|
"Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall."
-1 Corinthians 10:12 |
Aboot Reader's Rep Home RSS Feed Check back here often for commentary and announcements. POSTS BY TOPIC 2010 Election Baseball Beer Beer of the Week Books Business Culture Drinking Economics Football Global Warming Health Care Hockey (02-05) Hockey (06-07) Hockey (08-09) Media-Local (02-04) Media-Local (05-07) Media-Local (08-09) Media National (02-06) Media National (07-09) Media National (10-11) Movies Music NARN (04-05) NARN (06-07) NARN (08-09) NARN (10-11) Politics-Local (02-03) Politics-Local (04-05) Politics-Local (06-07) Politics-Local (08-09) Politics-National (02-04) Politics-National (05-07) Politics-National (08-10) Ralphie Religion Separated At Birth? Television Terrorism Travel CHAD THE ELDER: rightwinger23 at hotmail.com Twitter SAINT PAUL: saintp at excite.com JB DOUBTLESS: abunodisceomnes at hotmail.com ATOMIZER: atomizer77 at yahoo.com SISYPHUS: NIHILIST IN GOLF PANTS: NihilistPaul at yahoo.com Twitter THE CRAZY UKE: karkoc5 at earthlink.net FEATURES Beer Ratings 
Recommended Reading Fraters At The Fair Hugh Hugs A Tree Separated At Birth? Travels With Ralphie ATOMIZER's A-LIST JB's SACK SITES SAINT PAUL'S SHOW STOPPERS ELDER's ELITE THE USUAL SUSPECTS IN AGGREGATE CENTER OF GRAVITY INVISIBLE AIRWAVES |
Monday, March 08, 2010
Minnesota Majority is organizing a rally this Saturday at noon on the steps of the State Capitol in St. Paul to call on Congress to Kill The Bill:
Even though every major poll clearly shows that a supermajority of the American people oppose the current health care "reform" bill, Nancy Pelosi is planning to jam the bill through Congress with a vote scheduled for March 18. If you care about preserving your right to make health care decisions for you and your family, please be sure to come to Saturday's rally. Bring a sign demonstrating your opposition to the bill. Conservatives and libertarians aren't typically wont to organize, rally, and protest as much as those on the progressive side, but if anything is ever going to get you out in the streets (as it were) this is it. This is the time, this is the place, this is the issue that calls us out to make a stand. Labels: Health care Thursday, February 18, 2010
Veronique de Rugy has a revealing piece at Reason Magazine on the history of government cost projections not even coming close to what the projects or programs ultimately ended up costing. She draws heavily on a study of cost overruns prepared by some Danish economists.
Nor is the problem limited to Washington. In 2002 the Journal of the American Planning Association published one of the most comprehensive studies of cost overruns, looking over the last 70 years at 258 government projects around the world with a combined value of $90 billion. The Danish economists Bent Flyvbjerg, Mette Skamris Holm, and Soren Buhl found that nine out of 10 public works projects had exceeded their initially estimated costs. The Sydney Opera House and the Concorde supersonic airplane were the most spectacular examples, with cost overruns of 1,400 percent and 1,100 percent, respectively. Budget busting occurred throughout the seven decades studied, with the totals spent routinely ranging from 50 to 100 percent more than the original estimate. How did the United States do? According to the Danish researchers, American cost overruns reached an average of $55 billion per year. The table shows a small sample of these boondoggles. The Big Dig, the unofficial name of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts, is the most expensive highway project in the history of the country. By the time the project was completed in 2008, its price tag was a staggering $22 billion. The estimated cost in 1985 was $2.6 billion. The Dig also took seven more years to complete than originally anticipated, and it ran into severe construction quality problems along the way. These blown estimates aren't merely mistakes either: According to the Danish study, such inaccuracies aren't just errors. They reflect widespread, deliberate lying on the part of public officials. "Project promoters routinely ignore, hide, or otherwise leave out important project costs and risks in order to make total costs appear low," the authors conclude. Something to keep in mind as we're promised that the health care reform bill will be "cost neutral" by politicians whose track record in such matters doesn't exactly inspire confidence. A table in the article lists nine of the biggest boondoggles including the estimated and actual costs of the project/program. One of the more amusing was the Kennedy Center. The original price tag was tabbed at $18.3 million in 1995. In 2003, the actual cost was $22.2 million. A 21.3% overrun is actually stellar performance by government standards and the project wouldn't seem to deserve a place on the list had it not been for the next item; the Kennedy Center Parking lot. Originally estimated to cost $28 million in 1998, by the time the parking lot was completed in 2003 the "investment" required a cool $88 million. I guess there really is no such thing as free parking anymore. And these are the folks we want running our health care system so that we can control costs? Labels: Government, Health care Wednesday, February 17, 2010
A lot has been written about undocumented immigrants from Mexico entering the United States and putting a strain on our health care and other public services while often failing to pay their full share of taxes. Less common is an expose of Americans crossing the Rio Grande to freeload off the Mexican people. But, a few weeks ago, the Star Tribune provided just such a story. It was a profile of one of my favorite musicians, Martin Zellar of the Gear Daddies. Zellar had been a staple of the local music scene since the early '90s. I have been to many of his shows over the years have never been disappointed. Like many musicians, he is also a standard issue lefty and even did a stint as Chairman of the Mower County Democratic Party. "The way the economy works down there is perfect for me. There's no mortgage. Everyone buys their houses with cash. The property taxes are really low. There's no homeowner's insurance because it's all concrete, so nothing burns. Financially, it makes perfect sense for a musician." Labels: Health care, Immigration, Music Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Last month, I noted that the CEO of the company that I work for was becoming more and more publicly outspoken about the dangers in the looming health care reform bill. Today, he has another op-ed that appeared on our internal website and I imagine will soon be published in the St. Louis Business Journal. Here's an excerpt:
Simply, the changes being proposed will have the negative effect of discouraging U.S. employers from hiring as the economy recovers, and will force them to pass on increased costs to employees and/or drop their health insurance benefits to let employees shop elsewhere or move to a government-based plan. We have an opportunity to create real healthcare reform and make a difference now with smart, targeted, incremental programs, such as: giving small businesses and individuals access to interstate insurance pools; implementing medical malpractice reforms; requiring medical price transparency; and supporting community-based health centers that serve the uninsured, to name several. Healthcare reform is a complex issue and there is room for honest disagreement on the best way it can be achieved. However, the Senate bill and the House companion fail to solve problems and instead increase government debt, decrease U.S. competitiveness and create one more reason for investment from around the world, as well as jobs, to go elsewhere. This is not the legacy any of us want for our nation. I must add that equally as troubling is that Congressional leaders now want to slam the door on open debate at this critical point in the process of considering legislation that completely changes the nature of U.S. national health care policy. We can only hope that the Senate and House will do what Americans expect of them, and thats play by the same rules of fairness and openness they set for others and that are established by law. Negotiations and discussions to resolve issues going forward should be conducted in a transparent manner in Conference Committee. I completely agree with Senator Claire McCaskills position stated so clearly last week on this: let the C-Span cameras in. Saint Paul may have just found a new business hero. Labels: Business, Health care, Politics-National (08-10) Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Sometime over the course of the next few days, it appears that the Democrats will realize a monumental victory in their long-awaited scheme to have the government control the American health care system. There are a whole host of reasons to look forward with dread to what likely lies ahead for us as a result of this corrupt bargain. One concern that seems appropriate to discuss at this time of year is that if the government completely manages (and pays for) heath care, they will have an even larger stake in controlling personal conduct that impacts people's health.
