medical conditions that have a lot of commercial value to solve.
This is like complaining that farmers only grow crops many people want to eat, or car manufacturers only make cars that many people want to buy. This is Free Markets 101. Yes, it's tragic there are rare conditions that affect only a small number of people; it would be stupid and even more tragic not to focus on treatments that will benefit more people. This is why free markets work and command economies fail: efficient allocation of resources.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
July 31, 2009
A Cancer Patient that Doesn't Want Free Health Care
A friend of ThreeSources sends me a link to a WSJ guest editorial on health care. She's right, it is superb:
I have been battling non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, an incurable blood cancer, for the past nine years. Last year, I was also diagnosed with uterine cancer.I didn’t run to Canada for treatment. Medicare took care of my needs right here in New York City. To endure, I just need the freedom to choose my insurance, my doctors, and get the diagnostic scans and care I need. And one more thing: I need hope that a treatment will be developed that can control my diseases the way insulin controls diabetes.
Every cancer patient needs these things, especially hope. But the government's plan to reform the health-care system in this country threatens all of this—particularly the development of new treatments.
Whole thing gotta.
Am I the only one who noticed that she wrote, "Medicare took care of my needs right here in New York City." (Emphasis added.)
Posted by: HB at July 31, 2009 2:51 PMNope,
Posted by: jk at July 31, 2009 2:53 PMUlrik writes, "But are we really expected to forgo new medical technology and return to the cancer care of the 1970s?"
Why not?
We're being asked to forego the most modern electrical generation technology in exchange for windmills and solar cells first popularized in the 1970's.
We're being asked to forego comfortable, powerful and safe autos and return to updated econo-boxes of the 1970's.
Our government is attempting to solve well-understood economic problems with the same policies that failed in the 1970's, albeit on a grander scale.
But why should anyone be surprised by any of this? The most substantive difference between the current congress and White House in comparison to those of the Carter era is that George McGovern thinks THIS crop is taking things too far.
Posted by: johngalt at July 31, 2009 2:54 PMWell said. Arnold Kling in Crisis of Abundance points out that we can easily afford 1970s health care for everybody. If it was on the Dr. Welby show, you can have it!
Strangely, few are lining up for that plan. Except in countries that took over health care when the kindly Robert Young character was on.
July 30, 2009
Dear Senator Udall
Senator Udall:First, thank you for the invitation to the "telephone town hall" on health care last night. I regret that I was unable to stay on the line but I appreciate that forum.
I contact you today because I have Multiple Sclerosis and am deeply concerned about current health care bills, both in detail and direction.
I am participating in my second clinical trial of experimental treatment and it is extremely clear that government is poorly situated, structured, and incentivized to take over the innovation and development provided by the free market.
I would like to point you toward Megan McArdle's post on the Atlantic website http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/a_long_long_post_about_my_reas.php I believe Ms. McArdle supported President Obama in the election and tends to vote Democratic. Yet she sees the opportunity to retard innovation with an augmented Federal presence.
Thank you for your time and attention,
John Kranz
Erie, CO
I sure hope he likes it better than Perry...
I'm not sure it matters what Udall thinks of the McArdle post. According to Maxine Waters, Rahm only told the "conservative" Blue Dogs amongst the new senators that "they could vote the way they wanted to." That freedom might not extend to rabidly progressive new members such as Mark Udall.
Your effort to elicit representation is nonetheless laudable.
Posted by: johngalt at July 30, 2009 2:28 PMI have given up on my Rep (Polis, CO-2). He has a gerrymandered district and his constituents clearly want communism, as soon as possible. I sent a modified version of this to both Senators though. If you're too far left, you'll get pressure in Colorado (Hart and Wirth did okay). I'm just reminding.
Posted by: jk at July 30, 2009 2:49 PMJuly 29, 2009
Otequay of the ayday
I still contend that brother jk is missin' out by not having cable. FNC's 'America's Newsroom' regularly features US congressmen or senators commenting on affairs of the day and they tend to say the darnedest things. Just yesterday a congressman said, in essence, "these people who have gold plated health care coverage don't have the right to force everyone else to subsidize their coverage and that's why we should tax them." I wanted to give the verbatim quote with attribution but didn't think to record him. I didn't make that mistake today.
Representative Steven Lynch (D-MA) is chairman of the Postal Service Oversight Subcommittee. Commenting on the GAO report downgrading the USPS' credit worthiness in the wake of $2.8 B lost last year and $7 B projected to be lost this year he was asked by FNC's Bill Hemmer, "Fed-Ex is profitable. UPS is profitable. Is it time to start taking a serious look at making this government service private?"
"Well look, if Fed-Ex did what the post office did and if UPS did what the post office did they would not be profitable."
I'll leave the obvious conclusion to the reader, but there's more. In the very next breath he seemed to be channeling Jon Caldera on healthcare reform, but in reverse, and without even realizing it.
"They provide universal coverage six days a week to every business and home in America for forty-four cents, basically, for a letter. If you don't want that service then you could probably reduce the postal service's costs as well."
He even called it "universal coverage!"
We'll see how long I hold out. My lovely wife gets the eeeevil FOXNews on her phone. Curiously, my local-channels-only-in-analog cheapskate service includes CSPAN and much of the basic cable.
I hate to champion tax increases, but I think taxing gold plated coverage is an important step toward tax neutrality for individuals and corporations.
The Post Office quotes are awesome!
Posted by: jk at July 29, 2009 1:34 PM