Blog @ MoreWhat.com

On the Nomination (Confirmation of Cass R. Sunstein, of MA, to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget )

The announcement above is from the US Senate and relates to, among other things, the popular discussion of President Obama and his appointment of ‘czars’ and other staff to his administration. No doubt as much dismissal of the process is uttered by liberal sources as concern about the process is voiced by the loyal opposition. So it all becomes a little silly. Or is it? Below is what appears to be an example of trying to dismiss the concern on the czar/appointee thing.

Get This Rat a Lawyer!

Glenn Beck says Cass Sunstein wants to give animals the right to sue humans. Really?
By Christopher Beam
Posted Monday, Sept. 14, 2009, at 8:49 PM ET

But, if you believe Fox News host Glenn Beck, it could happen here too.

Glenn Beck may be regarded as flamboyant by some critics or worse by left-leaning analysis. But he wasn’t wrong on the ACORN story was he? And he is correct on many things which means this blog is only leaving the door open in case he has been wrong on something. But when it comes to Cass Sunstein, the czar epidemic and the liberal response there is at least one evaluation of Mr Sunstein which is disturbing.

If Slate wants to downplay criticism of the Sunstein appointment it might be best to leave the whole thing alone. Even in their article referenced above they essentially agree that Sunstein believes animals have legal rights. And that leaves the door open for some really bizarre legal battles based on human history. Things could get out of hand considering humans EAT animals. Is there a need to say anymore on that topic?

What is of more concern regarding Cass Sunstein is the longer list of his publishing resume’. Of note is a book entitled, ‘ The Bill of Rights and the Modern State’, co-editor with Geoffey R. Stone and Richard A. Epstein, (University of Chicago Press 1992). One of Sunstein’s contributions to the book quotes Alexander Meiklejohn.

Meiklejohn is known as an advocate of first-amendment freedoms and was a member of the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Meiklejohn was selected by John F. Kennedy to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which was presented by Lyndon B. Johnson shortly after Kennedy’s death.

Sunstein’s quote of Meiklejohn is presented below.

The radio as it now operates among us is not free. Nor is it entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. It is not engaged in the task of enlarging and enriching human communication. It is engaged in making money. And the First Amendment does not intend to guarantee men freedom to say what some private interest pays them to say for its own advantage.

The radio, as we now have it, is not cultivating those qualities of taste, of reasoned judgment, of integrity, of loyalty, of mutual understanding upon which the enterprise of self-government depends. It corrupts both our morals and our intelligence.

Sunstein proposes ‘a New Deal with respect to speech’, freedom of speech, that is. You know, the First Amendment. For those of you concerned about the Fairness Doctrine and the liberal agenda to shutdown talk radio. You’re not crazy. Here’s what Sunstein says.

It applies much of the reasoning of the New Deal attack on the common law to current questions of First Amendment law. Such an approach would produce significant changed in existing understandings of the nature of the free speech guarantee. It would call for a large scale revision in our view of when a law ‘abridges’ the freedom of speech. At a minimum, it would insist that many imaginable democratic interferences with the autonomy of broadcasters or newspapers are not ‘abridgments’ at all.

And more of what the left may care to ignore on any discussion of Cass Sunstein is the remainder of his publishing resume’ which includes the following selections:

The Second Bill of Rights: Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever, (Basic Books 2006)

The Partial Constitution, (Harvard University Press 1993)

Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, (The Free Press 1993)

Free Markets and Social Justice, (2002)

The Cost-Benefit State, (American Bar Association 2002)

Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America (Basic Books 2005)

After the Rights Revolution: Preconceiving the Regulatory State, (Harvard University Press 1990)

(end of list)

And the left would also like to dismiss that vast right wing conspiracy focused on the free speech threat of the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives are more than a little concerned the current liberal majority has some sinister plans in mind that include destroying free speech and the remainder of the founding documents. Maybe all that talk of socialism is not so far fetched after all. Of course this blog never thought it was in the first place. The information above certainly supports that notion. But those of us who do not support the liberal agenda are labeled racists or Nazis or some other pejorative. Thanks libs.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A relevant discussion of the 2008 US Prresidential election can draw comparisons from a recently published book. As with any opinions on history there is plenty of room to debate. But a few excerpts from the book suggest 1959 also had much in common with 2008 in terms of politics. The following certainly disagrees with popular notions that the ‘hippie’ generation is responsible for the turbulent sixties.

(from the report below)
But it wasn’t the Baby Boomers, born after World War Two, who lit the fuse, Kaplan says. “It was a people who grew up through the Depression and World War Two, and who were dissatisfied with the state of things.” They had expected things would change after the war, he notes, and they didn’t.

And then the JFK election success can be compared to that of BHO.

For Kaplan, the “New Frontier” Kennedy meant was the 1960s. “It was the future; it was tomorrow. So there was this sense of ’something is new over the horizon’ and there was this appetite for it.”

Learning from history or not the thought of being doomed to repeat it comes to mind. It might be fair to characterize the author of the book as left-leaning or liberal based on his resume’. But at least in this case he provides an interesting analysis solely based on the report presented here.

In thinking about a comparison between JFK and BHO that was initiated by the fawning liberal crowd during the 2008 election the following piece may be of interest. Particular attention should be paid to the ‘letter’ portion. Media Malpractice: Tom Brokaw’s World Implodes

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Most Americans associate seismic cultural upheavals - like women’s liberation and rock ‘n roll - with the 1960s. But a new book asserts that those changes were actually rooted in the supposedly drab 1950s, and by end of that decade, they had come to a head.

