November 25, 2009
Posted by vsap in Blogroll.add a comment
<object width=”576″ height=”432″ ><param name=”allowfullscreen” value=”true” /><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always” /><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.facebook.com/v/208877111969″ /><embed src=”http://www.facebook.com/v/208877111969″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”576″ height=”432″></embed></object>
Why Dems don’t understand the shift away from their health care “reform” November 22, 2009
Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, Financial Crisis, US Politics, Uncategorized.Tags: health care reform, public health care
add a comment
Newt Gingrich doesn’t need my help to get the message out about health care, but here it is, an excerpt from his recent email:
A Stunning 22 Point Shift Away From Government Responsibility for Health Care
Polling data released last week by Gallup show a startling shift in public opinion: President Obama and Speaker Pelosi are actually convincing the country to rethink their attitudes and move toward the right and away from government solutions in health care (the same seems to be happening on spending, taxes, and how to create jobs, but that will be a future newsletter). Gallup’s annual poll on health issues (taken every November) shows public opinion shifting against the values of the Left and in favor of the personal responsibility, limited government model which has defined America for 240 years (since the founding decade of the 1770s). Gallup reports a stunning shift of 22% of all Americans who have moved from believing government is responsible for health care to believing health care is a personal responsibility.
One Out of Every Four Americans Have Changed Their Minds on Health Care
That means nearly one out of every four Americans have changed their minds on a fundamental question of who is responsible for health care. This is one of the largest shifts of its kind in such a short period in modern history. The survey shows that even after the 2008 presidential campaign and the Obama Administration’s concerted effort to sell government health care, support for non-government responsibility is at an all time high. In fact, for the first time in the decade that Gallup has asked the question, the survey found that more Americans (50%) favor non-government responsibility than believe it is a government responsibility (47%). The high watermark for the Left’s belief in collective responsibility through government was in November 2006 when by a 69-to-28 margin Americans said health care was a government responsibility (the choice is actually worded government versus nongovernment responsibility). Thus in November 2006, partially in reaction to Republican failures and the absence of a coherent conservative message, nearly 7 out of every 10 Americans had chosen government responsibility for health care.
The Shift Away from Government Health Care was Actually Fueled By the Campaign
But November 2006 was when support for government health care peaked. The shift away from government and towards non-government responsibility was actually fueled by the presidential campaign. In the November 2008 survey Gallup found support for government responsibility had already dropped to 54% and support for non-government responsibility had risen to 41%. That meant there had been a 7% drop in support for government and a 9% increase in support for non-government responsibility in health care even during the presidential campaign – a campaign in which we were told candidate Obama was very articulate and charismatic and candidate McCain was not very effective. Yet the power of the culture seemed to be outweighing the articulateness of the candidate who was advocating the wrong position. As President, Barack Obama’s effort to articulate the case for government responsibility has seen support for government erode another 7% and support for a nongovernmental responsibility rise another 9%. At this rate, after another year of the health debate, the American people will have decisively rejected government as a system for solutions.
Why Democrats Don’t Understand the Shift
Within the Gallup data there are very important clues as to why President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid do not understand what is happening. Whereas 22% of the country has shifted from government to non-government responsibility in health care, among Democrats support for government remains strong. Democrats’ belief in government responsibility peaked at 87% in 2007. That meant there was virtually no opposition among Democrats to government-run health care. Even today, when 22% of the American people have shifted away from government, Democrats remain firmly in favor with 74% favoring government responsibility and only 23% favoring non-government responsibility (among Republicans the numbers are now reversed at 21% government and 77% non-government). So even today three out of four Democrats would reinforce what is now a declining position among the American people.
Keep the Current System or Replace It
A similar shift in public opinion is underway on the question of whether to keep the current health system or replace it. Today a vast majority (61 to 32) favor keeping the current system rather than replacing it. The margin among the two parties again reflects this schizophrenia about policies and values.While 86% of Republicans favor maintaining the current system and only 11% favor replacing it, among Democrats the results are very different. Democrats favor replacing the current system by 56 to 35.
