Earmarks are a symptom of the problem.

In 2005, the Congressional Research Service found that earmark projects accounted for 1.92% of all federal outlays (spending). Now... that doesn't sound like a lot of money.  Well, OK, in the jaundiced and stratosphere-high world of federal spending, that doesn't sound like a lot of money.  In fact, it would work out to about $47.7 billion dollars, which compared to the $1300 billion that we overspent in 2010, doesn't really seem like much.

However, earmarks are a symptom of a Washington problem that John McCain and a few others have been warning us against for years.  Earmarks are used to buy votes in both houses of Congress.  It's a form of political currency that is used to influence members of both the House and the Senate to vote in a manner that they might otherwise have done.  Here's an example:

House Leader: This reform legislation is very important and we really need your vote in order to guarantee it's passage.
Representative: I realize that this is important to you, but you have to understand that my constituency isn't effected that much by the problem your legislation addresses. And they will object to its cost.
House Leader: Well, what is your constituency interested in?
Representative: We've been trying for years to build that new county library, but the economy has made it difficult to get it done.
House Leader: Well, what if we were to attach, let's say, $600,000 in earmarked funding for that library to the proposed legislation?  
Representative. My constituency will be grateful.  You have my support.

See the problem?  So even though earmarks themselves only represent a small amount of the total federal funds spent, they contribute to a bloated federal budget by making it more palatable to some members of Congress by sending some funding back home where it will do some good.

In the above example, would a new public library be of benefit to the community? Almost assuredly so. But because it's earmarked legislation, it never gets debated as part of the budget.  Therefore, this funding is hard to find and hard to track.

If you get rid of these "pork-barrel" projects and hidden earmarked funding riders, then bills tend to be voted on based only on their relative merit and not because votes have been bought and paid for.  For example, without the sweetheart deals that were made to certain members of Congress in states like Kansas and Louisiana, the United States National Health Care legislation (aka "Obamacare") would probably never have gotten enough votes to pass.

And that's why the Tea Party wants earmarks eliminated.

The Unbelievable Media Bias

NewsBusters reports that when prompted by Katie Couric during an interview, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg speculated that the person responsible for the failed car bomb in Times Square was "somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.” Yup, Mayor Michael thinks it might be one of those "tea party" people, you know, an angry WHITE guy. I can only imagine how disappointed President Obama was to find out that in fact, the guy is actually a naturalized American citizen of Pakistani decent. Sorry Mister President, you won't be able to blame this one on those angry gun-toting white males.

Of course, Arizona's new illegal immigration enforcement laws are whipping up angst all over the United States. The day of the bill's signing, pro-illegal-immigration supporters were throwing water bottles and other objects at Phoenix police. Looters have damaged stores in several cities during these protest marches during the May day weekend. Yet the press is characterizing them as "unfairly repressed", yet when tens of thousands of tea party people march on Washington DC and other U.S. cities, even though no crimes were reported, they are characterized as full of "hateful, racist and bigoted" people.

Speaking of Arizona's new law, I've read it in it's entirely and there is absolutely no provision for a police officer to lawfully stop somebody and ask them for their papers. Period. These new laws may only be acted upon in a situation where a person has already been legally detained for other reasons (traffic stop). The only possible cause for concern is that it makes the hiring of day laborers from the road side illegal, which in my opinion is good law.

Speaking of peaceful assemblies, several thousand American citizens had a rally in Arlington, Virginia where each and every one of them was wearing or carrying a firearm. I can't speak as to whether any of them actually had any bullets in them, although even an unloaded firearm can really smart when you use it to butt-stroke some idiot. But while the press was lamenting the implied threat of these citizens who were, in fact, doing nothing more than exercise their 2nd Amendment right, I note that nobody was shot or killed or even just injured by some kind of firearm discharge. What?! How can that be? Guns KILL people right? I guess this shows what the NRA people have been talking about for a long time. People kill people, and these people decided to be lawful citizens on that particular day.

So, just so I can call it right out where people can either praise or pillory me for it.

Large group of white people assemble to protest Obamacare, or lack of illegal-immigration law enforcement, or to lawfully assemble with their firearms, is a bunch of racist, bigoted, bible clinging members of hate groups just brimming with hate and ready to explode into seditious violence.

But large groups of non-white people who clearly support illegal-immigration, who break store windows and throw objects at the police, who threaten reporters, slap them and then tell the police that THEY have been assaulted (look it up on the net, it actually happened just this weekend), they're just "unfairly repressed" people.

And the main-stream media talking heads actually have the temerity to look me in the face and wonder why Fox News is kicking the living crap out of all the other news sources?

Representative Government is Replaced with Absolutism.

Today, the President of the United States and Congress celebrated the passage of "landmark" health care legislation. In a crowded White House East Room a beaming President Obama signed the United States National Health Care Reform Act into law while numerous senators and representatives looked on.

Although this is not the first time that the US federal government passed unpopular legislation into law, this is clearly the most egregious example from both a procedural and financial standpoint.

Thirteen US states Attorneys General have filed lawsuits against this legislation to challenge it's constitutionality. This is rapidly being seen as a "state's rights" issue. States, who are not able to print money like the federal government can, are wondering how they are going to pay their share of this huge expansion of government involvement in not only the regulation but also the financing of the US health care industry.