Even half a century after its release, Miles Davis’ 1959 album, Kind of Blue, retains a whiff of the avant-garde. By ignoring the classic scales of jazz, the renowned trumpeter expressed the daring experimentalism that suffused many areas of life that year in areas as diverse as art, politics, social relationships, and science.

Beginning of space age

“You look at 1959, there was an enchantment with the new,” says Fred Kaplan. The Pulitzer Prize winning author of 1959: The Year Everything Changed points to aviation as one area that embodied the high flying spirit of the year. 1959 saw the first transatlantic passenger jet flight. It was also the year America’s Mercury astronauts were chosen.

Fred Kaplan is a journalist and contributor to Slate magazine. He is a native of Hutchinson, Kansas, and graduated from Oberlin College and has a Ph.D. in political science from MIT. In the late 1970s, he was the foreign and defense policy adviser to Congressman Les Aspin.

Indeed, Time magazine seemed to express the public’s “gee whiz” enthusiasm most ebulliently in a publisher’s note following the Soviet Union’s launch of Luna 1 rocket on January 2, 1959. It was the first human artifact to escape Earth’s gravity.

“It hailed the achievement as ‘a turning point in the multi-billion year history of the solar system,’” Kaplan says, “in that ‘a creature of the sun had evolved to a point where he could break free of his planet’s gravity.’”

That event seemed to epitomize what was going on at the time, the author says. “It’s all kinds of people in different walks of life breaking free of the gravity that had been holding their predecessors down.” That, he says, “created the world that we came to know over the next half century.”

Breaking barriers in literature and entertainment

Kaplan says events of 1959 led to the blurring of lines between public and private, literature and pornography that we see today in the Internet Age.

In 1959, publisher Barney Rosset successfully sued the United States Post Office for confiscating copies of D.H. Lawrence’s sexually explicit novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover. It was also the year American writer Norman Mailer published Advertisements for Myself, which fused literature, personal confession and social commentary in new ways.

1959 also saw the first mainstream record release by iconoclastic comedian Lenny Bruce, and his first appearance on national television. “Lenny Bruce would talk about politics and the church and sex and race in ways that nobody had ever spoken before in public,” says Kaplan. “And anything you see now of this sort - HBO or Comedy Central or Showtime or George Carlin - all stems directly from Lenny Bruce.”

John F. Kennedy was preparing to run for the presidency in 1959, promising a “New Frontier”

Many Americans think of the 1960s as the 20th century’s most explosive era. But it wasn’t the Baby Boomers, born after World War Two, who lit the fuse, Kaplan says. “It was a people who grew up through the Depression and World War Two, and who were dissatisfied with the state of things.” They had expected things would change after the war, he notes, and they didn’t.

In 1959, John F. Kennedy was preparing to run for president. He was Catholic and young, and so, many thought him unelectable. Yet Kennedy attracted young idealists in great numbers. He promised a “New Frontier” where “the torch would be passed to a new generation of Americans.”

For Kaplan, the “New Frontier” Kennedy meant was the 1960s. “It was the future; it was tomorrow. So there was this sense of ’something is new over the horizon’ and there was this appetite for it.”

New inventions

1959 was also the year the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the Birth Control Pill. By freeing women from the fear of getting pregnant, the Pill ushered in the so-called Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. It also allowed women to enter the workforce without concern that their careers might be cut short by unplanned motherhood. That put women on the road toward social and economic equality. It’s a cultural change we’re still adjusting to today.

The invention of the microchip set the stage for the era of computerized technology

Fred Kaplan also emphasizes the importance of another invention of 1959 - the microchip. One microchip was crammed with enough electronic circuitry to replace tens or even hundreds of thousands of transistors, the state of the art technology at the time.

Microchips made high-speed computers possible, Kaplan says. “[Without microchips,] you couldn’t even have a handheld calculator, much less a high definition television or space communications.”

Of course, 1959 marked the height of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, and many of that year’s technological innovations enhanced our capacity for destruction, as well creation. As Fred Kaplan points out in his book 1959: the Year Everything Changed, we are still coping with, as well benefiting from, many of the changes set in motion a half century ago.

While this blog and its author have never agreed with Ted Kennedy’s politics, it is time to give respect to another human being who has succumbed to the inevitable.

Rest in peace Ted Kennedy. Everyone should respect the fact that Mr Kennedy was successful in pursuing those things he believed in. Not without controversy but that always seems to come with those who are famous and/or powerful in their chosen endeavors.

An excerpt below seems to characterize Ted Kennedy’s legacy with some accuracy.

In nearly five decades in the Senate, Mr. Kennedy fathered legislation that affected millions, tackling, among other things, education in the 1960s, poverty in the 1970s, disability in the 1980s and education in the 1990s. His longevity helped him build what many consider the most substantial record of achievement of anyone in his famous family, and made him a hero to many Democrats. A frequent nemesis of conservatives, he nonetheless forged friendships and legislative partnerships with many Republicans over the years.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

As many times as the Democrats have labeled the GOP as the party of ‘no’ one aspect of the political bickering in Washington gets little attention. With a Democrat in the White House and a majority in Congress liberals not only control votes and would likely not vote for a GOP health proposal but the likelihood it would ever get to the floor is almost nil. The only reason the Democrats want a GOP health reform proposal is so they do not own whatever happens by themselves.