If you thought we already had an overreaching, busy-bodied Nanny State, you ain't seen nothing yet. What you choose to eat, drink, inhale, ingest, or otherwise consume is no longer a matter between your brain and your body. Nope. Now that the government will be doling out the care and footing the bill, these decisions will no longer be left up to individuals. It will now be completely within the purvey of the government to decide what's good for you and what's not. So enjoy this Christmas season while you still can. Eat, drink, and be merry in the manner of your choosing. Make the most of the Christmas cookies, candy canes, and cakes at your disposal. Fill up on that figgy pudding and fruitcake. Pig out on pie and plum pudding. Savor the fowl of your fancy whether it be turkey, duck, or goose. Revel in the roast beast. Hit the hot chocolate and hot buttered rum early and often. Enjoy many an eggnog. Tip back the Tom and Jerries. Consume your favorite Christmas cocktail with abandon. Because it the not-too-distant future, in may well not be within your means to enjoy these essential elements for celebrating Christmas. They won't be banned outright of course. No, instead they'll be dealt with the same way the government has dealt with cigarettes: tax them heavily while running propaganda campaigns that stigmatize them and exaggerate their health risks (second-hand smoke in the case of cigarettes). Those that still want to enjoy these fine holiday fetes will find themselves paying a pretty penny for their pleasure and risk being ostracized from civil society the way that smokers have been. The rich and privileged of course will continue to indulge as they do today. They'll be able to afford the added costs and if their appetites do lead to medical problems they'll still have access to the finest care, if no longer in America than perhaps in a luxury hospital in the Caribbean. Celebrities will do PSA urging the proles to eat healthy and exercise to help keep OUR health care costs down while living a separate and very unequal life outside of the public system. Yes, the future of the People's health care will be glorious indeed. While we're on the subject of Christmas traditions which will no longer be sustainable in our return to the cave new world, you should also be sure to enjoy your Christmas tree while you can: In other tree news, Alternative Consumer magazine says we should stop buying Christmas trees and just draw holiday trees on old shopping bags. Here's the green prescription from Alternative Consumer for family fun during the holidays and how the tree should look for the kids on Christmas morning: "No tree. No driving to the tree lot, watching them saw the tree down, wrapping it in plastic and then driving back home. No driving to Target, buying a plastic tree and driving home. We make a tree mural out of shopping bags and leave a few Sharpies around to decorate with. It's personal, meaningful and 100 percent recycled." And it's more than just Christmas trees too: "The Rules" in Alternative Consumer for "A Freegan Christmas" include the following: (1) "No cards. Not even e-cards." (2) "No wrapping paper. There's something exciting about opening a wrapped gift, and you can achieve that by putting it in a paper bag--we all know you have a billion under your sink." (3) "No thank-you cards." (4) "No holiday hams. French toast can replace tired turkey and ham dinners." (5) "No stress." Actually my kids would probably welcome number four. For now, these are merely suggestions for how you can save the planet by slashing and burning your Christmas traditions. For now. Finally, it's likely that you'll soon have to forget all about dreaming or roasting chestnuts by an open fire at Christmas. At least in California, which seems to be the primary breeding ground for ideas on how to best restrict individual freedoms for the common good. Merry Christmas everyone. Be sure to take the time savor the season. Especially this time around. Labels: Christmas, Health care Sunday, December 20, 2009
The Obama administration has finally bought off that 60th vote for health care "reform." Ben Nelson of Nebraska agreed to go against his professed principles and the views of the majority of his constituents in exchange for, among other things, an agreement that the federal government would pick up Nebraska's portion of Medicaid payments.
A few weeks prior, Democrat Mary Landrieu secured $100 million in federal payouts to Louisiana for her vote (she insists the actual amount is closer to $300 million). Minnesota's two Senators are also Democrats; how much did they get for their votes? I suspect that the answer is this: NADA, ZIP, NOTHING. Our twin toadies are more interested in securing an invite to President Obama's Super Bowl party or keeping open the option that he will appear on their future MSNBC talk show (premiering circa 2015). Some may argue that Klobuchar and Franken are too saintly and fiscally conservative to bring home pork to Minnesota. I say baloney to that. Some may say that Franken and Klobuchar are too committed to socialized medicine to risk it over pork. To those people I present the example of Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the only openly socialist member of the Senate. In exchange for his health care vote he secured the same Medicaid payoff for Vermont as Nelson received for Nebraska PLUS $10 billion for community health centers. This is how socialism works--those who have the power and know how to play the game get the benefits--not through the free market, but through the force of government. Amy Klobuchar will receive a nice pat on the head and be told how well-behaved she is while watching the Colts win the Super Bowl on the White House big screen. Al Franken will be told by President Obama how much he is missed in the Senate as the inaugural guest on Franken's talk show. Then Franken will roll the clip of the time he pw3nd Lieberman by refusing to allow him an extra minute to finish his point. Franken and Klobuchar were played for suckers. At least they could have gotten everyone in the state a t-shirt:  Labels: Franken, Health care, Klobuchar Thursday, December 17, 2009
Kevin Willaimson has an excellent piece in the most recent edition of National Review on the problems caused by lack of pricing information in markets including health care. It's called Priceless Is Worthless (sub req)and includes one of the best explanations of the realities of preexisting conditions I've yet read:
But rather than bring price transparency to health care, we're going full-tilt boogie in the opposite direction, specifically by insisting that insurance companies be barred from putting real prices on preexisting conditions. Set aside, if you can, all those images of poor little children with terrible diseases being chucked out into the Dickensian streets by mean old insurance executives in top hats and monocles, and think, for a second, about what insurance means, and what a preexisting condition is. Insurance is, basically, a bet: The insurer calculates the probability that a certain unhappy condition will befall a consumer. Actuarially speaking, the number of people who will suffer heart disease or car accidents is fairly predictable within a very large pool, so the insurer can figure out roughly what it will have to pay out in a typical year for every 100,000 policies, and the premium will incorporate that number. But predictable applies to things that happen in the future. Maybe 3 percent of those 100,000 people will need to see a cardiologist in a given year, but 100 percent of the people with diabetes will suffer from diabetes. That's a fact: It's what preexisting means. Unless Governor Schwarzenegger manages to invent Terminator insurance, whereby Allstate agents travel back in time to insure you against problems you haven't developed yet, you cannot insure against something that already has happened, and to pretend otherwise dumps a whole metaphysical can of worms all over the insurance space-time continuum, landing us in an alternative universe where Insurance = Not Insurance. You'd never take a bet that you knew you were going to lose, right? Insurance companies won't do that, either, unless they get paid to do so--specifically, unless they are allowed to charge at least as much for covering Preexisting Condition X as it's going to cost them to treat Preexisting Condition X. Ignoring the reality of prices--waving the magic wand and saying: "There shall be no price put on preexisting conditions"--does not solve the problem. Health care costs money. The price is right, and you cannot politically engineer your way out of that reality, no matter how many sickly toddlers you parade around on CNN. Labels: Health care Wednesday, November 11, 2009
David Harsanyi has a killer piece on the delicious irony of pro-choice Democrats being concerned about the health care bill restricting abortion rights and freedom called Freedom to Confuse:
Take the torrent of hypocrisy that spilled from the jilted pro-choice wing of the Democratic Party after a House amendment to the health care reform bill tightened a ban on federal funds for abortions by a vote of 240-194--a more substantial mandate against abortion funding, incidentally, than for health-care reform. Denver's Democratic congresswoman, Diana DeGette, immediately began collecting signatures to oppose what she called "an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled." Congresswomen Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., went further, adding that the amendment "attempts an unprecedented overreach into women's basic rights and freedoms in this country." Overreach? Unprecedented? Basic rights? Freedoms? Right words, wrong issue. I have no doubt that the progressive wing of Congress--folks who generally support a single-payer plan that would eradicate choice and freedom in health care--believe government failing to give you something is indistinguishable from government taking something away from you. Yet, while no one will be stripped of their right to have an abortion under this legislation, the vast majority of citizens will have to deal with a cluster of new mandates and more than 100 new government bureaucracies to enforce them. Harsanyi goes on to note that the ultimate irony would be if pro-choice Democrats' concern over protecting "reproductive health services" leads to the eventual scuttling of the entire health care bill. We can only hope. Labels: Abortion, Health care Friday, October 30, 2009
David Harsanyi has a prescription for reading the House health care bill:
The King James version of the Bible runs more than 600 pages and is crammed with celestial regulations. Newton's Principia Mathematica distilled many of the rules of physics in a mere 974 pages. Neither have anything on Nancy Pelosi's new fiendishly entertaining health-care opus, which tops 1,900 pages. So curl up by a fire with a fifth of whiskey and just dive in. But drink quickly. In the new world, your insurance choices will be tethered to decisions made by people with Orwellian titles ("1984" was only 268 pages!) like the "Health Choices Commissioner" or "Inspector General for the Health Choices Administration." You will, of course, need to be plastered to buy Pelosi's fantastical proposition that 450,000 words of new regulations, rules, mandates, penalties, price controls, taxes and bureaucracy will have the transformative power to "provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending . . . ." The true health care "option" for Americans if this bill comes to pass may well be: Drink whiskey and shut up. Labels: Health care Thursday, October 29, 2009
Editor's note: the author is employed by a large for-profit health insurer. This post represents his personal opinion only and should not be construed as the position of his employer.
