Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Health Care Reform Pt. 5
Super Wow!
The Senate health committee cast a milestone vote Wednesday to approve legislation expanding insurance coverage to nearly all Americans, becoming the first congressional panel to act on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
House Democratic leaders pledged to meet the president's goal of health care legislation before their August break, offering a $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans. Left to pick up most of the tab were medical providers, employers and the wealthy.
"We cannot allow this issue to be delayed. We cannot put it off again," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee, said Tuesday. "We, quite frankly, cannot go home for a recess unless the House and the Senate both pass bills to reform and restructure our health care system."
Two things.
1. You want this done by the August recess? Three weeks? Really? Ever since the Democrats regained control of Congress in three years ago, there has been one aspect of their leadership that is very impressive. They know how to pass bills without actually reading, analyzing, or understanding them. The bank bailout, the stimulus bill, and now the health care overhaul. You cannot begin to imagine my frustration with my own government when I realize that half of the members of the House and Senate will not even have a chance to read over and comprehend a bill that includes trillions of dollars in new spending. The irresponsibility and poor leadership is mind-numbing.
Three weeks is not enough, Representative Waxman. Three weeks is not enough, Speaker Pelosi. Three weeks is not enough Senator Dodd. And finally, three weeks is not enough, President Obama.
2. Are some folks not understanding the depths of the recession that we are mired in right now? Unemployment will reach 10% soon, and yet, who will pay for this health care overhaul?
"Left to pick up most of the tab were medical providers, employers and the wealthy."
I'm sure that after employers pick up a good portion of this $1,500,000,000,000.00 tab, they'll be a great position to expand their workforce. Or unemployment will continue to soar, and the recession will grow deeper.
Tough choices. Should we force through a poorly planned health care overhaul or work together to halt this recession. Unfortunately, many Democrats in Congress are leaning toward the first option.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Health Care Reform Pt. 4
Wow!
HOUSE ROLLS OUT PLAN TO MAKE HEALTH CARE A RIGHT
House Democrats on Tuesday rolled out a far-reaching $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans, with medical providers, employers and the wealthiest picking up most of the tab.
The federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.
The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations. Most of the bill's costs come in the last five years after the 2012 presidential election.
Let's just be clear here.
1. Honesty and competition
When President Obama says that we want to keep the insurance companies honest and create a competitive alternative to achieve this goal, what he really means is that he wishes to spend one trillion dollars to ultimately drive private insurance out of business.
If he truly believed that government is a better, more efficient, and more cost-effective health care option, then it wouldn't need to cost over $1,000,000,000,000.00 would it? Theoretically, it should be self-sustaining, WITHOUT the need for taxpayers' money. But that's not part of the agenda, is it?
Be sure to reread my previous post on Health Care Reform for more information about the agenda of liberal Democrats here.
2. The wealthiest pick up the tab.
Regardless of how you feel about the subject, let's just say what it really means. The upper class is going to pay for inefficient health care for the lower class.
3. "Individuals would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties."
Recall the title of the article. Making health care "a right." But this is not what the article is describing. The article outlines how it becomes a criminal act (otherwise, why you face "hefty" penalties) if you do not purchase health insurance. This is not establishing a "right." This is establishing a mandate. Do we have any libertarians out there?
4. Perhaps my favorite line of the article.
"Most of the bill's costs come in the last five years after the 2012 presidential election."
How perfectly convenient....for President Obama.
Now, it should be said, this is not the bill that will reach President Obama's desk. But it should indicate how out-of-control spending dominates the House of Representatives, which should be the house of the people, and not of the iron fist of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
HOUSE ROLLS OUT PLAN TO MAKE HEALTH CARE A RIGHT
House Democrats on Tuesday rolled out a far-reaching $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans, with medical providers, employers and the wealthiest picking up most of the tab.
The federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.
The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations. Most of the bill's costs come in the last five years after the 2012 presidential election.
Let's just be clear here.
1. Honesty and competition
When President Obama says that we want to keep the insurance companies honest and create a competitive alternative to achieve this goal, what he really means is that he wishes to spend one trillion dollars to ultimately drive private insurance out of business.