In The Hill piece below it was reported Dems are criticizing Roy Blunt for not delivering the GOP healthcare reform proposal ‘36 days’ after announcing they would have one presented. Compare that with how long the Dems have been sputtering with multiple proposals all of which have been panned by the CBO, members of their own party as well as dismal polling data.

Again, the Dems do not want to be the only ones with targets on their backs now that their agenda for healthcare reform is tanking. It may be tanking for a good reason. It is not really healthcare reform but a powerplay. They want to control everything about citizens health choices. And they want to extend taxpayer funded healthcare to those who are not citizens. It is a long list of bad policy decisions. Their only interest in bipartisan cooperation is to share the blame for a massive fraud on the American taxpayer.

Boehner says GOP health alternative is coming
By Molly K. Hooper
Posted: 07/23/09 06:09 PM [ET]

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday afternoon that Republicans will have an alternative healthcare reform bill to offer but did not say when it would be ready.

He told reporters that Republicans will “make decisions at the appropriate time for how we’ll proceed,” but that they are “putting the final touches on [their] bill, just as Democrats” are doing.

Only days later another nearly identical piece shows up at Politico. The only part in this piece which points to the real story is the last paragraph. Boehner comments that the more we know about the plan the less we like it and that will only become more clear as the August recess gets underway. Which underscores the President’s urging that it had to get done before the recess. A little sunlight for a President who claims a mantle of transparency and accountability is a problem for Barack Obama. As Boehner said the more we find out about this bill the less we will like it. That could make you a little suspicious of the majority party and their political agenda.

Republicans yet to reveal their own health care bill
By ALEX ISENSTADT | 7/27/09 5:04 PM EDT

While House Republican leaders blast away at the Democratic health care reform legislation, the GOP has yet to reveal its own alternative legislation.

“We continue to work on our bill, as Democrats are working on their bill,” House Minority Leader John Boehner told reporters Monday.

Not presenting a competing proposal for healthcare reform is a good idea from the GOP. Call them the party of ‘no’ all you like. Letting the liberals own healthcare reform is the smart play. Why? Because they do and there is no need to interfere or throw them a lifesaver. Giving them more rope however may be helpful.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This is a slice from the healthcare reform bill introduced in Congress by Democrats. That can be said since the committee approved it on a party line vote and the GOP may get another bashing from liberals for being the party of ‘no’. But nonetheless THIS IS a Democrat bill. After reading the linked excerpt below feel free to follow it to find out more on this ‘reform’ bill. The question is…… can you find any problems with the little ’slice’ that is presented here?

You might also find a post at Flopping Aces on this topic useful as well. While this blog does not necessarily agree with the characterization of Romney’s role in the Massachusetts version of healthcare reform from 2006 dissin’ the former Presidential candidate from 2008 for the dramatic failure of that state’s plan may be the price one pays for having their name associated with such a bill. But that raises the question of who else was involved and gave their approval of it? Nuff said.

There may be a pressing need to solve problems with healthcare and someone may even have the solution. But the offerings from the White House and Congress may have much in common with past attempts by government to solve problems in the private sector. They simply do not work. But it is fair to say that whatever comes out of Washington to solve healthcare will be something none of us can afford. That is if it looks anything like what is being proposed thus far.

Just one little suggestion for Congress is offered here as an ending note. Just below you will notice the brief description of the bill along with its title. The last four words of the description could be removed from all legislation. ‘And for other purposes’ is just one more free hand politicians should not be given.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009
H.R. 3200

To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(b) Grace Period for Current Employment-based Health Plans-

(1) GRACE PERIOD-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

Many have said Social Security and Medicare are hopelessly flawed and will fail by going bust or bankrupt. In other words, we cannot afford to continue down this road. In their own words the ‘trustees’ of Social Security and Medicare admit that much. The problem is their prediction or forecast may go the way of most other government forecasts. It will be shown in retrospect, some years in the future, to be a woefully inadequate prediction and things will be much worse than they are currently being stated.

Even with that the excerpts from the report below confirm that government knows these programs are failing. And now they want to add government run healthcare for everyone. You have to be a complete fool to believe this can work. As of the date of this post, even with two committee’s in Congress agreeing on a healthcare bill, neither can determine how to pay for it.

No kidding. That is an always has been the problem with government programs especially Social Security and Medicare. We cannot afford to sustain them. In this green and sustainability crazy world how come those same ECO crazy activists and other liberals cannot find a way to make these programs financially viable? Because just like the other liberal fantasies they cannot make this stuff work. The math isn’t there. The math is not on their side. Even Obama’s own who are now trustees of SSI and the rest cannot keep this myth going. That is why they are working on news ones like healthcare reform. It is nothing more than putting lipstick on the old pig. Ain’t gonna work folks.

There are ways to solve the problem with healthcare but those realities are not being addressed. They do not fit the liberal agenda. With liberals in the White House and a liberal majority in Congress all that stands between us and total financial collapse is the American taxpayer. If you do not revolt now it will all be a moot point when the liberal agenda has been put in place by the POLS in DC. That is no exaggeration.

Please note, the trustees mentioned earlier are listed at the bottom of this post’s reference. Tax Cheat Timothy Geithner, Baby Killer Kathleen Sebelius as well as other less well known Obama tax problem, Hilda Solis and a left over from 2007, Michael Astrue are the part of the Obama brain trust in charge of stiffin’ you on SSI and the rest. How’s it workin’ so far?