Even as he signed it the American people remain firmly opposed to this law as shown in this poll by Rasmussen on March 21st, 2010. 54% of Americans oppose it, while only only 41% are in favor with about 5% undecided.

The manner in which Congress passed it, using a procedural rule instead of a straight up and down vote, has incensed many Americans.

The American people have been left with a rancid taste in their mouth. Even many Democrats are unhappy with this bill, albeit for reasons other than my own. They are also disgusted by the manner in which this law made it through the legislative process. Many of those who voted for it were quite literally offered sweetheart deals for their districts or states in order to entice them to vote for it. In the real world, these are called "bribes".

We have been lied to. How can any reasonable person think that adding 31 million people to the health care system, many of them being persons already very ill, to a health care system with no provision for adding doctors, nurses or facilities to the same system will not result in increases in costs for all? Well, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and a host of other progressives have sold us that bill of goods. Now we'll see.

Why is it that progressives believe that for good "social" programs to work they only have to provide access to those who have little or none, without also working to improve the quality? And damn the consequences.

Why couldn't they also include some cost controls?

Whey couldn't they make the FDA drug approval process less expensive or less intrusive?

Why couldn't they put in some reasonable limits on malpractice lawsuits?

Why couldn't they put in some stronger consequences for filing frivolous lawsuits.

Why couldn't they put limits on how much of a class-action settlement lands in the attorney's bank account instead of the plaintiffs?

Why couldn't the government allow enhanced competition by allowing us to purchase insurance plans from across state lines?

Those are cost controls and none of it is in any of the 2000+ pages of this monstrous intrusion into the private lives of 80% of American taxpayers who are happy with our current insurance plans.

Today, I no longer feel like a citizen of the United States. I feel like a subject of King Barack I and his Parliamentary Lords Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The federal government has become exactly what Thomas Jefferson and other founders feared it would be.

Thomas Jefferson said "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. " There was never an intention by our Founders for our nation to be a democracy. Yet that is exactly what the Progressives want. He further said "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Well, this new legislation is certainly going to take more of my "bread". Count on it.

On a more local note, whereas Arizona had finally balanced their budget deficit, the moment that USNHCRA became law we were once again $400 million in the hole, because the law requires that we restore 310,000 people to Medicare/Medicaid. Where's the money coming from, Your Majesty? Should we stop ALL road construction? How about if we just close ASU or NAU? No? Let's fire some more state troopers, or eliminate more positions in the National Guard. No?

There is a scene from the Mel Gibson movie "The Patriot" where the South Carolina legislature is debating whether or not to join the rebellion against Great Britain. One of the representatives states: "Our rights are being trampled by a tyrant 3,000 miles away". Mel Gibson's character responds: "Tell me, Mr. Howard, what's the difference between one tyrant 3,000 miles away or 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away?"

Are we at that point? Is our federal Congress no longer working on behalf of their constituency? I argue that it may have been that way for some time and that we are now only waking up to that reality.

USNHCRA passes important milestone. Now what?

On Sunday, the US House of Representatives passed the Senate version of the United States National Health Care Reform Act by a margin of 219 for and 212 against. Not one Republican voted for it and 34 Democrats joined them.

I have been saying for over a year that my primary problem with this "reform" is that it does nothing to contain or control costs while making health care much more easy to access to millions of high risk people who will place more strain on an already overstrained health-care system.

So, imagine my surprise when, while reading the Huffington Post, that a progressive author by the name Bob Samuels is saying the exact same thing.

Here's a couple of excerpts from his article:
"...it is essential that someone clarifies from the left why this bill is a very bad idea. The major problem with this reform is that it expands the number of people being insured without major cost reductions and containment. This not only means that in the near future, the cost of insurance plans will go up, but insurers and pharmaceutical corporations will continue to rake in huge profits."

"Not only does this bill attack the people who do have good employee-based health care plans by taxing them in the future, but also it undermines the efforts of unions that have often traded higher wages for better benefits."

"The simple fact is that if you do not bring down the cost for health care plans, businesses, individuals, and taxpayers will be left footing the bill to pay for increased insurance and pharmaceutical profits."

Well, that's pretty much what myself and about 50 million other conservative Americans have been screaming for over a year.

Bob, than you for your intellectual honesty. Huffington Post, than you for your intellectual honesty in allowing it to be posted on your website. Now that you have your lovely "reform", do you think that we can now take some time to figure out how to actually keep healthcare costs from spiraling out of reach of all but the rich? Please? Pretty Please?

Well, It's Time to Fight.

In a fifteen minute speech today in front of several lab-coat wearing health care professionals, President Obama called for the end game by rejecting GOP suggestions to "start over" on health care reform.

“The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future,” Mr. Obama said. “They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don’t know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.”

President Obama clearly believes that this health care legislation now has enough bipartisan elements to it that they can get the votes to pass it.

Even though it does not contain federal-level tort and frivolous lawsuit reform.