Losing Independents, Losing the Country, Losing the Next Election
What these data show is that the Obama Administration and the congressional Democrats are losing the argument with independents, eroding support among their own party and consolidating Republicans into a firmly anti-government position. This trend suggests that another year of debate over the Left’s values, plans and policies will consolidate the center-right majority and lead to a crushing defeat for the Democratic Congress. Two more years of debate on this pattern would make President Obama a one-term President. It will be interesting to see if anyone in the White House reads Gallup data. It will be interesting to see if anyone in the White House listens to the American people.
Americans are probably going to become even more critical of government and supportive of nongovernmental solutions
As the country learns more about government incompetence as a delivery system (read Jim Frogue’s Stop Paying the Crooks) , the H1N1 flu vaccine fiasco and other failures, people will continue to move away from reliance on government.
As Americans think through the economic crisis (10.2% unemployment and growing), the Chinese ownership of $2 trillion in United States debt, the rising state government deficit (going up from $112 billion in 2009 to $134 billion in 2010), and the reactionary unwillingness to reform many of the public employee unions, they will become even more skeptical of turning problems over to government.
The final result of the debates President Obama is sparking may be a nation which polarizes 75 to 25 in favor of nongovernmental responsibility, turning to personal, corporate, nonprofit or faith-based institutions instead of government for solutions.
This would be a grand irony. But the Gallup data show an underlying pattern that should hearten conservatives and demoralize liberals.
Couldn’t say it better myself. Thanks Newt!
Spiritual journey of the laity – Part 1 November 4, 2009
Posted by vsap in Blogroll.Tags: spiritual journey
add a comment
A spiritual journey is much like a pioneer creating a path with his carts, wagons, animals and human entourage. It is easy to believe that no one has traveled this path before, and no doubt that is true. Each journey is singular. But when we come upon paths that criss-cross our own we realize that others have been in the vicinity before us. And, as certain as morning follows night, if we look around, we will see others on their own paths, but very near to us.
Think of it as if you were hovering over a valley and you could see each wagon train as it makes its way from east to west, north to south, southeast to northwest, and southwest to northeast. All come from different origins, but now find their journey has led them to this place.
And what an incredible string of events had to occur in precise sequence for this “sharing of the valley” to happen.
God has a plan.
He places us where we need to be at the exact moment we are needed. It is up to us to discern His will and walk in the way He would have us to go. That might mean blazing our own trail from beginning to end. It might mean that we will share a path others trod before us. It could be we will share a path with others for a few miles, or simply cross paths for a moment, with nothing more than a nod and tip of the hat, acknowledging the challenge and delight of it all.
“I will never cease to be bewildered at the wonder of it all.” – from “Wonder Of It All”, by J.C. Heartsfield
A spiritual journey is both monastic and communal. It weaves solitary time in prayer and worship with family time doing the same. Some gravitate more to the solitary and others to the communal but it must all be to God’s glory if it is to be effective. God will bless and honor the style or form as long as the heart is humble and obedient.
A spiritual journey is not meant to “open” the definition of God but to define it in precise terms. Yes, narrow the definition by setting aside what is not of God or God. Again, back to the valley, this time as a cattle herder who must conduct the cattle from the broad expanse of the valley quite literally through the narrow gate into a corral. The spiritual “journeyman” has the same kind of goal in mind: moving his soul from a broad expanse into a particular space. The space designed by God for his soul.
It is human nature to ask: “Isn’t God the supreme divinity spoken of and written about in every faith and known religion?” Weren’t the Beatles right: “All you need is love” since God is love? Is it not Zen, Hindi, Rastafari, Islamic, and Judeo-Christian all at once?
No. More about what it is and isn’t next time.
Birthdays and Anniversaries October 14, 2009
Posted by vsap in Blogroll.Tags: Anniversaries, Birthdays, marriage
add a comment
Birthdays and anniversaries force you to notice the turning of the years. You may not “feel different” from when you were in the prime of your college days or in the dawn of your career, but you are different.