There is a saying in the health care industry: Choice Availability Price Pick two of the above. This saying is reflects the basic truth of economics. There is no such thing as unlimited supply of a scarce good. Therefore, favorability of one component of quality health care comes at the expense of one or more other components. It is possible to offer wide physician/hospital networks. It is possible to deliver health care at low costs. It is possible to provide treatment quickly. However, while each of these ends are desirable, working for one constrains the others. Americans want to be free to choose their physicians. In the 1980's and early 1990's, HMOs used gatekeepers to lower costs. The gatekeeper system basically prevented choice. If you wanted to see a top orthopedic specialist for your bum knee, the gatekeeper often forced you to see a family practice doctor instead. Seeing a generalist as opposed to a specialist saved money. The practice was universally despised. Our market system essentially did away with gatekeepers a decade ago. The American health care system has made health care universally available. No one is ever turned away at emergency rooms regardless of whether they are citizens or if they have insurance. Those with insurance don't face waits for treatments that don't involve organ transplants (and those wait times are dictated by scarcity of donors as opposed to systemic problems that socialized systems face such as availability of specialists). In socialist Europe and Canada patients wait months and even years for nonessential surgeries that vastly improve quality of life, such as hip replacements. Since no one has tried to take this aspect away from American consumers, it's hard to determine how much they value it. The final option is price. Americans have benefited from choice and availability, so prices have increased as more people demand more health care. The result is that consumers spend more of their income on health insurance. This has driven many Americans out of the system. Unsurprisingly, many Americans think rising prices represent a crisis and they want government action to lower them. So now our government is planning to "solve" our health care "crisis," which could be described as prices higher than many people would prefer. Conservatives suggest that this means there will be rationing of health care. Another way of stating that is that if many Americans have their price subsidized, then they will face new restrictions regarding their choice and availability of care. The insurance industry suggests that costs will actually rise as a result of government intervention. Another way of stating that is that some Americans price will be raised to subsidise other Americans (and possibly many Mexicans) and the net effect will be higher overall prices to the economy due to government inefficiency. One thing is clear, there is no magic formula to maintain choice and availability and lower price. It would be nice if our legislators would honestly speak to which component of health care they would compromise. Labels: Health care Saturday, October 24, 2009
President Obama declared the Swine (H1N1) flu epidemic a national emergency yesterday. Some relevant statistics on the US fatalities:
Iraq War: 4,351 9/11 Attacks: 2,976 Swine Flu: 1,000 Afghanistan War: 885 After passing Afghanistan casualties, I'd say it's a pretty likely event that this flu epidemic skyrockets to the top of this list. Wait, let's add another category: Annual US cancer deaths: 553,400 Maybe the President's priorities are out of place. Labels: Health care Friday, October 02, 2009
Don't know if you've heard the news, but apparently there's some sort of special strain of influenza making the rounds this season. Goes by the innocuous name "H1N1" which sounds more like one of Luke Skywalker's droids than a deadly pandemic. It doesn't exactly convey the sense of fear and dread that the "Black Death" did.
In order to stop the spread of this flu flavor of the month, we're supposed to take the following precautions: 1. Wash and sanitize your hands often 2. Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth with your hands 3. Cough and/or sneeze into the crook of your elbow (some call this maneuver the "Dracula cough," I think it's more like "prepare for impact") 4. If you do get sick, stay home so you don't infect others How am I so wise in the ways of flu prevention you ask? Oh I don't know, perhaps because I've relentlessly hammered over the head with messages on it for the last month. You can't turn on a TV or open a newspaper without some health expert scolding you about washing your hands and proper coughing technique. It's even worse at work. I'm not sure if my employer's behavior is unusual, but they're pretty much in full on flu panic mode. I can't even count how many memos we've received on flu prevention, the latest appearing in my inbox less than an hour ago. There are signs plastered all over the building reminding us how important it is to wash our hands and not come in if we get sick. You can't walk ten feet in our building without coming across a hand sanitizer dispensing station. If they had their way, I think they'd like to pump sanitizing fluid through the sprinkler system and douse us every hour or so just to make sure we're properly disinfected at all times. This week they handed out laminated cards to attach to our security badges. One side contains "Daily Screening Questions" and asks: "Do you have any of the following symptoms?" Fever 100.5 F or above Cough Sore Throat Difficulty breathing Runny or Stuffy Nose Joint & Muscle Aches Chills & Sweats Extreme Fatigue Headache It then says: If YES to 2 or more symptoms, please see other side. If NO, report to work. When you flip the card it tells you NOT to come to work, contact your supervisor, and don't come in until you are symptom free for 24 hours. First of all, that list of symptoms is awfully subjective. On any given day during flu season it's not hard to imagine a lot of people saying that they had two of those symptoms. Those of us with young kids have accumulated sleep debts that rival the US government's fiscal obligations. Am I extremely fatigued today or just normally fatigued? When a fifty-something coworker near me first saw the list he joked, "Great. I'm never coming to work again." Second, and more importantly, exactly when was it that we became children and the company our Mommy? I understand why businesses are so concerned about H1N1 and appreciate how disruptive it could prove to be. But can't we manage our way through this without being treated as if we're incapable of determining whether we're healthy enough to work on our own? Do we really need laminated cards with DAILY screening questions and constant reminders about washing our hands, coughing in our sleeves, and wearing a jacket when we go outside? Okay, I made that last one up, but the way we appear to be headed I wouldn't be surprised to see it soon. We're adults. We now know what to do. None of these precautions are rocket science and most of them are common sense practices that we would likely be following anyway. Now, just step back and let us get on with our work. I'm all for an ounce of prevention, but a healthy dose of prudence is also called for. Labels: Business, Health care Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Gary e-mails to note this story:
ST. PAUL, Minn.--Minnesota health experts head to Germany this week to examine a medical system where everyone has insurance and private health plans operate under government supervision. The 13-member delegation includes state Human Services Commissioner Cal Ludeman, legislators and officials from the Mayo Clinic, University of Minnesota, Planned Parenthood and AARP. The group will meet with German health care regulators and insurers. They will also visit a for-profit hospital. The trip runs Tuesday through Sunday. It's organized by the University of Minnesota's Center for German and European Studies. Gary then asks: Why is Planned Parenthood going on the trip?? Good question. I'm sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation and the fact that abortion providers are joining politicians and government officials on a state health care junket should in no way raise suspicions about the kind of procedures that taxpayers will end up funding if we move toward greater government control of our health care system. Labels: Health care Monday, September 14, 2009
In order to persuade people to support his health care reform plans, President Obama has sought to portray insurance companies in the role of the villain. A compelling story usually has good guys and bad guys and by fixating on insurance companies as the cause of the woes in our health care system, the president is setting up a dragon to be slayed by the progressive knight. While it makes for good (and easy) drama, the reality of health care is far more complicated than that.