The conclusion drawn here suggests current healthcare reform is a back door strategy on the third rail of politics. If you are unfamiliar with the terminology simply use you favorite search engine and specify ‘third rail of politics.’ Social security and Medicare are such controversial issues that for decades they have been kept alive with ridiculous infusions of taxpayer funds and no one will fight it for if you touch the third rail you will die. (at least politically speaking) If Obama and Congress are successful in passing their healthcare ‘reform’ it will eventually fold the other social programs into it and we will surely be completely beholdin’ to those who wish to control us and all we earn will go for supporting the state. Just like any other socialist country we will work for the state and they will provide all. All that is available that is, which won’t be much. It never has been with any other political experiment like this in human history. Just ask the former Soviet Union where from each according to their ability and to each according to their need was their founder’s mantra. Ya, keep telling yourself we’re not heading there. Obama is depending on that.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A SUMMARY OF THE 2009 ANNUAL REPORTS
Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees

A MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC:

Each year the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds report on the current and projected financial status of the two programs. This message summarizes our 2009 Annual Reports.

The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains challenging. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters.

The deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about three fourths of scheduled benefits through 2083. Medicare’s financial status is much worse. As was true in 2008, Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The difference will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets. Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2017, after which the percentage of scheduled benefits payable from tax income would decline from 81 percent in 2017 to about 50 percent in 2035 and 30 percent in 2080. In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the prescription drug benefit will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that grow substantially faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time.

The projected exhaustion of the HI Trust Fund within the next eight years is an urgent concern. Congressional action will be necessary to ensure uninterrupted provision of HI services to beneficiaries. Correcting the financial imbalance for the HI Trust Fund—even in the short range alone—will require substantial changes to program income and/or expenditures.

Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years with changes equivalent to an immediate 16 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent) or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two. Ensuring that the system remains solvent on a sustainable basis beyond the next 75 years would require larger changes because increasing longevity will result in people receiving benefits for ever longer periods of retirement.

Conclusion

The financial difficulties facing Social Security and Medicare pose serious challenges. For Social Security, the reform options are relatively well understood but the choices are difficult. Medicare is a bigger challenge. Its cost growth can be contained without sacrificing quality of care only if health care cost growth more generally is contained. But despite the difficulties—indeed, because of the difficulties—it is essential that action be taken soon, particularly to control health care costs.

By the Trustees:

Timothy F. Geithner,
Secretary of the Treasury,
and Managing Trustee

Hilda L. Solis,
Secretary of Labor,
and Trustee

Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary of Health
and Human Services,
and Trustee

Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of
Social Security,
and Trustee

Obama’s ’signature domestic policy goal’ on healthcare sounds familiar. Familiar enough that no one has to tell you Bill and Hillary Clinton had this as their flagship policy in the nineties. It was a collosal failure. And if it is again that will be a good thing. We simply cannot afford the price. If supporters claim we cannot afford not to then we have the double whammy here. We can’t afford to do this and we can’t afford not to.

Aside from the massive cost of a bill that is supposed to rein in the massive cost of healthcare what the liberal administration and majority in Congress want to do is grab the power to compel you to do what they want in every aspect of your life. If you think this is just repeating the alarms on conservative talk radio think again.

The liberals claim they want to protect you from the financial industry and Wall Street. So what do they do? They continue the bailouts started in the last administration to gain power over that industry rather than simply enforcing existing regulation.

They want you to drive ‘green’ cars. Even though the free market has spoken to the tune of every car maker being totally in the red or bankrupt due to falling sales. The government has bought into US automakers to gain control over what you drive.

They want to tax the energy you use, the food you eat and healthcare you cannot afford in order to take control of your life through dangerously expensive government programs. And President Obama is looking for Republican support for his healthcare takeover.

If the American public allows this to happen they deserve what they get. And then amnesty will happen and the selling of America will just about be complete. Unless you do something about it with your family, friends, neighbors and anyone else you know. This will take a massive public outrage to turn around. But if you don’t do it now you may not get another chance.

Sound alarmist? Maybe so but it may have sounded that way when Paul Revere did his famous ride. But who was sorry he did besides the British? The current situation and how it turns out will determine whether or not we are a nation of sheep.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama looks for Republican healthcare backing
Reuters - Kim Dixon -

WASHINGTON, July 16 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Thursday sought to convince Republicans to support overhaul of the US healthcare industry, his signature domestic policy goal, as the measures moved on a fast-track through …

A committee in the House of Representatives has passed a healthcare bill. A question you might want to ask of your elected reps is why it features federal aid to families and individuals who earn FOUR TIMES the poverty level? We already have Medicaid, SCHIPS and other programs for aid to low income persons for the purposes of healthcare. In addition to this penalizing employers for not offering health plans or targeting the rich for tax revenue to pay for it does not demonstrate a contribution by everyone to solve the problem. If anything it reduces choice as has been said and forces those selected by Congress to pay for it. All the while there is no guarantee or even expectation that it will provide even a partial solution.

The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee voted 13-10 along party lines to pass a $600-billion measure that would expand coverage to nearly all Americans by requiring individuals get insurance and employers to contribute to the cost. The bill would provide federal aid to families and individuals making less than four times the poverty level, or about $88,000 for a family of four.

In the reference below some may find optimism that the plan that has yet to pass in the full House will not have an easy time in the Senate.

July 13 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Senate is unlikely to back a proposal that House leaders plan to introduce tomorrow to raise taxes on high-income Americans to pay for a health-care overhaul, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois said.