Even though it does not hold the FDA and HHS departments accountable for their internal spending or even allow them to be co-litigants when procedures and medicines approved by THEM through an incredibly expensive regulation process are then the targets of class-action lawsuits. Lawsuits that are equally expensive and therefore cost big pharma and health care providers with HUGE malpractice/errors and omissions policies. Cost that are passed to the end consumer.

Even though it does not address how the current health care system can possibly afford to insure pre-existing conditions without driving up costs. President Obama and his Democratic compadres apparently don't realize that only 5% of heavy users of the medical system consume 50% of the resources

Even though it does not accurately estimate how pre-existing conditions or no caps on benefits will effect all of us who use insurance.

Even though it does not address how to deal with the shortfall of medical services that will be available when the so-called "31 million" will flood the system. Doctors, nurses and technicians already work long weeks. How will they become less overworked by adding 1 new insured for every 6 already on the system.? How will costs be kept down when services will go into even greater demand with a proportionally smaller supply?

Even though the current bill steals from Medicare Advantage to pay for part of it's costs.

Even though the current bill gives the HHS secretary HUGE new powers to mandate oversights that, if wielded unjustly, can be used to cause companies to go bankrupt.

Even though the CBO does not agree with the Democrats that the current legislation will not add any further money to the federal debt.

Even though current polls show that over 2/3 of the American electorate do not want this bill to be passed into law. 87% of Americans are currently satisfied with their current coverage and costs, but they believe that if this bill passes then they will either have to accept reduced benefits or higher costs and more likely a combination of the two. Even though most Americans understand that our country cannot afford the deficits that this bill will bring, and that we are at the tipping point of no longer being able to pay back the debt we owe.


The Democrats paid only lip service to including the Republicans and their ideas in this bill. Concessions came too little and far far far too late. While there may be 'bipartisan' elements in it, it is primarily a Democratic boondoggle intended to take direct control of the $2.7 trillion health care industry in this nation.

I will now vote with my wallet as well as my phone. The GOP needs to stand firm. If even one Republican Senator votes for this farce and blatant anti-free market, and arguably unconstitutional bill then they will be electorally crucified in November.

I hate this partisan bullcrap but we simply can't afford this now.

Taliban blown up by their own bombs

According to "the Sun", Taliban are being blown up by their own IEDs.

You can read about it here.

Boo hoo

Tom Harkin D-Iowa Scores Huge Point on HealthCare Reform

Those of you who read my blog consistently know that if a good idea is presented, regardless of the political affiliation of the person that presented the idea, I'm all for it. Those of you who don't read my blog consistently believe (falsely) that if a Democrat comes up with a good idea that I will discount it out of hand.

Tom Harkin, Representative (D-Iowa) made, what in my opinion, what is one of the best points of this whole conversation.

Currently, insurance companies can and frequently will move a person who starts making large or frequent claims against their policies into a "higher risk" pool. Those "high risk" pools cost a LOT more money.

Mr. Harkin essentially stated that pools is a form of insurance "segregation". He is right on the money on that. What prevents an insurance company from going upside down on the risk is when you have a pool of insured with a relatively low fraction of them making claims.

He is right. Pools should be illegal. I support that.

The Wisdom of Luis Rodriguez, Massachusetts voter.

According to a FoxNews.com article concerning the strongly contested race between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy's vacated Senate seat, a voter by the name of "Luis Rodriguez" appears to speak for many across the nation:

The 46-year-old plastics factory supervisor, who emigrated to the U.S. in 1988 from Uruguay and became a citizen last year, said he's fed up with what he calls the lies told by Washington. It's enough for him that Coakley supports Obama, who Rodriguez says has failed to make good on his pledge for openness.

"We don't buy what we can't afford. We don't spend what we don't have," said Rodriguez, echoing the anger expressed by other voters who say Democrats are too eager to bail out bankers and people who bought homes they couldn't afford. "These people, what they're doing now, they're spending money they don't have so they can get elected again."

Assuming that the attribution is correct (you never know, after all, this was reported on Fox News, which according to President Obama's administration is not a "real news organization", then I would have to say that Mr. Rodriguez has completely and correctly stated my opinion concerning Democratic lead initiatives. They are a "chicken in every pot" in order to maintain control in a government that Democrats believe should be used to "take care" of it's citizens, whether they want it or not.

'nuff said.

Not Kowtowing to Special Interests? Dems are Lying to Us.

On Wednesday, after a fifteen hour closed-door session between key Democratic Senate and House leadership and Labor Union executives, it sounds like just like Senator Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback", the special tax on "Cadillac" plans will be deferred until 2017 on labor union members.

What a crock of flup. Didn't Candidate Obama run on a platform that specifically said that they would not kowtow to special interests? In fact, doesn't he specifically say in a current political ad for Candidate Coakley, the Democrat running for Teddy Kennedy's vacant senate seat, that a vote for Coakley will help cement the progress being made against special interests in Washington?

This is how bizness is done in Washington, ladies and gentlemen. It's a process where people are bought and sold. The labor unions have managed to buy themselves 7 years of protection from Health Care Reform costs even though they will be permitted to participate in it immediately.

Just like the campaign lies of "transparency and openness" in the current administration, we are now seeing that special interest involvement in the writing of legislation is alive and well.