You are “a lot different”.
If you started college in 1971 or your career in 1975, you didn’t have this venue, the internet, for communication. At that point in time you were 10-15 years from the first cellular phones coming into general use. You were begrudgingly setting aside your LPs for the convenience of cassettes and you didn’t have the intrusion of cable TV, not to mention a VHS player.
“DVD” would likely have been considered, at the time, a worse form of VD. Nevertheless, somehow we made it beyond disco and leisure suits.
Working in the newspaper industry from 1972-2002, I saw some mighty changes. Hot metal to cold type, letterpress to offset, dedicated equipment with closed platforms to open platforms that, today, make anyone a publisher. The upside is there is a lot more information. The downside is that there are alot of knuckleheads who publish nothing worth the virtual fonts they are printed with. I don’t mind that the “grey ladies” of newspapers have past or may pass. Just as there was a time when Chicago was served by a dozen or so daily newspapers, you knew there would be a time when it would be served by none, or one. With as much certainty we know it will cycle around again. What’s a Kindle (and it ilk) other than a more “portable” book or newspaper?
Form changes with the fleeting whims of the consumer. Function remains. Since that is true, we don’t have to worry about the knuckleheads ruining for legit news gatherers and opinion purveyors. But I digress.
This is about the landmark or watermark of birthdays and anniversaries. As I listen to Dave Grusin play “Cast Your Fate To The Wind”, it seems many in my generation have done this to horrendous result. I have found that as I get older I do get wiser but there’s not much of an audience for it. Young and brash trumps old and reserved in the rolling world. The “here and now” displaces the enduring. It would seem evolution has overcome creation in the hearts of God’s own. In 1971 I would have said, “This will not be.” And, yet, in 2009, there it be.
The first four years of marriage are the toughest until you endure the next six. But, after 28 years, you realize you have simply fulfilled the dream you had on your wedding day: enduring love. A thing, however inexplicable, that endures in spite of itself and what we do to destroy it day-in and day-out. You didn’t set out to fail. You set out to succeed with all the baggage you carried into the relationship and some you picked up along the way. To be fair, you let some go, too, and you are the lighter for it.
This is not some kind of cosmic accident as some would have you believe. This is the fulfillment of divine design. If God seeks perfect communion with you, as he had with Adam and Eve before the fall, one way He shows it to you is in your marriage. On this earth there may not be a better example of it, even when it isn’t perfect. Christ can and should be transfigured in this marriage relationship. He offers it to us if we will simply accept it. But, therein lies the rub.
Selfishness, misunderstanding and caprice can be the destroyers of covenant. I have learned not to drink from their cups as often as I used to. This has been to my benefit and that of my long-suffering spouse, who is too forgiving to acknowledge my faults in a public forum. For that I am grateful. Equally, I’m grateful that she stuck with me when she was unevenly yoked with me for a number of years — carrying more than her share of the spiritual and emotional load. Those days are gone, chapters turned, never to be re-read except when urgently needed at a particular moment in time.
So, as you consider your own birthdays and anniversaries, cherish them. They are a gift of God. They are your gift to us. they are a gift to your children…and their children, should you be so blessed.
Curb Feelers and Fender Skirts October 1, 2009
Posted by vsap in Blogroll.Tags: Childhood memories, Dagmar Midcap
add a comment
We all have a time frame where we “emerge”. That is, when we are old enough to remember. For some, it’s very early, maybe 2 years old. Others, like me, it was 5 years old. So, I remember first seeing and riding in my grandfather’s 1953 Chevrolet Bel-Air, turquoise with white accent paint, wide whitewall tires, fender skirts and curb feelers. It was my grandfather’s first new car ans it would last until he bought his next new one, which was his last, a 1963 Ford Galaxie. He passed away from the effects of smoking in 1966. But, that’s not what this is all about. It’s about the ‘53 Chevy, the curb feelers and fender skirts. And, maybe, the Dagmars on the front.