Durbin, the Senate’s No. 2-ranking Democrat who serves as his party’s vote-counter, said in an interview on the MSNBC television program “Morning Joe” that the Senate would take a “more conservative approach” to raising needed tax revenue.

And more reports like the one below support the notion that the House and Senate versions of healthcare will be far apart. With any luck at all these pitiful attempts raising the ante on government mandates and spending on healthcare which have plagued this country for decades will begin to see an end of life scenario.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. House bill’s proposed tax on wealthy Americans to help pay for broader healthcare insurance is unlikely to be in the Senate’s version of legislation to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system, a senior Democrat told Reuters on Wednesday.

“I don’t think that is going to be part of the Senate Finance Committee’s proposal,” Kent Conrad, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a brief interview before a meeting of committee Democrats. Conrad is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

The Senate Finance Committee has been meeting privately to prepare healthcare reform legislation. On Tuesday, the House unveiled its plan, which would create a public insurance option to compete with private companies, penalize employers that do not offer health insurance and tax the wealthiest Americans to help pay for the changes.

As polls indicate more people in the US are moving to conservative views and those supporting or opposing healthcare reform are at an even split the tide may already be turning on President Obama and Congress. It is no wonder, in terms of healthcare, that giving a family of four who earns $88,000 per year aid from taxpayer funds is not going to solve the problem. And voters are beginning to understand that the White House and Congress are not being realistic. They are just pushing their agenda, like it or not.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Using a human interest story is not an uncommon strategy for politicians. In an attempt to garner support for an as yet undisclosed plan for healthcare reform the Senate Majority Leader from the Democratic party shamelessly employs this technique.

From Senator Reid’s press release below he claims a woman from his state with a life long history of kidney problems is unable to have the medical treatment the problem requires due to pre-existing condition limitations in insurance coverage.

If Harry Reid so strongly support government intervention in healthcare he might want to explain why the following government intervention is not adequate.

One of the most important protections under HIPAA is that it helps those with preexisting conditions get health coverage. In the past, some employers’ group health plans limited, or even denied, coverage if a new employee had such a condition before enrolling in the plan. Under HIPAA, that is not allowed. If the plan generally provides coverage but denies benefits to you because you had a condition before your coverage began, then HIPAA applies.

Either the government intervention known as HIPAA solves the problem for the woman Reid mentions or it does not. If it does solve the problem his argument is moot. If it does not then why should we believe that this time they will get it right?

Not to cause any more discomfort for the woman with the problem Reid chose to describe and use for political reasons but some questions are raised by this human interest story. If she had the problem her whole life and had a job with coverage until recently is Harry Reid telling us she was denied by pre-existing condition exclusions her entire life? Or did something change? Or is he not telling the whole story? Why didn’t she get the treatment she needs before?

But it all comes down to Harry Reid and company claiming we need healthcare reform. But using Reid’s example for healthcare reform again, if she has had a problem her whole life and may have been denied healthcare by exclusions any time along the way, Medicare, Medicaid or any other government attempts at providing healthcare to everyone has not worked. At the risk of sounding redundant, Harry Reid’s own argument is proof government intervention in healthcare doesn’t work. There is no need to fail again at additional cost. We cannot afford their intervention any longer.

Their intervention has done more to raise the cost of healthcare than anything else. If the market was allowed to work without their meddling competition would fill the gaps and demand would reward the effective coverage and dispatch the ineffective ones.

The question about Reid’s second story is similar to the first. If treatment or a solution was needed many years ago why didn’t it happen? Harry leaves that part out. If nine out of ten people are denied coverage or it is too expensive where are the other details Harry? Why aren’t they in a group plan? Why didn’t they take advantage of your fine COBRA coverage? Why were they denied coverage? And if so many people are experiencing so many problems even with all the Medicare and Medicaid meddling you’ve done for 40 or more years, why would more meddling produce a different result. Some of your own colleagues have on other occasions expressed that when something doesn’t work doing the same thing to fix it and expecting a different result is ridiculous.

But we know you and your political type. If allowed you will do the same thing and get the same results. Nothing will improve but it certainly will cost more. Exactly what we cannot afford. Just like your bailouts, PORK and other out of control spending. We cannot afford it. And neither can the next three or four generations as it stands now. If you keep on spending even more generations will have to pay for your foolishness. And the people you describe will still be without the services they seek.

Here’s one for you. Select between these two simple healthcare reform options. Insurance companies can refuse all claims. Insurance must accept all claims. Neither one will work. If insurance companies refused all claims eventually people would realize paying for insurance was foolish and private insurance would cease to exist. If government required insurance companies to accept all claims they would continuously lose money and private insurance would cease to exist. The undisclosed third choice is no private insurance exists and government runs all healthcare. The costs would continue to rise uncontrollably and the crushing debt would cause our country to cease to exist. The answer does not lie with any of these extremes. If the government removes itself from the healthcare business, and it is a business, the market would be able to work.

We have been fooled into believing government can make everything all right. Even when it cannot. They have been at it for so many years few on this planet remember a time when they did not meddle in healthcare. For as long as they have been at it we would have solved the problem by now if government was the answer. The government should get out of healthcare and for that matter education since it is on the issue table as well. Their meddling in education has wrought the same turmoil as in healthcare. More spending, less results, repeat daily, repeat liberally. Less government is the answer, not more.