President Obama Promises Openness, but Won't or Can't Deliver

Whoo boy. The honeymoon is over. President Obama hasn't been in the White House quite one year and yet he's got some pretty influential reporters pretty steamed at him.

Of course everybody who keeps even a token watch of politics remembers how distinguished senior White House reporter Helen Thomas dressed Robert Gibbs down for President Obama's inaccessibility. That was quite a sight. In my opinion, Ms. Thomas is as much a shill for the DNC as any reporter I've seen in some time. That's quite all right, as long as we're up front about it. If anybody doesn't think that Fox's Major Garrett doesn't lean right, then I'd like to smoke whatever it is they've got.

Then there was the Saturday Night Live sketch on President Obama's accomplishments prior to receiving the Nobel peace prize: "I've done absolutely nothing". OK, it is SNL after all, so we can just laugh that one off.

But Jack Cafferty? CNN's Jack Cafferty? That Jack Cafferty? This reporter had no problem giving a negative opinion about pretty much every aspect of President Bush's administration. Jack has a nightly opinion segment on CNN. Here's what the acrimonious Mr. Cafferty had to say about the "transparency" that President Obama promised:



Ouch.

And then you have CNN's Gloria Berger with this article.

Ouch more.

When CNN starts really ripping on the Democrats and their leadership, you know that there are stormy waters ahead. While this is coming about due to the health care "reform" debate, the fact is that this administration and this Congress seem to be just as reclusive and hidden as any other, especially considering both Candidate Obama and Speaker Pelosi's insistence that we would find ourselves witnessing the "most open and transparent" government ever.

I think that President Obama's campaign promises were laudable. Unfortunately, I never believed them.

Sen. Harkin, Healthcare is neither a right or a privilege.

Senator Harkin stated on CBS News' "Early Show" that the healthcare debate can be framed as between two sides, which "one one side is health care a privilege, on the other side health care is a right."

Sir, health care is neither a privilege or a right. It is a service. Health insurance is neither a privilege or a right, it is also a service.

Clearly, your stunning intellect is not what achieved your lofty position. It must have been the favors you have courted and paid that got you where you are today.

The primary problem in this country is that people don't want to buy insurance until they need it. Once they need it, no insurance company wants to insure them because they refuse to accept the risk of a "sure thing". The best way to get insured in this country requires no fix to health care. It simply requires that all American citizens buy insurance while they are young and healthy.

Once you are sick, it's too LATE to buy insurance. Why can't you people get it?

It's the greed of the American population that thinks it's OK to transfer the risk and high cost of sickness to others only after they have gotten sick. And there it is, plain and simple.

I've been paying for health and life insurance my entire life. And while I've made a few small claims against that insurance, the fact that I have paid for health and life insurance all my life is why I have had a satisfying relationship with my insurers. I don't smoke, I don't drive fast, I don't drink to excess, I don't pursue risky or life threatening activities. For those reasons, my insurer continues to accept the risk of eventual high-cost claims.

But you people who don't have insurance, many of you don't because you didn't buy insurance simply because you didn't need it. You were healthy. You instead bought flat-screen TVs, or a new car or other material goods. And now that you are sick, you want somebody else to cover the cost. Sure, you'll buy insurance now that you need it. But guess what? We, who have been paying for insurance our entire lives, don't want accept the risk for a sure thing.

Well, my two cents worth is that you made your choice. You voluntarily chose to opt out while you were healthy. You gambled that you would stay healthy. But you didn't and now you want somebody else to cover the bill.

Thanks but no thanks.

57% of American's Want Tort Reform for Medical Malpractice Suits

Read the Rasmussen poll report here.

On August 12, August 18 and August 27 I bloviated expansively about the House version of the United States National Health Care act (USNHC). Specifically, I wondered how any act put before Congress that does not make any effort whatsoever to set limits on malpractice lawsuits, commonly called "tort" reform could actually claim to be a comprehensive plan to reduce the cost of health care to America's citizens.

Apparently I am now one of a clear majority of polled voters who feel the same way. According to a Rasmussen poll published on December 2nd, 2009 57% of voters favor limiting monetary rewards to medical lawsuit plaintiffs, with 29% disagreeing and 14% not sure. 47% of voter respondents to the poll believe that limiting monetary awards would "significantly reduce the cost of health care in the United States", with 28% disagreeing and 25% unsure.

Finally, 60% of the respondents believe USNHC will increase the Federal deficit and a larger number believe it will result in higher taxes on the middle-class.

As I've said many times before, I believe that dramatic changes need to be made in our health care system.

Here's some of my list of items that need to be addressed by USNHC. Note that I'm not saying that we should abandon USNHC, only that if we truly want to believe that it will be a comprehensive bill to control the cost of health care to the U.S. consumer, then I think these issues need to be considered and added:

Have you talked to a health-care professional recently? A surgical doctor? A registered nurse? An emergency room technician? Did you ask them about the hours they work? I know very few health-care professionals that work LESS than 50 hours a week, and I know some that work over 80 hours a week. The old market rule applies in this case. If demand is high and supply is low, cost increases. How does USNHC plan to add more people to the medical profession? And if you think those resources are scarce now imagine when we add the so-called 47 million (I say so-called because it's been proven that there are not that many people with no medical insurance at any one time) to the insurance rolls? Now that somebody else (you and I) will be helping to pay for their care, you can bet that they will flood the system with requests for care.