If he truly believed that government is a better, more efficient, and more cost-effective health care option, then it wouldn't need to cost over $1,000,000,000,000.00 would it? Theoretically, it should be self-sustaining, WITHOUT the need for taxpayers' money. But that's not part of the agenda, is it?
Be sure to reread my previous post on Health Care Reform for more information about the agenda of liberal Democrats here.
2. The wealthiest pick up the tab.
Regardless of how you feel about the subject, let's just say what it really means. The upper class is going to pay for inefficient health care for the lower class.
3. "Individuals would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties."
Recall the title of the article. Making health care "a right." But this is not what the article is describing. The article outlines how it becomes a criminal act (otherwise, why you face "hefty" penalties) if you do not purchase health insurance. This is not establishing a "right." This is establishing a mandate. Do we have any libertarians out there?
4. Perhaps my favorite line of the article.
"Most of the bill's costs come in the last five years after the 2012 presidential election."
How perfectly convenient....for President Obama.
Now, it should be said, this is not the bill that will reach President Obama's desk. But it should indicate how out-of-control spending dominates the House of Representatives, which should be the house of the people, and not of the iron fist of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Supreme Court: Part 10
Now that President Obama has nominated Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, we can reflect a little more on the Supreme Court.
First, Sotomayor will be confirmed. There is no doubt about it. The real question will be whether she receives the votes of 60, 70, or 80 senators. With the power of 60 in the Senate (see my post earlier this week), Democrats will breeze Judge Sotomayor through confirmation hearings, committee votes, and the full vote of the Senate. She will become part of the Supreme Court by October.
Second, for those conservatives out there, be thankful(ish). Obama could have nominated a person with extremely radical views. I'm not saying that Sotomayor isn't liberal, because she certainly is, but believe me...there are nominations that are far more dangerous.
Third, for those interested in a court that reflects the general population, Obama's pick is just for you. Hispanics are the largest minority in the United States, and the nation's highest court will soon have its first Hispanic member. Also, for the ladies out there, the court will now have two women on the bench, as she will be the third woman in history to serve on the court.
Finally, and most importantly, elections matter. If my feelings are correct, I believe that two more justices (Stevens and Ginsburg) will retire in the next two years. While Obama's appointments will not technically change the ideological balance of the court, he will have replaced older liberal judges, with younger liberal judges who will remain on the court for decades. Had McCain been elected president, this would not have happened.
Elections matter...especially when it comes to lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land.
First, Sotomayor will be confirmed. There is no doubt about it. The real question will be whether she receives the votes of 60, 70, or 80 senators. With the power of 60 in the Senate (see my post earlier this week), Democrats will breeze Judge Sotomayor through confirmation hearings, committee votes, and the full vote of the Senate. She will become part of the Supreme Court by October.
Second, for those conservatives out there, be thankful(ish). Obama could have nominated a person with extremely radical views. I'm not saying that Sotomayor isn't liberal, because she certainly is, but believe me...there are nominations that are far more dangerous.
Third, for those interested in a court that reflects the general population, Obama's pick is just for you. Hispanics are the largest minority in the United States, and the nation's highest court will soon have its first Hispanic member. Also, for the ladies out there, the court will now have two women on the bench, as she will be the third woman in history to serve on the court.
Finally, and most importantly, elections matter. If my feelings are correct, I believe that two more justices (Stevens and Ginsburg) will retire in the next two years. While Obama's appointments will not technically change the ideological balance of the court, he will have replaced older liberal judges, with younger liberal judges who will remain on the court for decades. Had McCain been elected president, this would not have happened.
Elections matter...especially when it comes to lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Health Care Reform Pt. 3
A recent study by John Lott Jr. at the University of Maryland indicates what some Democrats may be trying to hide.
From the abstract:
"The debate over government-provided insurance for Americans frequently makes two assumptions: that the uninsured are unsatisfied with the health care they receive and that government health insurance would improve the quality of care for the uninsured.