We have had a steady increase in more government for longer than the ages of most people alive today. It is time to renew the other choice, less government. Beside the fact that it would be more effective it would also be a refreshing change. Have the government discharge its constitutionally required obligations and leave the rest alone. We would all be better off. But then you would probably not know it for you haven’t seen it before.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Reid: We Will No Longer Allow Insurance Companies To Use Preexisting Conditions As An Excuse To Deny Americans Health Care

July 8, 2009
Washington, DC— Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement this morning on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

“Last month I stood here and told you about a young woman from Nevada named Alysia. She was born with a kidney disease – one that she has fought bravely her entire life.

“But lately, things have gotten worse. Like far too many Americans in recent months, Alysia lost her job. And as far too many Americans have learned lately, when you lose your job, your health care often disappears along with it.

“Alysia did what any of us would do in the same situation. She tried to get independent coverage so she can afford the surgery she needs to get better. Her doctors say surgery is imperative, but insurance companies say it’s impossible.

“They refuse to cover her. They call her kidney disease a ‘preexisting condition.’ Everyone else calls this a tragedy.
“Alysia isn’t the only Nevadan who has written me about this injustice.

“Caleb Wolz is a high school student from Sparks, Nevada. Like so many kids, he used to play soccer when he was younger. But now he just sticks to skiing and rock climbing. You can forgive him for giving up soccer, though. You see, Caleb was born without any legs.

“As kids grow up, they grow out of their shoes. A lot of kids probably get a new pair every year. But Caleb, who is 17, has needed a new pair of prosthetic legs every year since he was five years old.

“You can probably guess where this is going. Caleb’s insurance company has decided it knows better than his doctor – and has decided Caleb doesn’t need legs that fit.

“Even after looking at pictures of the bruises and abrasions Caleb suffered from prosthetics that were too small, his insurance company decided once again that his preexisting condition is too expensive to deal with.

“These stories are hard to hear, but they are not hard to come by. They are extraordinary, but they are not unique. This happens to women all over southern Nevada just like Alysia and boys across northern Nevada like Caleb. It happens to people on the east coast and the west coast. It happens to Americans in small towns and big cities.

“Every day, private insurance companies look at a patient’s medical history and the prescriptions they’ve filled. Then they deny them coverage or charge them exorbitant rates because of the patient’s age or a specific illness.

“For every 10 Americans who try to get health care, nine of them never buy a plan because insurance companies deny them or make it too expensive.

“Most of us were not born with a kidney disease like Alysia’s – and unlike Caleb, most of us were born with both of our legs. But unless you are in absolutely perfect health – without a history or a risk of anything from heart disease to high cholesterol to hay fever – you’re out of luck.

“Some insurance companies even treat caesarean sections as a preexisting condition – and sometimes even accuse women of scheduling unnecessary C-sections when they give birth.

“More than half of all Americans live with at least one chronic condition, and those conditions cause 70 percent of the deaths in America. Yet right now, insurance companies that care more about profits than about people are in complete control of our wellbeing.

“They are holding Americans’ health hostage – and far too many of us cannot afford the ransom.

“Reforming health care is a complex endeavor. But one part of Democrats’ vision for health care is simple: We are going to give people control over their own health. We are no longer going to let greedy insurance companies use a patient’s preexisting condition as an excuse to deny them the coverage they need.

“We will lower the high costs of health care. We will make sure every American has access to that quality, affordable care. And we will make sure people still have the power to choose their own doctors, hospitals and health plans.

“If we leave it up to private insurance companies that are more interested in keeping their profits up than keeping us healthy, that won’t happen. Nor will it happen if our Republican colleagues continue to defend the status quo.

“A few weeks ago, the Republican Leader in the House of Representatives said the following: ‘I think we all understand that we’ve got the best health care system in the world.’

“How can one defend a health care system that goes out of its way not to care for people’s health? And how can anyone celebrate such a system with a straight face?

“That health care system told Alysia she can’t get the kidney surgery she needs. That health care system told Caleb he can’t get the legs he needs. I think they would respectfully disagree with the Republican Leader.

“Insurance companies and most of our Republican colleagues seem to share a common philosophy: They both reflexively and recklessly say ‘no,’ for no good reason. That’s a philosophy we can’t afford.

“If you are fortunate enough to have coverage that you like, you can keep it. But if you don’t like the fact that your insurance company can deny you coverage whenever it feels like it, you’ll agree we need to change the way things are.”

###

The second set of excerpt and link are below (and again) of course one of the required readings if you have any concern about healthcare and those who are intent on making decisions for you. More of such excerpts and links are to follow later.

A recent report from the Fraser Institute in Canada shows that patients there wait an average of ten weeks to get an MRI, just to find out what is wrong with them. A lot of bad things can happen in 10 weeks, ranging from suffering to death.

Politicians may talk about “bringing down the cost of medical care,” but they seldom even attempt to bring down the costs. What they bring down is the price– which is to say, they refuse to pay the costs.

Anybody can refuse to pay any cost. But don’t be surprised if you get less when you pay less. None of this is rocket science. But it does require us to stop and think before jumping on a bandwagon.

The great haste with which the latest government expansion into medical care is being rushed through Congress suggests that the politicians don’t want us to stop and think. That makes sense, from their point of view, but not from ours.

This blog author feels compelled to make one point regarding Thomas Sowell’s commentary above. There seem to be two camps in the healthcare issue when it comes to the money part of the discussion which is hogging the debate right now. Those who think someone else should pay for their healthcare and those who believe the market should regulate the costs. In some instances there is little consideration for what healthcare costs, by the patient or their family, since the scare of going without or shopping around for a better price competes with the desire to just solve the medical issue and worry about the rest later if ever. It would be nice if one could seek medical solutions without considering the cost. Not considering the cost contributes to its rise.