In today's WSJ, Scott Harrington says that many of the president's assertions on the abuses of insurance companies dropping coverage are more based on fiction than fact: These two cases are presumably among the most egregious identified by Congressional staffers' analysis of 116,000 pages of documents from three large health insurers, which identified a total of about 20,000 rescissions from millions of policies issued by the insurers over a five-year period. Company representatives testified that less than one half of one percent of policies were rescinded (less than 0.1% for one of the companies). If existing laws and litigation governing rescission are inadequate, there clearly are a variety of ways that the states or federal government could target abuses without adopting the president's agenda for federal control of health insurance, or the creation of a government health insurer. Like many of the other rationales that the president uses to justify the need for his reform plans, the problems with companies dropping coverage are exaggerated to foster fear and the false choice is presented that the only options to address the problems are the president's way or doing nothing. One of the surest signs of the decline of political discourse in America in recent years is the rise of rhetoric by anecdote ("Let me tell you the story of..."). It's an emotionally manipulative and powerful tool and President Obama is a master at using it. Labels: Health care Saturday, September 12, 2009
Scene from the Obama health care rally in Minneapolis today:
A man in a wheelchair shouted at those headed inside: "Look at all of you - socialists! Shame on you guys!" They bring a guy in a wheelchair, you bring a guy in a wheelchair missing an arm. That's the Chicago way! For some reason this exchange also reminds me of an NHL bench clearing brawl where the two goalies end up squaring off. Unlikely combatants, not something you see every day. For more on what you might have heard inside the Obama rally, check out this post at the Nihilist in Golf Pants. Labels: Health care, Obama Sunday, August 23, 2009
I decided I would make my inaugural post at Fraters Libertas a very special live blog of Senator Amy Klobuchar's Health Care Town Hall. For full disclosure, I have worked in the health insurance industry for two different corporations, including my current employer. However, the opinions I express here are my personal views.
6:52 PM - The way this forum works is that I signed up online before noon on Friday 8/21 and provided a phone number. Early today, I received a conformation that I would be called to be conferenced in around 7 pm tonight. 7:05 - No call yet. I assume the technical issues make lateness a possibility. I won't bail for at least half an hour. 7:10 - Could Amy be having a Brett Favre like change of heart? I wonder how her team feels about this? I wonder how Brett Favre feels about this? Here's the announcement from her web site: U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar will be hosting a live statewide tele-town hall meeting to discuss making health care more affordable and answer questions from her constituents. Joining her will be Dr. Denis Cortese, CEO of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, and Mary Wakefield, the highest ranking nurse in the federal government. 7:15 - In the link above, it suggests that if you're not called by 7:10, you should call her office. I did so and received a message that her voice mail is full. She can't get a town hall meeting started on time, yet she expects us to trust her with our health care? 7:19 - I just got the call. It was a recorded message from Amy. It basically said (not direct quote, but my best shot): Tonight at 7 pm I hosted a live town hall meeting to discuss health care with Dr. Denis Cortese, CEO of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, and Mary Wakefield, the highest ranking nurse in the federal government. I am sorry that you were unable to join in this discussion. However, I am posting meeting in it's entirety on my website: klobuchar.senate.gov. Thank you for participating in this important discussion. This stinks! I was unable to join because she refused to have the meeting in person, then refused to let me control my own access. I followed every protocol she required and yet I never got the call. It would be especially bogus if the meeting lasted more than eighteen minutes, as her staff could have connected me into it instead of giving me the 'too bad' phone message. I signed up for this town hall meeting through my employer's internet connection. I wonder if she screened my IP address to identify me as a potential caller who disagrees with her? In any event, Senator Klobuchar, if you or your staff is reading this, this is the question that I wanted to ask you: Senator Klobuchar, as an employee of a large corporate health insurer, I was concerned to read President Obama's statement in the Wall Street Journal (July 7) that we need a public option as a mechanism to 'keep private insurers honest'. My question to you is, do you believe that most of the 1500 or so private insurers in America are not honest, and if you don't believe that then why do we need a public option? 7:30 - I'm still steamed. It's worth noting that in July I sent e-mails to Senators Klobuchar and Franken as well as Rep. Eric Paulson expressing my dismay that health care reform was being fast tracked at the expense of a comprehensive discussion. I was surprised that only Senator Al Franken sent me any reply at all. It was the usual 'Thank you for your input' e-mail, but at least it was something. This liveblog and my initial Fraters post is over! The Elder Adds-- The timing of NIGP's inaugural Fraters post and this article in today's WSJ is...ahem...interesting: The health-insurance industry is sending thousands of its employees to town-hall meetings and other forums during Congress's August recess to try to counter a tide of criticism directed at the insurers and remain a player--and not an outsider --in the debate over the future of the health-care system. Among the throngs of Americans crowding the sessions across the country, the industry employees come armed with talking points about the need for bipartisan legislation and the unintended consequences of a government-run health plan to compete with private insurers. Labels: Health care Friday, August 21, 2009
Rep. Tim Walz, during his teleconference earlier this week, on the urgency to enact the Obama health care reforms:
"We cannot afford to do nothing," Walz repeatedly said.Reminds me of a classic MASH episode. The hospital was catching artillery fire from unknown combatants and Frank Burns was running around shrieking: "We need to do something! Anything!" Hawkeye Pierce interjected: "I agree with Frank, let's do anything." Of course, if Hawkeye, as played by Alan Alda, were around today, he'd be all for Obama Care and probably fronting a group called Doctors for Taxpayer Funded Abortions for Lesbian Illegal Aliens NOW. But way back then during the fake Korean War, he had a good point. Problems are not solved by doing "anything". In fact, they can be exacerbated by doing the wrong thing, especially when the solution is not well thought-out, rushed, or clouded by misdirection and hyperbolic fear mongering. As Thomas Sowell notes: Is [the current system] ideal? Of course not. But nothing is going to be ideal, whether the current medical care legislation passes or not. The relevant question is: Are the problems created by the current situation worse than the problems that will be created by the pending legislation? That question never seems to get asked, much less answered.That is the question that salesmen for Obama Care, like Tim Walz, need to be asked. Then again, the teleconference where he was repeating his mantra "We can't afford to do nothing" included only pre-screened questions. Good luck getting to any issues he'd rather not talk about in that format. The myth serving as the foundation for Waltz's tap dance is that Republicans want to do nothing regarding the problems with the current health care system. Anyone paying attention and being intellectually honest knows that is false. Rep. Eric Cantor in the House and Jim DeMint in the Senate, among others, have prominently outlined plans that would be the basis for a conservative approach to reform. But the truth is conservatives have precisely zero ability to enact these reforms at the Federal level. Democrats have absolute control of the Executive and Legislative branches and for all their happy talk of bi-partisanship, they have shown no interest in compromising toward a more free market based reform package. And they don't have to. The voters gave them all the power they need and they don't have to share it. The catch is, that also gives the Democrats exclusive responsibility for effectively solving the problems they encounter. That doesn't mean doing "anything" and that doesn't mean doing something that makes things worse and that doesn't mean whining about your impotent opposition standing in your way. The floor is yours Democrats and Tim Walz to do it right. Don't choke. Labels: Health care, Walz Wednesday, August 19, 2009
A couple of long-time readers of Fraters write to comment on where Obama Care might lead.