This paper finds that the vast majority of uninsured Americans are satisfied with their health care. Indeed, only 2.3 percent of Americans are both uninsured and very dissatisfied with the quality of the medical care that they receive. The paper finds that Canadians are much closer to uninsured Americans than to insured Americans in their satisfaction with their health care.
There is also little difference in the level of Americans' satisfaction with their health care based upon race, marital status, educational attainment, income, or political views. There is some difference in satisfaction based on age and between the most extreme levels of educational attainment."
Now, Dr. Lott is a conservative, and we must take his findings with the appropriate grain of objectivity salt, but his findings are at least worth exploring, are they not?
A big question: Should we align our health care system to look like the one present in Canada?
Dr. Lott would say, "No." I believe that many Democrats would say, "Yes." Which brings me to my next point: transparency.
Why don't we all know precisely what Congress is doing? Instead of hiding in committee rooms, coming up with plans that no Americans even know about at this time, perhaps the Congress (who, according to their campaign strategies of 2006 and 2008, are committed to transparency) should share MORE of what's going on.
After watching Sunday news shows, and hearing Democratic leaders in the Senate and White House talk about health care, I've come to conclusion that they are dancing around the issue, perhaps masking their true intentions.
Frankly, my biggest fear is that Congress will push through a hastily thought out bill that has a lack of common sense and ridiculously wasteful spending. As I said in a previous post, health care reform can not and should not be achieved in a matter of weeks.
From the abstract:
"The debate over government-provided insurance for Americans frequently makes two assumptions: that the uninsured are unsatisfied with the health care they receive and that government health insurance would improve the quality of care for the uninsured.
This paper finds that the vast majority of uninsured Americans are satisfied with their health care. Indeed, only 2.3 percent of Americans are both uninsured and very dissatisfied with the quality of the medical care that they receive. The paper finds that Canadians are much closer to uninsured Americans than to insured Americans in their satisfaction with their health care.
There is also little difference in the level of Americans' satisfaction with their health care based upon race, marital status, educational attainment, income, or political views. There is some difference in satisfaction based on age and between the most extreme levels of educational attainment."
Now, Dr. Lott is a conservative, and we must take his findings with the appropriate grain of objectivity salt, but his findings are at least worth exploring, are they not?
A big question: Should we align our health care system to look like the one present in Canada?
Dr. Lott would say, "No." I believe that many Democrats would say, "Yes." Which brings me to my next point: transparency.
Why don't we all know precisely what Congress is doing? Instead of hiding in committee rooms, coming up with plans that no Americans even know about at this time, perhaps the Congress (who, according to their campaign strategies of 2006 and 2008, are committed to transparency) should share MORE of what's going on.
After watching Sunday news shows, and hearing Democratic leaders in the Senate and White House talk about health care, I've come to conclusion that they are dancing around the issue, perhaps masking their true intentions.
Frankly, my biggest fear is that Congress will push through a hastily thought out bill that has a lack of common sense and ridiculously wasteful spending. As I said in a previous post, health care reform can not and should not be achieved in a matter of weeks.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Speaking of Money
My previous post was regarding the lack of money for Health Care Reform. As we continue talking about this issue, I will continually stress that this country is spiraling into the dark oblivion of debt.
However, this problem is not lost on President Obama. In fact, in the first 1/8 of his presidency, he has made a serious commitment towards cutting down our spending.
How much? Take a look at this video, made by a very creative fiscal conservative.
(**UPDATE** Just so we're clear, the pennies on the table are stacks of five pennies)
After viewing this video, you might realize that Obama is simply reducing our amount of spending from "Insanely, ridiculously ludicrous" to a mere "Insanely ludicrous."
Well done Mr. President. I do appreciate the solid effort, but I firmly believe that we need more pennies taken off that table.
However, this problem is not lost on President Obama. In fact, in the first 1/8 of his presidency, he has made a serious commitment towards cutting down our spending.
How much? Take a look at this video, made by a very creative fiscal conservative.
(**UPDATE** Just so we're clear, the pennies on the table are stacks of five pennies)
After viewing this video, you might realize that Obama is simply reducing our amount of spending from "Insanely, ridiculously ludicrous" to a mere "Insanely ludicrous."