If the consuming public was proactive about this and other issues there might not be a healthcare issue or even some of the other problems. Making better choices and developing enough self-discipline to avoid many of the medical problems that are self-induced would lower the demand for much of what healthcare provides these days and allow us to spend our healthcare dollars on those things we cannot yet solve or eliminate under any current circumstance.

The point has been made on this blog many times and demands repeating as these debates go on for obvious reasons. The problems and issues we face in this country cannot simply be viewed as always caused by someone else. We must all take responsibility in solving issues. A look in the mirror can be a start.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

After nine recent posts on the healthcare scam it is time to introduce someone else’s perspective on this topic. The excerpt and link below are of course one of the required readings if you have any concern about healthcare and those who are intent on making decisions for you. More of such excerpts and links are to follow later.

Regarding reform, conservatives are accused of being a party of “no.” Fine. That is an indispensable word in politics because most new ideas are false and mischievous. Furthermore, the First Amendment’s lovely first five words (”Congress shall make no law”) set the negative tone of the Bill of Rights, which is a list of government behaviors, from establishing religion to conducting unreasonable searches, to which the Constitution says: No.

The president may have been too clever when he decided, during an economic crisis that was sending federal expenditures soaring and revenues plummeting, to push the entire liberal agenda on the premise that every item on it is essential to combating the crisis.

The item above is: A Health Reform to Forget, By George Will

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In several recent healthcare scam posts on this blog the fact that government programs always cost more over time than initially estimated was lightly mentioned. To be fair to those making the estimates it may have been a case like the current one. There is no rigid or complete model or proposal available with which to produce reasonable forecasts.

An opinion piece at Investor’s Business Daily offers the following historical footnotes on this scenario..

It was created in 1965 to provide health care for Americans 65 and over. Federal actuaries estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost a mere $9 billion by 1990. The real cost, however, was $66 billion.

When making projections for the entire program, at that time Parts A through C, the Ways and Means Committee number crunchers made a similar mistake. They figured it would cost $12 billion by 1990, but Medicare chewed through $107 billion in its first 25 years.

When a GOP president and GOP Congress added Medicare Part D — the prescription drug benefit — in 2003, the cost was estimated at $534 billion over 10 years.

Less than two years later, the government was forced to admit the entitlement would actually cost $1.2 trillion over its first decade.

An easy analysis of the current proposal would be to determine the percentage overruns above and apply them to the 1 or 1.6 trillion estimates quoted on the current ‘reform’ proposal. A rough guess would place it somewhere between 2 and 8 times the initial estimate. At the very least that places the current proposal at 2 trillion dollars. And nine or ten trillion is an even scarier prospect. But it certainly does not fall outside the realm of reality for POLS in DC.

This is a lighter weekend post on the series of healthcare scam reports on this blog. One could invest more than that required for a full time job following this topic. But let’s not forget there are other issues to deal with also. For instance let’s not ignore the very real likelihood that at some point shamnesty will be back on the table. Then there are the 2010 elections, foreign affairs and armed conflict in more than one location. The threat of pandemic disease and widespread terrorism adds to the list. And it goes on and on. So make noise for a time on this issue with your elected reps and then proceed to the other issues.

Or you could be real cool and move between the issues to make your rep’s crazy. As if their performance in public service wasn’t a clue they are already there. Help out by getting involved. That’s this weekend’s subtle hint to readers of this blog.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Politicians are scrambling to be the first to kneel at the Messiah’s altar with the sacrificial lamb that will save the liberal agenda for so-called health care reform. One candidate for the master’s ritual offering is presented in the excerpt below.

Lawmakers led by Senator Max Baucus are talking about slapping a $495 tax on some of those covered by the medical plan to help pay for extending coverage to some of the 46 million Americans who lack it.

For employers currently offering health care plans such a tax burden may reach the tipping point requiring at best a lower tier benefit package that reduces benefits for employees who are covered now. This benefit tax proposal flies in the face of the Obama campaign promise not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000 per year. Gee Wally, another broken campaign promise. Say it isn’t so.

Yesterday, Baucus and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota, a Democrat, said a bill being drafted by the panel would contain the tax.

And if you didn’t believe the healthcare reform proposal did not exist as stated in many posts on this blog here is some more evidence to support that notion.

Five congressional committees are drafting versions of the legislation that has to be adopted by both the House and Senate.

Liberals in Congress also contend that higher income earners unfairly benefit from tax subsidies of healthcare benefits which provide them elective or unnecessary procedures. That is an extremely broad generalization that does not deal with details in much the same way the non-existent reform proposal does. Even if it were ‘mostly’ true, it points to the notion that liberals want to decide what healthcare you can and cannot receive. That is why private healthcare coverage offered in the free market is valuable. Sure, everyone may not be able to afford what they want but that is the case with every product or service in the universe. Not all of us can afford everything. That should not preclude those who can from getting it. Unless you support the redistribution of wealth. It is interesting that liberals deny that part of their agenda but are clearly chasing it with healthcare reform.

And BTW, using the word ‘reform’ with any public issue should be another red flag for you. It is a common tool to give the appearance of doing the right thing. What has happened thus far in this episode of New Deal government intervention at public expense should be adequate evidence this effort is flawed and in no citizen’s best interest. It serves those who are developing it. And that is not you or me.