It makes me wonder if Dagmar Midcap took her name from this kind of bullet-shape bumper, popularized in the 1950s. But, I digress.
If you forgot how this model looked or didn’t know it existed, you can check one out here: http://www.scottymoore.net/53chevy.html. Scroll down until you see the restored blue 4-door and you’ll even see the fender skirts, but, sadly, not the curb feelers. Just under 250,000 were built at a list price of $1,874.00.
If you can’t imagine curb feelers, our friends at Wikipedia have a couple of photos and a solid definition to offer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curb_feeler.
My Dad did not get his license until 1961, at the age of 39. While it’s not unusual, even today, for urban dwellers in New York and Chicago to go long stretches of their lives without cars, it was somewhat unusual for a stevedore living across the river from St. Louis to accomplish the feat. It is a tribute to the Terminal Railroad Association, which ran the street car lines, and Bi-State Transit, which ran the buses that ultimately doomed the street cars. These modes of transit, along with cabs, were our family’s mode of transportation before July 1961.
That bit of history is important when you realize it took a 6-block walk, a street car ride, another 3-block walk, then a bus ride, then a final 4-block walk, to arrive at my grandparent’s home. In the winter, that was really unpleasant. In the summer, it was worse since on top of the unusual fatigue involved, we were all sweaty! St. Louis in the summer is not for the faint of heart or those who can’t stand perspiration, especially that of others.
What I remember, through 5-year-old eyes, is this Bel-Air had to be the biggest, shiniest car I had ever seen. My grandfather, a larger than life figure to the adults he knew, was even larger to me. Gruff, broken English mingled with what I much later discovered were Sicilian profanities, and the smell of his Old Spice, which I can still conjure from time to time, make him a strong memory to me. This man, who drove a produce truck 6 days a week, 12 hours a day, was now in possession of his first new car. Pride was too weak a word to describe his feeling about it.
If the car didn’t happen to be there when we arrived for a visit, I would either occupy myself in the vacant lot across the street, hitting bottle caps with an old broom handle or simply sit on the steps and wait for it to arrive. I wish I could say I was waiting to see Grandpa, but, hey, I was afraid of him! I was waiting to hear the curb feelers scratch the concrete curb and see that beautiful blue ship pull into port. What a sight! It must have been how sailors felt about seeing a destroyer or aircraft carrier come into Newport News: majestic, awe-inspiring! Other cars on the street might have been new or old, I didn’t notice. This! This 1953 Chevy Bel-Air 4-door, I noticed!
On the unusual occasion I got to ride in the car (either to wakes or funerals), its seats were the most comfortable thing I ever sat on. Of course, when you compare most basic furniture with street car and bus seats, anything else by comparison is lush. And “luxury” was the word that came to mind (or something like that, whatever a 5-year-old’s version of that word would be). Four could fit comfortably in the back with the driver and two others in the front. Mostly, my Mom, Dad and two sisters sat in the back and I got to ride between my Grandpa and Grandma in the front. Whether the front or back, I was too small to see outside so I focused on the interior. when I was in the front, that was the radio since it was right in front of me.
There was really one choice for my Grandpa at the time: KMOX 1120AM. Oh, not that KSD or WIL were bad, but we all have our habits and, at the time, Cardinals baseball was on that station and we were still a couple of years away from the football Cardinals relocating from Chicago and the Blues wouldn’t come into play until 1967. The Hawks were always competitive but Grandpa wasn’t much of a basketball fan. Even then, I remember it being either Big Band music or talk radio, mostly sports call-in. It was easy to be dazzled by the chrome on the dashboard. In retrospect, it was amazing we were not injured in any way seeing as we had no seat belts, padded dash or airbags. Somehow we survived.
Over the years it didn’t handle age very well. By the time Grandpa let it go for his new Ford, it was rusting and the paint fading. The fender skirts were gone as well as the curb feelers. The curb feelers weren’t needed once my grandparents moved to the suburbs and bought a house with a driveway and garage. Plus, the curbs where low and rounded, not high and square like in the city. It seemed style had overtaken fender skirts and function had forsaken curb feelers. Sad, really, when you consider that the modern adaptations of fender skirts and curb feelers are relegated to the “pimped out” genre. But that’s not how it was meant to be. Infrequently, you may find a 1953 Bel-Air 4-door appropriately decked out. Cherish the moment.