Tim leads off: I have another nutty thought about what might happen if our government starts making healthcare decisions on our behalf. If you think it is time for me to check myself in, I trust that you would tell me so. Under this health care program that Obama insists we just have to have, I would assume that the decision to give or not give a person needing a liver, kidney, or other organ transplant would come from some sort of government organ transplant approval board. Nothing really disturbs me too much about that because that sort of approval is needed today; a board of doctors routinely decide who is in the most dire consequences and would benefit most from an organ transplant. But this is where I get a little creeped out by the thought of Obama care. I know this is a reach, but so was $5 gas. Think about the supply of healthy donor organs. A fair number of organs come from people involved in accidents who had to be put on life support. Do we want the same organization that decides what regular health treatment will be extended to you also be the same organization that decides when you should come off of life support, and the same organization that decides where your organs will go? Am I the only one that sees a conflict of interest here? I know this is macabre, but when I saw "Coma" and "Logan's Run" in the theaters, I thought they were just movies, not docu-dramas. Taken at face value in current circumstances, it's easy to write off Tim's concerns as paranoid. But, as has been stated often before, the problem is that once you turn over control of health care decisions to the government you open the door to a whole range of possibilities. Some may seem crazy to even consider their coming about today. But what about five years from now? Ten? Twenty? The people writing the plans today may well have no desire to ever see some of the worst case scenarios come about, but their intentions today aren't going to mean much to someone making decisions about how to ration care twenty years from now. And as John Stossel notes, as much as proponents of government care don't like to use term, it is all about rationing: This brings us back to end-of-life consultation. As the government's health care budget becomes strained, as it must -- and, as Obama admits, already is under Medicare -- the government will have to cut back on what it lets people have. So it is not a leap to foresee government limiting health care, especially to people nearing the end of life. Medical "ethicists" have long lamented that too much money is spent futilely in the last several months of life. Are we supposed to believe that the social engineers haven't read their writings? And given the premise that it's government's job to pay for our heath care, concluding that 80-year-olds should get no hip replacements makes sense. The problem is the premise: that taxpayers should pay. Once you accept that, bad things follow. Bad things that would seem likely to get even worse in the future. Amy writes to remind us that we don't have to look that far into the past to see that it might be a prologue for what that future holds: If you think that the Politburo and the Compulsive Liar and Chief care one whit about us Kulaks, you're nuts. They will pass, covertly if they must, some sort of "culture of death" healthcare. It's in their nature. I find it strange that there are those who are now worried about healthcare and "death panels" when it is their ass on the line (I know, I know, human nature). There were indications a few years ago that were in their face but they chose to ignore it and perhaps even cheered it on. You don't thinks so? I've got two words for ya': Terri Schiavo. Now what? ...let the crying begin. I don't think it's time for tears quite yet. There's still time to stop the slide. Labels: Health care Andy Driscoll of KFAI is a veteran broadcaster, public affairs specialist, award-
That's a blockbuster. Government officials arranging for journalists to show up at rallies Regardless, I can only imagine the convulsions of rage this would inspire among Never fear, being an award-winning member of the media, I assume Mr. Driscoll Well, there was some laughter involved. Unfortunately, it was laughing along with
If an actual riot didn't break out at this rally, at least the media had their own There is no mention of whether Doug Grow was called by Rep. McCollum's office
By design or not, hot seat applied Twin Cities media. Mission accomplished. Labels: Health care, McCollum, Media-Local (02-04) Tuesday, August 18, 2009
William McGurn on the reaction to the rejection:
Right now the entire Beltway--including the West Wing--seems obsessed with finding out what went wrong with the administration's sales pitch. No one appears to think the problem might be substance. Or that the vague answers and vitriolic rhetoric we get from Democrats such as Mr. Reid convey a sense that the plans they favor will not hold up under public scrutiny. This might be hard for most of the media and political class to grasp, but maybe, just maybe opposition to the Democratic health care reform plan isn't rooted in racism, right-wing radio, or uninformed rage. Rather--as was the case with the opposition to immigration reform--it's that most Americans have examined the issues, do understand what's being proposed, and are against it in principal because they just aren't buying that it would be good for them or for the country. Nah, couldn't be that simple, could it? Labels: Health care
One of the things that has surprised me in the last couple of weeks was how quickly most of the media adopted the Democrats narrative that opponents of the health care reform bill were "disrupting" the town hall meetings. Check out the Wikipedia definition of what a town hall meeting is:
A town hall meeting is an informal public meeting derived from the traditional town meetings of New England. Similarly to those meetings, everybody in a community is invited to attend, voice their opinions, and hear the responses from public figures and elected officials, although attendees rarely vote on an issue. In today's heterogeneous communities with large populations, more often, town hall meetings are held so that people can influence elected officials in their decision making or to give them a chance to feel that their voices are being heard. There are no specific rules or guidelines for holding a town hall meeting. If the turnout is large, and the objective is to give as many people as possible an opportunity to speak, the group can be broken down into smaller discussion groups. Participants all hear an opening presentation and then group-up to discuss an aspect of the presentation. Each group appoints someone to summarize their group's discussion. So they are intended to be a forum for community members to show up voice their opinions. In recent years however, town hall meetings have degenerated into largely staged events where politicians carefully control the course of the meetings and messages coming out of them. The dog and pony shows that masqueraded as "town halls" during the 2008 campaign were a grotesque twist on the original intent and purpose of the meetings. I always chuckled when candidates talked about all the suffering and misery they heard about at their health care town hall meetings. Really? Gee, you think maybe the people who bothered showed up might just not be representative of the community at large. Not many folks are going to come out to such an event to let you know that everything's just fine. So now, the politicians (and media) are shocked when opponents of government health care actually are turning out to such events, challenging the politicians to answer their questions, and demanding that they get a chance to have their voice heard. Seems to me that's exactly what town hall meetings are really supposed to be all about. As Michael Warren noted last week, Rude protests are an American tradition: In any event, the Founding Fathers would likely be appalled by the notion that vigorous protests--yes, even those that are rude, obnoxious and interfere with the carefully orchestrated plans of government officials--is "un-American." UPDATE: MoveOn.org e-mails to brag on their impact at town halls: Our demand for real reform is getting through in communities nationwide, thanks in big part to MoveOn volunteers organizing events across the country. Check out the latest: * At a debate in Dallas, Texas, the MoveOn Council brought over 120 people--far outnumbering right-wing protesters. * MoveOn members around the country have been tenacious in getting through to key senators. In the last two weeks, members have had face-to-face conversations with senators in Indiana, North Dakota, Maine, and Nebraska. * In Boulder, Colorado, pro-reform constituents packed a town hall with Rep. Jared Polis. The message they sent was positive, respectful, and crystal clear. Our democracy is burning. Labels: Health care Monday, August 17, 2009