Well done Mr. President. I do appreciate the solid effort, but I firmly believe that we need more pennies taken off that table.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Health Care Reform Pt. 2
While the discussion continues about Health Care Reform in the Capitol, let's not forget a major problem.
We have no money to pay for this.
Check out the following CNN Article.
"Chairman Max Baucus told reporters that lawmakers still need to come up with $320 billion over the coming decade in taxes to pay for the health care plan."
Great. It looks like President Obama's promise for no new taxes for 95% of the population is going to be broken, barring a major Powerball win for the United States Government.
Perhaps even more concerning is this:
"Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, told the Nevada Democrat that negotiators need more time to write the bill and shouldn't be forced to meet a goal set by Democratic leaders to have the bill off the Senate floor by August 7.
Reid told the lawmakers he would be "flexible" on the time frame, but that he still wants to try to have the bill done by that date, a Reid aide said."
Brilliant, Senator Reid. Let's push it through as quickly as possible!
Again, going back to my previous post: A Republican senator tries to explain that one month is not enough time, and her COMMON SENSE concerns are mostly brushed aside by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who has to stick to his schedule.
I'm sure than there are many good people working on this problem, but it seems as though Senator Snowe is correct. Overhauling our entire health care system in less than 30 days is the worst idea since government cheese.
We have no money to pay for this.
Check out the following CNN Article.
"Chairman Max Baucus told reporters that lawmakers still need to come up with $320 billion over the coming decade in taxes to pay for the health care plan."
Great. It looks like President Obama's promise for no new taxes for 95% of the population is going to be broken, barring a major Powerball win for the United States Government.
Perhaps even more concerning is this:
"Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, told the Nevada Democrat that negotiators need more time to write the bill and shouldn't be forced to meet a goal set by Democratic leaders to have the bill off the Senate floor by August 7.
Reid told the lawmakers he would be "flexible" on the time frame, but that he still wants to try to have the bill done by that date, a Reid aide said."
Brilliant, Senator Reid. Let's push it through as quickly as possible!
Again, going back to my previous post: A Republican senator tries to explain that one month is not enough time, and her COMMON SENSE concerns are mostly brushed aside by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who has to stick to his schedule.
I'm sure than there are many good people working on this problem, but it seems as though Senator Snowe is correct. Overhauling our entire health care system in less than 30 days is the worst idea since government cheese.
Monday, July 06, 2009
The 60
I was in Europe during a large portion of the last month, so I apologize for the lack of posts. Let's get this started again.
The Election of 2008 has finally come to an end. Minnesota has a new senator. And the Democrats in Congress now have 58 senators in the United States Senate. Throw in Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, and Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont, and you have 60 senators that caucus as Democrats...which means that they can easily overcome any common sense that Republican senators throw at them.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee (the dudes in charge of financing Republican candidates for the Senate around the country) created this video, titled "60," in response to the dominant position that the Democrats have obtained in the White House and Congress.
I would say it's a bit over the top (and certainly not very flattering to Al Franken), but their point is certainly driven home. Blaming Bush can no longer work. Blaming Republicans can no longer work. The ball is completely in your court.
Obviously, if the country does turn around completely, the Democrats will be taking credit for said turn-around, but frankly, I'm not so sure that their policies will be successful.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see, because the Democrats are going to implement them anyway.
The Election of 2008 has finally come to an end. Minnesota has a new senator. And the Democrats in Congress now have 58 senators in the United States Senate. Throw in Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, and Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont, and you have 60 senators that caucus as Democrats...which means that they can easily overcome any common sense that Republican senators throw at them.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee (the dudes in charge of financing Republican candidates for the Senate around the country) created this video, titled "60," in response to the dominant position that the Democrats have obtained in the White House and Congress.
I would say it's a bit over the top (and certainly not very flattering to Al Franken), but their point is certainly driven home. Blaming Bush can no longer work. Blaming Republicans can no longer work. The ball is completely in your court.
Obviously, if the country does turn around completely, the Democrats will be taking credit for said turn-around, but frankly, I'm not so sure that their policies will be successful.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see, because the Democrats are going to implement them anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