For me, it’s a brief respite. A way to get in touch with the ast without re-living the usual horrors of family life and focusing on that benign family member, the 1953 Bel-Air, that just asked to be admired. Dressed to the nines in curb feelers and fender skirts.
Even the unions are against “reforming” health care! September 28, 2009
Posted by vsap in Blogroll, Financial Crisis, US Politics, Uncategorized.Tags: health care reform
5 comments
Two things: Let’s look at shrinking support for any health care reform plan and how local unions in Milwaukee are recoiling against it.
From Kent Hoover at Buffalo Business First, published September 25 (bold is mine):
“The patient is still in the operating room, and the prognosis is not good.
That’s where health care reform lies today, according to many business groups that hoped for a better outcome. Their view is shared by most Americans: 54 percent of U.S. adults don’t think Congress will pass health care reform this year, according to a survey conducted this month by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions.
This is a dramatic turnaround from earlier this year, when most experts inside the Beltway thought health care reform was inevitable, and the concept had overwhelming support among the general public.
Many lobbyists for small businesses and other employers blame Congress for overreaching. It should have focused on insurance market reforms aimed at lowering premiums and ending the ability of insurers to deny or price coverage because of health status.
Instead, Congress embarked on a complete overhaul of the health care system that would give the federal government too much power and cost hundreds of billions dollars more than was necessary, they contend.
“That’s why this whole thing is blowing up,” said James Gelfand, senior manager of health policy for the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “They have to start over.”
“We’re kind of disappointed that Congress has wasted so much time with overblown bills that had no hope of enactment,” said Neil Trautwein, senior vice president and employee benefits counsel for the National Retail Federation.
“I think Congress blew it, basically,” said Karen Kerrigan, president/CEO of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council.
Political pressures may drive Congress to pass some modest reforms just to get something to President Barack Obama’s desk, but it’s not clear whether those reforms actually would reduce the cost of health insurance for employers, Kerrigan said.”
Then there’s this from Corinne Hess at the Business Journal of Milwaukee demonstrating how “health care reform” gets down to the local level and unions don’t like it:
“When the U.S. Senate Finance Committee gave the nation a glimpse at what health care reform could look like with the release of a proposed $856 billion, 10-year bill, it alienated a key segment of reform supporters: labor unions.
The bill would call for paying for reform in part by a tax on so-called “luxury” health insurance plans exceeding $21,000 for a family and $8,000 for individuals.
The average cost of a family health insurance plan in Wisconsin is $13,800. Unions, however, typically have richer benefits exceeding the cap set in the Finance Committee bill.
“Unions have been the backbone of the health reform movement,” said Robert Kraig, program director for Citizen Action of Wisconsin, an 89,000-member coalition from across the state. “They have said all along that everyone should have access to the quality, affordable care that they are fortunate to have. To turn around and tax them is a disservice.”
The Senate Finance Committee began debating the draft health care bill Sept. 22. Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, released the bill Sept. 16, and almost immediately amended portions of it after criticism from his fellow Democrats that the measure didn’t do enough to assist moderate-income Americans.
Baucus still wants to impose a tax on high-cost health plans starting in 2013, but has increased the thresholds for plans covering retirees over the age of 55 and those covering people in certain high-risk occupations like law enforcement and construction.
The increase for such plans would be raised by $750 for individual coverage and $2,000 for family coverage.
The amendment does little to help other unions, such as the Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association (MTEA).
The 5,600 members of the union are offered health insurance worth $24,000 per year for family coverage and $10,800 for individual coverage. About 60 percent of members have family plans.
If those plans were taxed, younger, healthier teachers would likely not accept the district insurance and seek less expensive coverage, driving up rates even faster for the people remaining in the plan, said Joan Heithoff, assistant executive director of MTEA.