One of the few things that it seems that almost everyone can agree on in the health care debate is that as a country we spend far too much on health care both as an aggregate figure and as a percentage of GDP. But before we accept this as a given, this underlying assumption deserves to be examined more closely. Craig S. Karpel does just that in today's Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Obama has said that "the cost of health care has weighed down our economy." No one thinks the 20% of our GDP that's attributable to manufacturing is weighing down the economy, because it's intuitively clear that one person's expenditure on widgets is another person's income. But the same is true of the health-care industry. The $2.4 trillion Americans spend each year for health care doesn't go up in smoke. It's paid to other Americans. Somehow the impression has been created that spending money on health care is somehow wasteful and that money could be better spent elsewhere. But why? Is spending money on schools, roads, housing, transportation, welfare, or consumer goods better than spending money on health care? Perhaps. But it's not automatically so and certainly that question is open for debate. The basic material needs of human beings are food, clothing and shelter. The desire for food and clothing drove hunter-gatherer economies and, subsequently, agricultural economies, for millennia. The Industrial Revolution was driven by the desire for clothing. Thus Richard Arkwright's water frame, James Hargreaves's spinning jenny, Samuel Crompton's spinning mule, Eli Whitney's cotton gin and Elias Howe's sewing machine. Though it hasn't been widely realized, the desire for shelter was a major driver of the U.S. economy during the second half of the 20th century and the first several years of the 21st. About one-third of the new jobs created during the latter period were directly or indirectly related to housing, as the stupendous ripple effect of the bursting housing bubble should make painfully obvious. Once these material needs are substantially met, desire for health care--without which there can be no enjoyment of food, clothing or shelter--becomes a significant, perhaps a principal, driver of the economy. As countries mature economically and grow richer it's natural to expect that they will spend more on health care. The question then becomes what is the "right" amount to spend? And who determines what that amount is, the market or the government (or some form of both as we currently have)? No matter what one thinks of the state of the American health care system, it is impossible to deny that the US is a leader in innovation care and advances in medical technology and treatment. It is not a coincidence that while we spend the most on health care we also produce the most advancements and breakthroughs in health care. We should carefully consider what the impact of attempts to limit that spending will have on our ability to continue to lead the world in medical advancements. And whether measuring the amount that we spend on health care--as an aggregate or percentage of GDP--is truly an indicator of whether the system works or not. Labels: Health care Friday, August 14, 2009
Tim from Colorado e-mails to speculate about where government control of heath care might one day lead:
If a government health care bill passes, in what ever possible form, I can envision the day when the government tells us what foods we can eat, what beverages we can drink, and what activities we can participate in, all because the higher risks of not following the government's rules will lead to increased health care costs. For instance, fast food will be eliminated, or the menus will be greatly changed, because the government will say eating Big Macs and fries leads to heart disease. You would no longer be able to enjoy more than two or three beers or mixed drinks per week because the government cannot afford to treat sclerosis of the liver. That pack a day habit will have to get cut down to two packs per month. How would the government know if you cheated on the rules? Easy; they'll issue you a government health care card which you would have to present to a doctor to get treated, but the government could also later mandate that to buy fast food, cigarettes, booze, or other detriments to our health, you'd also have to present your health care card, which could then be used to track how much or how often you bought stuff on the government's no-no list. Am I being a nutter here? I'm not saying this will happen, but is it not possible? Whoa there Tim. One has to be careful about discussing such matters lest one be accused of spreading "disinformation" and "right-wing lies" about health care. It's still okay to think about things like that (at least for now), but it's very disruptive and quite possibly un-American to share such thoughts in public. Please turn yourself in to the White House and await further instructions on how to begin your rehabilitation process. At The Corner, Jonah Goldberg sows similar fears and discord with a post called Health Care Is the Door to Controlling Everything: A point I didn't flesh out too much in my column seems to have struck a chord with a lot of readers nonetheless. Once the government decides it is in charge of health care, it has a say in everything you do (this, natch, was an argument of my book). Guns, diet, and cars are more relevant to our slightly lower life expectancy than insurance premiums and reimbursement rates, so of course Henry Waxman and Barbara Boxer and the rest of the gang are going to use their control over the health-care system as an excuse to go after those aspects of our lives. Why wouldn't they? They already want to influence those aspects of our lives now. Health care is really the only other policy area--after "the children" and global warming--that gives the State access to the most private spheres of our lives. Whenever someone says "it's a health-care issue" it's somehow supposed to trump traditional rights and liberties. That's what the push in the 1990s to make gun control a health-care issue was all about. That's why cameras once used to catch terrorists are now used to catch people eating in their cars in the U.K. I've never heard anyone say something is a "health-care issue" as a preface to an argument for getting the government out of something. Labels: Health care Thursday, August 13, 2009
The latest sign of desperation among the forces pushing the Democrats' health care reform plans comes via e-mail in the form a panicky plea from the folks at MoveOn.org:
Right-wing mobs aren't just disrupting congressional town halls--their outlandish lies are now making their way into mainstream news coverage, too. How dare they! Mainstream media coverage is supposed to be reserved exclusively for left-wing lies. We need to set the record straight. The majority of Americans support real health care reform. And no wonder, given the incredible cost of inaction. In Minnesota alone, 190 people lose their coverage every day. And for those with insurance, yearly premiums will hit $22,467 in a few years if we don't act. We can't let right-wing extremists ruin the biggest opportunity in a generation to get real reform. Can you send a quick letter to the editor of The Star Tribune--or another local paper--about the urgent need in Minnesota for Congress to pass health care reform with a real public option? The e-mail goes on to provide a link to a form letter to the editor and provides helpful talking points to use. Hmmm... A group organizing efforts and providing information to help citizens make their voices heard and influence political outcomes? How positively un-American. Boy, wait 'til the White House hears about this... Labels: Health care Wednesday, August 12, 2009
President Obama is stubbornly going all out in his attempt to bring socialized medicine to the United States (yes, I know he isn't calling it that, but there is no doubt as too his ultimate goal). If he succeeds in destroying the finest health care system in the world, it may just do for him politically what the Iraq War did for George W. Bush. Of course, the casualties of a European-style health system would likely be much higher.