The FDA approval process for pharmaceuticals adds exorbitant costs to the process of bringing new drugs to market. By itself, I don't have a problem with that. I like the fact that my government is trying to ensure that only high quality medicines make it to the consumer. But if the FDA is going to justify the hoops, the red-tape and the cost associated, then how come drugs keep getting pulled from the shelf and we keep seeing class-action lawsuits against drug manufacturers for drugs that were approved by the FDA? It's gotta be either one way or the other. Either the FDA stands by their approval and accepts some of the risk for their stamp of approval, or they need to admit that there's no way to test for all possible factors associated with drug use, in which case lawsuits against manufacturers for claims against FDA approved drugs should not be admitted to court.

Tort reform. All levels of the health care profession pay a LOT of money to insurers to protect themselves against lawsuits. But with America being the most litigious society on Earth, and there being nearly non-existent controls on both the validity of lawsuits and the rewards being sought, insurance premiums have skyrocketed. Reduce the cost of lawsuits and you reduce the cost of insurance paid by providers, the savings which can be passed on to the consumer. This is not to say that lawsuits aren't necessary. But a plaintiff shouldn't expect to profit from a mistake made or even malfeasance made by a provider. However, neither should they bear the loss. Basic market principle here is that if costs associated with a service or product can be reduced in a competitive market, the provider will reduce the cost to the consumer in order to remain competitive.

Increase competition between insurance companies by allowing consumers (businesses and individuals) to purchase insurance plans from across state lines. Basic market principle. Increased competition reduces cost as competitors seek to gain advantages on price through reduced profitability or improved efficiencies in doing business.

Provide incentives for the formation of benefit cooperatives that can cater to people employed by small businesses that cannot afford to provide health care from traditional insurance companies. Kind of like a medical version of a credit union. These coops, if run well, could really give traditional insurance companies a run for their money, and in so doing create an environment that would force insurance companies to compete or go out of business. Have you noticed that very few credit unions have been caught up in the current financial crisis? This is because they are run for the benefit of their shareholders, not stock holders. There is little incentive for credit unions to engage in risky and speculative financial practices. The same should be true for health care benefit coops, since their primary focus is to provide health care benefits at the lowest possible cost to their shareholders. How many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Americans would take advantage of health care coops if they existed?

So why don't progressives want to talk about these ideas? Because none of them give the government more control over your individual liberty.

How Business is Done in D.C.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html

Read the article first. Of course, over time weblinks will fail. So here's the synopsis.

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), a moderate Democrat, has been playing "hard to get" on committing to an up vote for the Senate version of the US Health Care reform bill. Apparently, a whole section has been added to the bill that benefits one state and one state only; Louisiana. The section is 58 lines and contains 660 words. It can be found on page 432 of the Reid bill, and the section is titled: "SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER."

In summary this section increases federal Medicaid subsidies for certain states recovering from a major disaster. There is only one state that meets the conditions set forth in this section: Louisiana.

Since Harry Reid needs all 60 of his Democrat Senators to bring this bill onto the Senate floor for debate, he needs Mary Landrieu's vote. And this is apparently how he will get it.

Oh, one other thing... The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this provision will cost U.S. taxpayers $100 million.

I'm sure that Majority Leader Reid, who is battling an uphill fight in his own state to be re-elected next November, expects Senator Landrieu to stay "bought".

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how bizness is done in DC.

Kudos to ABC News' Jonathan Karl for bringing this to the harsh light of day.

Jon Kyl has a Point, but is Anybody Paying Attention?

During a discussion of an amendment to the Baucus health care reform bill, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) stated that insurers should be required to provide basic maternity care. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) responded: "“I don’t need maternity care, so requiring that on my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.”

Of course, this sounds like the typical kind of mean and hurtful and insensitive rhetoric that liberals expect to fall from the mouths of evil old conservative Republicans.

What Senator Kyl is trying to point out here, and nobody is bothering to listen, is that it makes no sense for a male insured to have basic maternity care covered on his policy as there is ZERO chance that any man will need to use it. What Senator Kyl is trying to say but nobody is listening is that the government should encourage that whatever comes out of the Baucus plan should be able to be tailored to each insured.

I'll bet if somebody were to ask Senator Jon Kyl if women should have an expectation to have basic maternity care covered in a general health care insurance plan, he'd probably be much more supportive.

Remember folks, insurance is supposed to transfer risk of disasters that you can't afford to a large group that can. We don't use health insurance that way.

In my opinion (and off-topic, by the way) health care insurance should be called something else, like health care benefits plan. It's NOT insurance.

Comparing Joe Wilson's "You Lie" to the "New Face of the KKK". You've Gotta Be Kidding Me!

Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) has now taken the political debate to yet a new low, showing that the Black Congressional Caucus and the Democratic Party is completely prepared to throw the "race card" down on the table at any time that it looks like it might create political advantage.

Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) blurted out "You lie!" during President Barack Obama's September 9th speech promoting his health care reform plan to Congress. Wilson personally apologized to the President the following day, and that apology was accepted.

However, since Congress is a tank of sharks that just love the smell of blood, and partisan rhetoric is just as rancid and raucous as ever, the Democrats wasted no time in debating and then voting on a censure of Wilson today (September 15th). Of course CNN was there to cover this debate (where were they on Van Jones, ACORN, All the President's Czars, etc?). CNN caught Johnson on camera and he had this to say:

"He did not help the cause of diversity and tolerance with his remarks. If I were a betting man, I would say it instigated more racist sentiment and feeling. 'It's OK. You don't have to bury it now. You can bring it out and talk about it fully.' And so I guess we'll probably have folks putting on uh, white hoods and white uniforms again, riding through the countryside intimidating people. And uh, you know, that's the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude, uh, is not rebuked. If Congressman Wilson represents, uh, he's the face of it."

I've never cussed on this blog before. But I'm going to now. You've got to be shitting me. Joe Wilson is now the face of racial intolerance and hatred in the United States of America because he disagrees with the President's assertion that SR3200 will not prevent illegal immigrants from receiving health care benefits? You got all that from two words?. In my opinion that's one helluva stretch. This just demonstrates and proves what Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin and all the other conservative talkers have been saying since Obama started campaigning for election, which is that you cannot disagree with the President on any topic and then avoid being charged with opposing the President because you are a racist and he is an African-American.

I'm sure that were I to have an opportunity to speak directly to Representative Johnson, and he were willing to actually waste his time defending himself to me, that he could come up with some convoluted explanation about how he can rationalize the connection between Rep. Wilson to the KKK by the evidence of the two words "You lie!" In my opinion, this can only be rationally explained by Saul Alinsky rule #12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." By portraying Wilson as a personalized face of racism, Johnson successfully demonizes Wilson and weakens him and what he stands for. The simplest explanation is the most likely, and this certainly fits the data.

Political discourse in this country is dying. And the rules are skewed. Nobody will defend Wilson against this ridiculous, baseless and from my point of view, irresponsible charge because no white guy is going to get fair representation.

More about ObamaCare: August 27, 2009

ITEM 1:
According to a Fox News report, both ABC and NBC news are refusing to run a national ad critical of Pres. Obama's health care reform plan. The ad was created by the League of American Voters, which describes themselves as a "national non-partisan and 501(c)4 non-profit organization created to keep our elected officials in Washington and across the nation accountable." The ad features a neurosurgeon who admonishes that the current health care reform plan will affect the U.S. industry much like the rapidly failing public single-payer systems in both the United Kingdom and Canada. Quotes from important newspapers scroll across the screen, proclaiming dire consequences if the current plan is enacted into law.

An ABC News spokesperson responded to criticism for this decision by stating that "The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue."

Really? So when ABC essentially gave an entire day to discuss the plan with Preisdent Obama back in June, when did ABC plan on giving the same amount of time to the loyal opposition to provide their views on this complex legislation. This is an example of where the "Fairness Doctrine" could certainly be applied to broadcast TV as opposed to just AM talk radio. 33 seconds vs. most of primetime for a day. To me, it still seems that ABC is in President Obama's hip pocket.

ITEM 2
I read on Breitbart.com that Representative Pete Stark (D-CA), head of the Health subcommittee on the House Ways and Means committee has declared that the "Blue Dogs" (a fiscally conservative faction of roughly 50 Democratic representatives) are "brain dead" and "just want to make trouble" with their opposition to President Obama's health care reform plan. He went on to essentially accuse the Blue Dogs of siding with big-money insurance companies and health care providers in order to "raise money". The political discourse in this country has absolutely gone to the dogs (pun intended). Why can't either side of this debate admit that the other side believes what they want is the best without slandering their character or intentions? Sure... the constituency for the Blue Dogs has nothing better to do than send representatives to Congress who just want to make trouble. I find it interesting that the Blue Dogs are fiscal conservatives. Maybe they have not yet been convinced that ObamaCare won't actually cause our federal budget deficit to skyrocket to the point where we might actually owe more money in debt than our gross national domestic product. And this at a time when foreign countries are actively considering dumping U.S. dollars in favor of a new "world currency" or a fund made up of several currencies, not just U.S. dollars.

ITEM 3
TimesOnline.co.uk: Apparently the Democrats, realizing that the August recess has only shown a weakening of public support for Pres. Obama's health care reforms, are trying to capitalize on the recent passing of Senator Edward "Ted" M. Kennedy (D-MA). Senator Robert Byrd suggested the health care reform plan (currently the United States Nationalized Health Care Act) should "bear his name", while Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) opined "Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality healthcare for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration.” While there is no question that the Chappaquiddick... er ... Massachusetts senator made public health care a major policy priority during his tenure as a elected servant, isn't this getting just a bit operatic?