Teachers have long accepted pay raises well below the consumer price index in exchange for good benefits and should not be penalized now because of it, Heithoff said.
“Our benefits are pretty much in line with surrounding school districts,” she said. “We have to offer this in order to attract quality teachers and remain competitive.”
The luxury health plans targeted in the Senate Finance bill are the type of health insurance plans people in every other industrialized country have and what most Americans enjoyed before health care costs skyrocketed, said David Newby, president of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, a federation of more than 1,000 local unions.
“The whole notion of taxing health insurance points out once again the problem of thinking in terms of reforming health insurance rather than the entire health care system,” Newby said.”
Continue to fight against anything other than health insurance reform focused on reducing premiums and keeping insurers from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
No public health option is worth its price September 11, 2009
Posted by vsap in Blogroll, US Politics, Uncategorized.Tags: President Obama, public health care
add a comment
The 21st Century has been a rough one for me and health care coverage. For the past three years, everything has been good. No more than the typical squabbles with insurance company customer service reps unable or unwilling to help, but all is resolved as of this moment.
Since 2000, however, I have been without health insurance a total of 2 years, exactly 24 months. I was unemployed for only 6 of those months, the rest, I didn’t have employer-provided health care (they couldn’t afford it) and, since I couldn’t afford it (taking a 20% cut in pay to get any job in the wake of 9/11), I did without. More correctly, me and my family did without.
That being the facts, you could believe I would come out swinging for a government-operated plan. You would believe wrong.
While I believe that government can and should do some things well (e.g., national defense, unemployment benefits, and some measure of social security), I do not believe this extends to “public” health care.
Case in point: my mother. Regrettably, my father wasn’t a saver so when he passed my mother didn’t have much to go on. When she could no longer care for herself at home, and neither I nor my sister had the means to buy private health care in a nursing home, she was thrown into “the public pool”. It took her less than three years to die from a combination of benign neglect and poor hygiene in a place that had a hard time caring for its paying customers much less those on the public roll. You could argue she would have died regardless of care. You may be right, but I don’t believe it.
This, and other encounters with public medicine in its present form, gives me genuine, heartfelt concern about our government’s ability to make health care better on any level.
Unfortunately, the president has decided to be “the last president” to handle this issue without any details of how he’d like to see this happen. He’s good at the rhetoric, hyperbole and pandering to his Democrat colleagues, and poor at giving answers and direction on he says is the primary issue of his presidency.
My belief is there are other paths to fixing (or beginning to fix) what is truly wrong with our health care system. The president has addressed a couple of minor points but nothing substantial.
So, what does a conservative plan look like? Here’s one from US Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY), stated on June 9, 2009:
“First, it would expand health insurance coverage so that every American has access to affordable, high-quality health insurance. Most Republicans and Democrats can agree on basic reforms that will help lower the costs of health insurance and allow patients with pre-existing conditions to be able to buy insurance. There is much data and testimony that tells us that greater affordability and increased access are not mutually exclusive. More than that, the more we learn about the costs driving up our system, the more we recognize that if done correctly, greater access can drive down costs.
Second, the bill would use private plans to deliver the benefit. I believe that most Republicans and Democrats can agree that a patient-focused health care system will provide the highest quality and lowest cost when patients are able to choose among competing private plans. When patients can vote with their feet, insurance companies will be forced to deliver better quality care.
We have heard much debate about a public plan option, and we have heard Democrats recently begin to back away from a government-run plan. I believe that many of my colleagues are beginning to see that increasing the size and scope of government’s role in health care and further squeezing a private marketplace will drive up costs and drive down quality every single time. As the public, the editorial boards, and reasonable people on both sides of the aisle continue to delve deeper into the practicality of a public option, I believe it will continue to recede further into the background.
Third, many Democrats and Republicans can agree to basic reforms that would foster an atmosphere of competition by demanding that insurers compete on price and value rather than providing the ability to pick lower-cost, lower-risk patients.