Consider the comparative age-adjusted five year survival rates for all cancers: Europe: 47.3% for men and 55.8% for women, USA: 66.3% for men and 62.9% for women (Source: a 2007 study in Lancet Oncology via medscape) The estimated number of new cancer cases in 2009 in the United States: Men: 766,130 Women: 713,220 (Source: American Cancer Society) The survival rate statistics suggest that of the 1,479,350 new cancer cases, 522,790 will pass away over the next five years. If Obamacare brings the United States cancer survival rates down to European levels, that number would jump to 718,993; an extra 196,203 deaths over five years. The extra cancer deaths (and remember this is only among those diagnosed in 2009) over five years would be 38 times the 5081 American casualties in the Iraq war to date. We may not like it, but the fact of the matter is that financial incentives do work. A for-profit cancer center has every incentive to cure you -- having a high survival rate tends to attract more customers. In a government system, if they cure you, they don't stand to make more money, but to lose more on future treatments down the road. Of course, the government health care workers and bureaucrats' sense of compassion will greatly overwhelm their cost-cutting instincts and they will do their best to cure you. But there is no reason to believe that the workers at a for-profit center would be any less humanitarian. Even if the financial incentive is small by comparison, a little bit can mean a lot. Labels: Health care
Interesting article from Victor Davis Hanson who returns from a Europe with some sobering observations on socialism, health care, and the path Obama and the Democrats are leading us down.
Excerpts, on his multiple first-hand experiences in European and Middle Eastern hospitals: Because I have traveled a great deal in my life, often recklessly so, alone, and to weird places in search of answers to topographical questions of the ancient Mediterranean world, and first-hand observations about battles and campaigns in out of the way places for several books -- I have ended up over the last 36 years in a number of socialist hospitals.Also he comments on the nature of those most zealously advocating that America needs to change: Socialism surely does not make one happier, or content knowing that the resulting society is somehow more humane or caring. Instead each faction is constantly on the verge of striking against the public good. There are always the bad "them", easy-target public enemies among the rich and aristocratic who need to give away more to the "deserving." The bank workers are in perpetual war against the garbage cleaners who hate the social service workers who whine about the fire and police -- each convinced the public must grant more largess on themselves than on like others.And to think we've handed exclusive control of our Federal government to these people over the past 4 years. Anything in that Obama Health Care plan about massive subsidies and generous time off work provisions to treat depression? At this point, that might be the one silver lining that could get me on board. Labels: Health care
One of the most dishonest aspects of the Democrats attempt to cram down health care reform is their oft-repeated argument that the only alternative to their plan is the status quo. In fact, there are a plethora of proposals out there that seek to address what currently ails the health care system that don't require taxpayers to bend over for an invasive procedure from Doctor Government (this'll only hurt a lot).
The latest comes courtesy of a Brooks Brother-wearing, Nazi-sympathizing, mob-organizing While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction--toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone: *Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). *Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. *Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. *Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. *Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. *Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. *Enact Medicare reform. *Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The running-dog wrecker continues by looking at the question of whether we have a right to health care: Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care--to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter? Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments. Oh yeah, the guy who penned this piece is Mr. John Mackey co-founder and CEO of one of those bastions of conservative corporate capitalism... ...Whole Foods Market Inc. Put that in your environmentally-friendly reusable tote bag for future reference when one of your progressive friends tells you that President Obama's way is the only path to health care reform. Labels: Health care Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The boys at Power Line note this question asked of the President at the Town Hall meeting he arranged to attend in New Hampshire today:
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.A question which broaches one of the main areas of contention between Obama and the critics of his health care agenda. But way too vague and factually inaccurate and with a softball pitch ending fat enough to allow an old pro debater like Obama to turn on it and hit it out of the park (deep into the left field seats). The question becomes nothing more than an opportunity for Obama to offer pedantic lecturing and reiterate the obfuscations about what he would really like to see as a health care system in this country and what his reforms might lead to. The one big chance the public gets to pin Obama down on where he stands and the question is blown. What a break for the administration. You get a "random question" from an "average citizen" and it's bad enough to allow you to come out looking like a free thinking, free market hero. Who needs political operatives and media spin machines when you have luck like this on your side? If the hands of fate had pushed me into that Town Hall meeting instead and I was randomly chosen to ask the question in a way that would achieve greater clarity on Obama's position, it might have gone something like this: Mr. President, in 2003, you were videotaped at a speech for the AFL-CIO unambiguously stating that you were a "proponent of a single payer health care plan." In 2008, during a Democrat Presidential primary election debate, when your opponents confronted you with this, you stated you did not support creating such a system in the US now because it would create too many problems in transition from the current employer sponsored system. But, if you had to start a health care plan from scratch, you would go with a single payer system. You repeated this contention, your preference for a single-payer system if you were starting from scratch, at other campaign events. At which point I would be shouted down as a paid plant from a villainous health insurance company, called un-American and a Nazi just out to hurt our precious President, reported as fishy to flag@whitehouse.gov, and finally cold-cocked by a union goon in the parking lot. Maybe it's a good those hands of fate didn't and on my shoulders after all. But it is a shame that a better question wasn't asked of Obama. It's even more a shame that we get one chance to ask it from a random citizen, despite the fact a professional press corps is paid to follow the guy around 24 hours a day. Labels: Health care Monday, August 10, 2009
From the Star Tribune, troubling article about a Continental Airlines flight, being operated by Express Jet, trying to get from Houston to the Twin Cities. The big thunderstorms in town Saturday night diverted the plane to Rochester, where we pick up the story:
The plane, which left Houston about 9:30 p.m. Friday, arrived in Rochester about midnight, and passengers weren't allowed to leave the plane until 6 a.m. Saturday.Welcome to Minnesota. We like it here. OK, this isn't exactly type of welcome the tourism board would have preferred. Unless imprisoning travelers in the equivalent of a communal Satellite toilet for 6 hours is a more aggressive way to convince people that they should be Happy to Pay for a Better Minnesota. But, as of yet no Democrats have come forward to blame this on Gov. Pawlenty's budget cuts. Instead, a more common cause has been identified for keeping these poor people trapped for 6 hours: . . . . letting the passengers into the Rochester airport was not possible, ExpressJet said, because they would have to go through security screening again, and the screeners had gone home for the day. Well, I know I feel safer. Listen up all you al Queda operatives lurking inside small regional airports after midnight in the event that unscheduled flights are routed there due to inclement weather, then waiting for the passengers to deplane to take bathroom breaks in the airport and then slipping in unnoticed among them as they get back on, and then keeping a low profile on the plane until it takes off and then committing heinous acts of terrorism - you've been foiled again! Defeated by the wisdom and foresight of the United States government. Or, alternately, this incident was a huge clusterfarg caused by inflexible federal safety regulations, a one-size-fits-all approach meant to cover every situation experienced by all 28,000 flights (on average) each and every day in the US. In the interest of safety, they require all deplaning passengers to be rescreened every time. They just never counted on the Rochester, Minnesota TSA employees working bankers' hours. If only the scientists of America had developed a time machine by now. Then, I swear I'd go back to shortly after 9/11 and visit the town hall meetings Congresspersons were holding regarding the Homeland Security Act. During the Q&A section, I'd raise objections to the unintended consequences