ITEM 4
This is from CBSnews.com. ObamaCare would require that the IRS (yes, THOSE guys) would be required to divulge taxpayer identity information to include filing status, modified adjusted gross income, number of dependents and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. This information will then be used by the Health Choices Commissioner (a new position mandated by USNHC (ObamaCare)) to determine if someone qualifies for "affordability credits". Don't believe, go to Section 431(a) of the bill. I'd give you the page number, but this thing keeps getting rewritten so the section keeps moving. This is also restated in Section 245(b)(2)(A). Uh, wait a minute... I think I remember reading that the Privacy Act requires that agencies get their information directly from individual, not from other agencies. This would mean that thousands upon thousands of government employees would suddenly have very easy access to some of your most important information, namely, your income. What's to prevent those agencies from using this information in other ways?

Well, that's enough for today... oh yeah, and still no addition of Tort reform in USNHC. Which absurdly brings me to DNC Chairman Howard Dean's opinion on that subject.

ITEM 5
From SFExaminer.com: SFExaminer reporter Mark Tapscott accurately described this slip as "incredibly candid" when he reported on the following. At a townhall meeting hosted by Jim Moran (D-VA), an audience member asked why the legislation does nothing to cap medical malpractice class-action lawsuits against doctors and medical institutions (Tort reform). DNC Chairman Howard Dean, himself a former physician, responded by saying "The reason tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. And that's the plain and simple truth." Well, great. So it's ok to take on doctors, hospitals, clinics, pharamceutical companies, but those trial lawyers just FIGHT TOO HARD so we'll not take them on, and incidentally, cut U.S. national spending on healthcare by possibly as much as two-hundred million dollars as the result of smaller malpractice insurance premiums and outrageous settlement amounts. Incidentally, you WERE aware that the most common prior occupation for a member of the U.S. House of Representatives is "lawyer", right?

"Grassroots" vs. "Astroturf"

April 15th, 2009: During an interview on KTUV news in San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who is the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives declared "This [tea party] initiative is funded by the high end — we call call it astroturf, it’s not really a grassroots movement. It’s astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class."

Again on August 6th, 2009 she restated to a reported who asked if the angry town hall meetings were "Astroturf" she responded by saying that she thought they were, "You be the judge."

Today (August 25th, 2009), the Politico.com reports that Democratic National Committee through it's organizing arm "Organizing for America" are going to push through 500+ "events" between Wednesday and September 8th when Congress returns from the Break. “In these last few weeks of recess we want to demonstrate the energy, passion and commitment that the American people have to health care reform so that when members return after Labor Day they know that they can turn their attention to getting this done because they have the backing of the American people,” said DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse.

Is this "astroturf", Mrs. Speaker?

Why Do We Look At Health Insurance so Differently than Other Kinds?

This national health care insurance debate has caused me to think very seriously about a big problem that I can't believe hasn't been seen by other more qualified persons than myself.

Why do we not look at health insurance the same way we look at, let's say, car insurance or property insurance? Consider this scenario. I'm driving home from work and I get into a serious accident which the police determine to be my fault. Although I survived the crash with only minor injuries, my car is completely wrecked. Further, let's say the car is a very new Italian car. Let's say it's worth more than fifty or sixty thousand dollars. So I get home, whip out the business directory and call up an auto insurance company. I hide from them the fact that my car is already totaled. I get comprehensive coverage. The following day, I call up the insurance company and make a claim for my totaled car.

Do you think the insurance company is going to pay? Heck no! Why not? Because the damage to the car existed PRIOR to the insurance purchase, and any insurance company that would be willing to pay for such damages is simply guaranteeing that they will be soon out of business. Why? Because if car insurance companies were required to cover pre-existing damages what would happen is that people would only sign up for an insurance policy when they had an accident.

This principle is known as "adverse selection". People who are more likely to suffer a loss (high risk) or who have already suffered loss (guaranteed risk) are much more likely to buy insurance than someone that is not likely to suffer a loss (low risk). Insurance companies survive when only a certain fraction of the people they collect premiums from actually submit a claim. As long as the claim payouts and the costs associated with running the business are lower than the premiums being collected, an insurance company will stay in business. When this fraction is exceeded, insurance companies can quickly find themselves with no cash reserves left. A recent example is the number of insurance companies that went out of business trying to pay out all the claims made in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina in 2005. (Incidentally, it is still very hard to find insurers willing to accept the risk for homes built in New Orleans.)

Back in the day when I sold insurance, I once tried to sell a life insurance policy to a guy whom already knew that he had diabetes. He didn't make any effort to hide it since the required blood test would have revealed the condition anyway. I told him that I could protect his family against his loss for any reason except a death related to the diabetes itself. His response was "If you cover me for diabetes related death I'll buy your insurance, otherwise, have a nice day." So he was willing to buy insurance so long as we covered the most likely reason that he would die. See the problem? He was only willing to buy the protection on the sure thing that will probably kill him. And that means that the insurance company would be guaranteed to have to absorb the loss. That's NOT what insurance is all about. Insurance is the idea that for a relatively low monthly cost being paid in by any one individual of a group an insurance policy can be obtained that transfer the risk of loss to the whole group. No insurance company or any other type of plan (including a co-op) will stay in business long if they have to accept responsibility for a sure risk.