Fourth, a bipartisan bill would protect consumers by providing them with better information about quality, price, and the nature of coverage provided for in competing plans. One of the most common concerns I hear from people as I travel around my state of Wyoming is that they don’t know what they are getting for their money until after they’ve already purchased it. There is no other private marketplace that works like that, and our health care system shouldn’t either. Buying a car or a house sight and price unseen does not make any sense, so why should you be expected to pay for your health care that way?
Fifth, many Democrats and Republicans support an appropriate level of government oversight of the marketplace to protect individuals against abuses that sometimes occur in today’s market. Such a change would also have a great, positive impact on driving down costs.
Sixth, a bipartisan health reform bill would provide subsidies to low-income Americans to give them the extra help they need to purchase health insurance. Many working Americans need help to purchase health insurance, and we should give them more choices beyond simply expanding unsustainable entitlement programs like Medicaid. Otherwise, we will continue to face the cost burdens of the uninsured showing up for treatment in the emergency room when it is most risky to their health, most difficult to treat, and most costly to the system.
Finally, such a bill must be fully paid for so that we do not increase our national deficit. I have spoken at length in the Senate about America’s fiscal situation. It is my belief that our nation’s credit card has reached its limit. The federal government debt is now more than $11 trillion, and our nation’s deficit stands at $1.84 trillion. And the Obama Administration claims to be ushering in an era of responsibility.
We conservatives believe that the Obama budget has ushered in an era of taxing too much, borrowing too much, and spending too much. The President’s budget sets aside $630 billion over ten years, which, according to the Administration, is “not sufficient to fully fund” health care but is the “first crucial step.” For reform to go anywhere, it is imperative that this step be paid for in full.
So far, the Administration has floated the idea of reducing the amount of tax deduction allowable for charitable giving in the top marginal tax rate. This policy has been roundly criticized by Members on both sides of the aisle and by charities across the country as misguided, ill-timed, and simply a nonstarter. And others have talked about an idea that must clearly be taken off the table in order to reach a bipartisan agreement on health reform. That is, we will not pay for health reform by enacting an onerous cap-and-tax on energy costs for the American people.”
Now, let’s hear the presidential response. The silence will be deafening, I’m sure.
When Newt is right, give him the kudos August 31, 2009
Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, Financial Crisis, US Politics, Uncategorized.Tags: Democrats, health care reform, Newt Gingrich, public health care
add a comment
Newt Gingrich sent this along the other day. He doesn’t need my blog to help, but it is well-said. Here it is:
Facta, non verba.
For those of you who have forgotten your Latin, it means “deeds, not words.”
There’s been a lot of overheated rhetoric about health care reform, but this saying is one that all Americans should return to when considering plans for a government-dominated health system.
In other words, we should judge government, not by its words, but by its deeds.
With this simple principle in mind, what follows are three examples why government can’t – and shouldn’t – run our health care system (at least not any health care system you or I would want to be dependent on).
Every family knows about making a budget and living within its means. Government, to put it bluntly, does not.
What if your husband had come home last Friday night and announced that he had racked up almost 30 percent more debt on the family credit card – including the mortgage and car loans – than he had told you about just a month ago?
Would you trust him to go out and start spending money to remodel the kitchen? And do you think he could get a loan to do it?
But that’s exactly what the Obama Administration did with their weekend news dump. They announced late Friday that the amount of money they don’t have but are nonetheless planning on spending over the next ten years isn’t the astonishing $7 trillion they estimated in May but is instead an astounding $9 trillion.
Add this to the fact that, after the administration sold its health care reform proposal on the grounds that it will reduce costs to the Treasury, the independent Congressional Budget Office determined that the House plan will actually cost an astounding $1 trillion-$1.5 trillion in the next ten years, which will be added directly to the federal debt. The director of the CBO testified before Congress last month that “[i]n the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.”
Which do you have more faith in, the government’s happy talk of “bending the cost curve” or its record of out-of-control spending?
Deeds, not words.