of this specific provision, stating that it has the real possibility of needlessly causing great suffering and harm to air passengers and that we should think again before blundering down this path. At which point it would be indignantly pointed out that there is NOTHING in this bill about making air passengers wait for 6 hours on the tarmac while waiting for security. Then I would be shouted down as a plant from Big Aviation, called un-American and a Nazi just out to hurt our precious President, reported as fishy to flag@whitehouse.gov, and finally cold-cocked by a union goon in the parking lot. Maybe it's a good thing that time machine is still on the drawing board. Instead, we'll just have to live with the government's reaction to this problem: I think keeping people on the airplane from about midnight to roughly 6 in the morning, that wouldn't sit well with me either," [Rochester airport manager Steven Leqve] said. "It's an unfortunate thing. I wish it hadn't happened."Gee thanks pal. If the local bureacrats are unresponsive, at least we have public servants in the US House of Representatives in our corner. People who understand the problems of the average commerical air traveller. House Democratic leaders neatly snuck into the 2010 defense appropriations bill an extra $132 million to pay for two extra C-37B private jets to haul congressmen around the country. As Capitol Hill's Roll Call first reported, the Air Force had requested one such jet -- for the general use of government officials and military brass.OK, we're screwed. But on the bright side, this is only convenience during air travel we're talking about. It's not like these people are in charge of something life and death like your health care. Labels: Health care, Transportation Sunday, August 09, 2009
In yesterday's WSJ, Theodore Dalrymple opined that when it comes to health care in the U.K. dogs have better options than people:
In the last few years, I have had the opportunity to compare the human and veterinary health services of Great Britain, and on the whole it is better to be a dog. As a British dog, you get to choose (through an intermediary, I admit) your veterinarian. If you don?t like him, you can pick up your leash and go elsewhere, that very day if necessary. Any vet will see you straight away, there is no delay in such investigations as you may need, and treatment is immediate. There are no waiting lists for dogs, no operations postponed because something more important has come up, no appalling stories of dogs being made to wait for years because other dogs--or hamsters--come first. he conditions in which you receive your treatment are much more pleasant than British humans have to endure. For one thing, there is no bureaucracy to be negotiated with the skill of a white-water canoeist; above all, the atmosphere is different. There is no tension, no feeling that one more patient will bring the whole system to the point of collapse, and all the staff go off with nervous breakdowns. In the waiting rooms, a perfect calm reigns; the patients? relatives are not on the verge of hysteria, and do not suspect that the system is cheating their loved one, for economic reasons, of the treatment which he needs. The relatives are united by their concern for the welfare of each other?s loved one. They are not terrified that someone is getting more out of the system than they. Which make one wonder if some enterprising Brits elect to follow the course of Kramer in the Seinfeld episode The Andrea Doria: (While Kramer's walking with his new found dog, Smuckers, he meets up with George. Kramer and the dog both start coughing) KRAMER: (Between coughs) Hey. GEORGE: What's with the dog? KRAMER: (Petting Smuckers) Yeah, this is Smuckers. I borrowed him. (Starts coughing) GEORGE: Oh... (Smuckers coughs) KRAMER: (Pointing at the dog) Yeah, we share the same affliction, so I'm gonna have a vet check us out. GEORGE: A vet? KRAMER: Oh, I'll take a vet over an M.D. any day. They gotta be able to cure a (Snaps his fingers in rhythm with his words) lizard, a chicken, a pig, a frog (Stops snapping)--all on the same day. GEORGE: So, if I may jump ahead--you're gonna take dog medicine? KRAMER: (Smiling) You bet we are! Huh, Smuckers? (Smuckers coughs. They turn to leave) I'll see ya. Labels: Health care, Life Resembles Seinfeld Friday, August 07, 2009
One of the more damaging outcomes of becoming dependent on the government to manage health care is the impact it has on an individual citizen's expectations about exactly what that health care should entail. It comes to be viewed as an entitlement covering an ever-expanding range of services. A perfect example of this is provided in a story in today's WSJ on how France is struggling to pay the high costs of universal care (sub req):
Yet even the smallest budget moves are proving controversial. Local residents are up in arms over a cost-cutting measure that makes patients pay 1.10 (Euro) an hour to park at the hospital. "It's a scandal," says retired local Communist politician Gérard Eude. "It goes against the very idea of universal health care." So in the eyes of this Frenchman (admittedly a Commie), part of your "right" to health care also includes a right to free parking. And why not? After all, doesn't the government owe it to you? Labels: Health care Tuesday, July 28, 2009
An editorial in today's WSJ explains that ObamaCare's provisions to contain costs will almost certainly lead to reduced benefits :
Now Democrats have decided that raiding Medicare and slashing benefits is fine if the larger goal is to nationalize health care. But instead of doing it honestly, they want to shunt off unpopular decisions to an obscure and unelected central committee that will convert medical decisions into five-year plans. The notion is fundamentally undemocratic, especially because its true purpose is to protect politicians when "MedPAC on steroids" inevitably reduces treatment options in order to save money after the costs of government care explode. And CBO is almost certainly underestimating this future cost explosion. After only three years, the universal health-care experiment in Massachusetts is already breaking that state's budget and its own version of MedPAC is now recommending radical changes, including a "global" health-care budget. Romney in 2012! This means that state bureaucrats will decide what the "right" amount is to spend on medicine, and doctors and hospitals will be given some portion of the total and told to make it work for patients. This is supposed to be a kind of Occam's scalpel, forcing providers to cut unnecessary treatments. But under a global budget, payments are likely to be lower than economic costs, squeezing out some beneficial treatments. There's more than a little poetic justice in a Democratic President telling Democrats in Congress that they can't be trusted to rationally manage their own programs. But if that's really what Mr. Obama thinks, he's crazy to be simultaneously demanding even larger government programs. Health care will always be distorted by politics if government is paying for it. As for the Blue Dogs, they ought to tell the President that ObamaCare is dead unless he goes back to the drawing board. Ah yes, the Blue Dog Democrats. Those fiscally conservative watchdogs who safeguard the public purse strings by keeping their more liberal spending Democratic brethren at bay. You know, the House Democrats who vote against major increases in public spending and taxes. Democrats like Minnesota's own Collin Peterson. Let's look at Peterson's recent record of dogged fiscal responsibility. - The expansion of the SCHIP program to cover families up to 300% of the poverty level? Peterson votes Yes. - The $787 billion economic stimulus plan? Peterson votes No. - President Obama's 2010 budget which massively increases spending? Peterson votes Yes. - The Cap and Trade energy bill? Liberal Dems throw Peterson a bone and he lays down to vote Yes. So Peterson's voting average as a Blue Dog is .250. Plenty good enough to have him bat second in the Twins lineup, but not exactly what you'd expect from your watchdog. Merrill Matthews also has a piece in today's WSJ in which he lays out how Blue Dog Democrats Could Make or Break Health-care Reform: Republicans have long called themselves fiscal conservatives. But after their spending spree in the first six years of the Bush administration, they are widely perceived to have tarnished their brand. Are the Blue Dogs tarnishing their brand, too? If 80% of them voted for the stimulus bill and nearly 75% voted for the 2010 federal budget, can the group rightfully claim to be fiscally conservative? The health-care bill will be the final test. The House legislation will cost at least $1 trillion over 10 years, including around $550 billion to $600 billion in new taxes. That doesn't count the employer mandate that will force employers to provide coverage or pay a penalty. If all House Republicans oppose the bill, which seems likely, the Blue Dogs have enough votes to make or break health care in the House. Blue Dog Mike Ross of Arkansas says the bill can't pass the House. He's right, but only if 40 Blue Dogs or other Democrats vote against the bill. The Democratic leadership and the president will put enormous pressure on the Blue Dogs to support the legislation. Now we'll see if the Blue Dogs have bite to go along with their bark. If Blue Dogs like Collin Peterson follow their recent voting pattern, they won't have the teeth to take a bite out of President's Obama's health care plans. In which case they should change the name of their group to something more fitting. Pelosi's Lap Dogs perhaps. Labels: Health care, Politics-Local (08-09)
|
TALK O' THE TOWN 
Listen to the Northern Alliance Radio Network on Saturdays from 11am 'til 3pm on AM 1280-The Patriot:
|
![[Powered by Blogger]](bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