I frequently ran into this problem while I was an insurance salesman. The problem is that people think that buying insurance is a gamble. They think they have lost the gamble if they pay for the insurance and never use it. The gamble is actually always on the other side... the insurance company and the group of people they represent. Every time the insurance company grants a new policy they are gambling that they will one day have to pay out a claim on that policy.

Since USNHC promises to prohibit the exclusion of pre-existing conditions it is logical to conclude that health care payouts are going to become much more frequent and these payouts will be more expensive. Much more expensive, since many people who want insurance for their pre-existing conditions will jump at the chance to get on an insurance plan that is guaranteed to transfer the risk of that condition. How can President Obama possibly think that he can control these kinds of costs?

Relevant sections of SR 3200 (Senate version of USNHC)
Title I, Subtitle B Sec 111: Prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions.
Title I, Subtitle B Sec 112: Guranteed issue and renewal for insured plans.

Conservative Resistance to Health Care Reform is NOT the Same as Not Needing to Reform Health Care

The President's ongoing program to create a massive and very expensive modification of United States health care availability is generating passionate debate.

Many of the proponents of SR 3200 (the current USNHC bill in the US House of Representatives) that have been facing angry constituency are declaring that these town-hall meeting "disruptors" and "protesters" to be "un-American" and hateful people who want to deny health care to the less fortunate and prosperous segments of our society.

Uh... no. Nearly all of the people against this reform bill that I've talked to, or whose blogs I have read are nearly united in acknowledging that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are in big, big trouble. Most of those of the baby boomers and "gen x-rs" believe that most of the social government programs will have gone bust long before we actually are allowed to begin receiving benefits.

However, many of us have come up with ways to make sure that both our retirements and our golden-year health-care needs are funded. Privately. So that we do not need to depend on Uncle Sam.

So here's the problem. Those of us that already have health-care are already paying a LOT for it. We are very concerned about SR 3200 because we see that the only way to cover the so-called "47 million" who are not insured is for those of us that are already paying to either pay more, or be taxed more.

Here's some of our concerns:

1. If SR3200 were to be adopted, right now, with the public-funded option the GAO has estimated that this program would cost approximately 1.2 trillion dollars. President Obama has said that this amount could be reduced by eliminating fraud and waste. Yet both Medicare and Medicaid are being fraudulently abused all the time and the federal government hasn't even come to grips with that problem. USNHC would be nearly one order of magnitude bigger.
2. As previously stated, the U.S. government can't control Medicare and Medicaid, but they think they can control USNHC? Why would we believe that? Show me a government program that actually does not exceed it's budget and I'll show you a government program that spends less than $50 million per year. USNHC will spend nearly 1.2 trillion.
3. No nation on earth has ever tried to provide a public option, or more dramatically, "single-payer" to a population as large as the United States. Further, no nation currently on single-payer (eg: The United Kingdom and Canada) has been able to control spiralling costs. Both the UK and Canada are now in the "rationing" stage of their nationalized health care programs because they have fewer workers paying into the system in ratio to the older retirees taking out of the system. France is approaching a 1-1 ration between worker/retiree and their system is going bankrupt.
   
4. Instead of the Insurance company being "between" me and my doctor, a public option is perceived to put the federal government between me and my doctor. For the record, if I have to have a choice between who is going to deny me, I'd rather fight Blue Cross Blue Shield or Aetna than Uncle Sam.

As I've previously opined, I will not support SR3200 or any other incarnation of USNHC until the following options are also included:

1. Tort reform in medical lawsuits.
2. Elimination of class-action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies.
3. Penalties for frivolous lawsuits.
4. Reduction in the mega-million fines and penalties being awarded to victims.
5. The establishment of one or more national co-ops instead of a public option for those who aren't able to get insurance through their employer at a reasonable price.
6. Qualification for public-option only open to those who are currently not employed but who can prove U.S. citizenship. Enrollment in public-option is only valid during period where enrolled is actively seeking employment and or the enrolled has been adjudicated 100% disabled. Able-bodied U.S. citizens that refuse to work would NOT qualify for this program.

If these provisions were added to the already existing SR3200, I would grudgingly support the legislation because I believe that items 1-4 would dramatically reduce the cost of health care by reducing the premiums being paid by providers and pharmaceutical companies for malpractice and errors and omissions insurance.

Otherwise, count me out. I'll just continue to plan on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security collapsing and financing my own solutions.

Mrs. Pelosi: Disruption in 2006 and 2009.

Nancy Pelosi in January 17, 2006: "So I thank all of you who have spoken out for your courage, your point of view. All of it. Your advocacy is very American and very important." This was said to a group of anti-war protesters.

Nancy Pelosi and Lenny Stoyer USAToday Op-ed: "Un-American attacks can't derail health care debate." This was in reference to the rather strong opinions being expressed in August townhall meetings by many concerned people who are against SR 3200 (United States National Health Care) bill.

So a bunch of anti-war protesters in 2006 chanting "Hell No! We won't go! Just say no!" are "very American" but a bunch of people who are against the current version of SR 3200 (USNHC) in 2009 chanting "Hell No! Just say NO!" are "un-American".

As is usually the case, the only thing constant when you have no moral compass is inconsistency.