As the inimitable Andy McCarthy of National Review put it, “Compared to the infinite complexity of healthcare and health-insurance, cash-for-clunkers is kindergarten stuff. You trade in your old car for a new one that gets (slightly) better mileage and the government gives you money – between $3,500 and $4,500. How hard is that?”
Too hard for government bureaucrats, it turns out.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has boasted that the cash-for-clunkers program provided “a lifeline to the automobile industry, jump starting a major sector of the economy and putting people back to work.”
But look at the deeds, not the words.
Last week, cash-for-clunkers ended in a bureaucratic morass of red tape, failed promises and unanticipated costs.
Only a government bureaucracy could mess up a program designed to give away free money.
The government wizards who set up cash-for-clunkers initially budgeted to sell 250,000 cars in three months.
The program sold that many in four days.
And because the central planners who think they can provide government “competition” to the private health insurance market failed to accurately estimate how many government workers it would take to administer cash-for-clunkers, they had to take employees from the FAA – air traffic controllers, no less – to help manage the demand.
And what about the car dealerships the program was supposed to help in the first place? Even though the rebates were supposed to be paid within 10 days, only 7 percent of federal promises under cash-for-clunkers have been paid so far, leaving dealers with millions of dollars in unfunded government promises.
But there’s more to the cautionary tale of cash-for-clunkers than just bureaucratic incompetence.
This is a case study in what happens when politicians get involved in the marketplace.
Despite all the rhetoric of jump starting the auto industry, politicians’ priorities are to give free goodies to their constituents. So as far as they’re concerned, cash-for-clunkers has been a resounding success.
Forget the fact that they’re spending money they don’t have, or that car dealerships are left holding millions of dollars in empty government promises. They’re not concerned with the long-term, just the next election.
So tell us again why should we think bureaucrats and politicians will perform any better with our health care?
There’s been a lot of worrying about the inevitability of government rationing health care under the Democratic reform bills in Congress.
Economists have known about this inevitability for a long time. Well, Americans can stop worrying. Government is rationing care already – and doing it in a particularly stupid way.
Studies have shown that early use of home health care after hospitalization – allowing patients to go home and be visited by a nurse to manage their care – saves Medicare billions of dollars.
So here is a case where an innovative government program actually saves the government money. Home health care is both more compassionate and more efficient. It reduces the likelihood a patient will be readmitted to a hospital by allowing her to heal in a more familiar setting.
So naturally bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cut $34 billion from this compassionate, efficient program last week.
And if the House health care reform bill becomes law, an additional $56.8 billion will be cut from the program – an amount equal to almost the entire federal budget for home health care services in 2007.
What makes rationing care to the homebound all the more immoral is the fact that there is a much bigger pot of savings available to Washington if it only had the political will to look.
As a new book by the Center for Health Transformation’s Jim Frogue details, criminals rip off the taxpayers to the tune of $80 billion to $120 billion each year in the current Medicare and Medicaid programs.
We’re not talking about inadvertent bill errors but outright fraud. Government health programs are currently paying men maternity benefits, giving taxpayer dollars to pizza parlors that are supposed to be HIV transfusion centers, and even paying dead patients federal health care benefits.
If ever there was a reason not to turn our entire health care system over to government it is this: Government can’t run the health care programs it already has. It would rather ration compassionate, effective programs than do the hard work of rooting out and punishing the crooks who are stealing our taxpayer dollars.
Americans have already heard a lot of rhetoric about health care reform, and we can expect to hear a lot more.
But as Ronald Reagan used to say, facts are stubborn things. And the facts of government’s track record in managing our money and delivering on its promises speak louder than any televised presidential speech or stage-managed town hall ever could.
So as the summer winds down and the debate rages on, let this be our mantra:
Facta, non verba.
Make a bumper sticker out of it.
Put it on a tee-shirt and wear it to a town hall.
And when someone asked you what it means, tell them that before we hand over more of our lives to government, we should consider how they’ve treated us so far.
Can I get an amen for Newt? Amen!