Read the rest of the story linked in this post. It’s worth your time.

One last note which follows up on a previous post here alleging labor unions support the reform proposals for their special interest benefit. The article linked here supports that allegation.

In addition, Baucus has proposed to exempt health benefits secured in collective-bargaining agreements, such as those with labor unions.

A previous post here presented a video from MoveOn and reference to a labor union boss who attacked Sen Feinstein for having reservations about the cost of reform. You don’t suppose the labor boss was thinking of the benefit tax exemption for unions do you? Right.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This is the first time this blog has witnessed anything useful from Chuck Todd, ordained some kind of chief political guru for PMS NBC. His willingness to spew the MSM point of view on politics only serves to confirm the public suspicion of ‘the news’. Since the content of what this blog finds useful from Chuckie merely requires rookie reporter skills this may indicate what this network’s chief Washington correspondent (according to Wiki) should be doing (very little).

Chuck points to a press release, a video and the text of the video. No need to deal with the press release since it is from a group in (dis)organized labor and they expect all Dems to be in their pockets. But any time MoveOn can be again exposed for the special interest group they are which has nothing to do with the public interest, it should be done.

Below of course is the video and text for the video.

Script follows:

“California voters sent Senator Dianne Feinstein to Washington to fight for us. That includes fighting to pass President Obama’s health care plan. A recent poll shows that 71% of California voters want a significant overhaul of the health care system now.

But Feinstein has been dragging her heels, saying health care may just be too “difficult.”

News flash Senator: We don’t expect you to lead just on the easy issues.

Senator Feinstein, please: Fight for California. Fight for President Obama’s health care reform now MoveOn.org Political Action is responsible for the content of this advertising.”

MoveOn cannot be that bright or they believe no one else is. To express Feinstein is to fight for ‘us’ and connect that to passing an incomplete proposal on healthcare is absolutely absurd. It is as ridiculous as Mr Obama suggesting if we all get behind this we can get it done. Again, there is nothing to get behind because even if it was medical nirvana it DOES NOT EXIST. The draft proposal is being tortured in Congress and is not ready for prime time. The CBO trashed it in its current state and much of it has not been scored because it DOES NOT EXIST.

Everyone who supports whatever they think is healthcare reform will not yet find it in Washington DC. Nothing is complete and therefore cannot be debated or passed and signed into law. There would need to be a complete bill with all the trimmings before a feast begins.

On Chuck Todd’s little announcement there were comments and some are reviewed below. It underscores the confusion or lack of information on which people are drawing conclusions. If this is any indication of public sentiment we should all pray this thing doesn’t get out of committee in order to cement the fact it won’t pass this year. To agree to it now would be equivalent to giving approval for a contract before it is written and letting the other side fill in the blanks. If you would agree to that you qualify as an idiot.

Just the first few comments for First Read by Chuck Todd at what Limbaugh calls PMS NBC points to public opinion that may explain some of the illogical results from recent polls on healthcare minus any influence from pollster error, etc.

While the first comment expresses support for special interest going after Sen Feinstein it is for the wrong reasons. A better one would have been her conflict of interest while on MILCON and possible fraud or other corruption involved in directing contracts to her husband. But that’s another story.

If Feinstein has objections over healthcare reform it is likely again to be for the wrong reasons. But her opposition is useful contrary to the commenter’s position since there is no specific plan and no inconvenient details like how it will be paid for in terms of public funding. So while the commenter believes Feinstein does not look out for average people, connecting support for the current vague proposal for healthcare reform with caring about people is naive at best.

The next two comments demonstrate some intelligence by objecting to MoveOn for various reasons. Number two suggests they are targeting Feinstein because she does not agree with them. Number two gets extra credit for being right twice. Number three indicates disdain with politicians will get them forced out of office at the ballot box. Ya, how many times has that worked for you and how long has Feinstein been in the Senate? Number three loses the initial credit for objecting to MoveOn for talking nonsense about elections. If all bad POLS were voted out of office we would only have good ones in office by now.

The unfortunate case here is that two out of three comments apparently support healthcare reform and are prepared to take whatever Congress and the White House propose. If they approach all life’s problems this way no wonder this nation as a group makes so many mistakes.

Finally, two more good reasons to oppose Obamacare or whatever it is. Labor unions and MoveOn are in favor of it. That should raise plenty of red flags on anyone’s scam-o-meter. Feel free to review other ‘Heathcare Scam’ posts on this blog for more information.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

For those who maintain unqualified support for President Obama to those who are steadfast in their opposition based on evidence the President refuses to answer direct questions which would expose his flawed agenda the following excerpt from an ABC transcript is presented. It is of course from the July 24th airing on ABC of a ’special’ called Prescription for America. Try to find the President’s direct answer to the following specific question.

SAWYER: We have a question from Dr. Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare in the Bush administration. Your question?

Gail Wilensky, Senior Fellow, Project HOPE: I want to go back to how we pay for the expansions. Estimates, as you indicated, probably $1.5 trillion to cover everyone. You mentioned savings in Medicare and Medicaid, $500 billion to $600 billion, from the numbers you’ve provided. Another $300 billion from additional revenue. That leaves about $300 billion to $600 billion more. What do we do in ways that CBO will count so that we can actually get everybody covered?

GIBSON: And run that down in about 30 seconds.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: Look, that’s the challenge. And, obviously, there’s a vigorous debate taking place. There are a whole host of ideas, some that cut across parties. There are people who think that we should tax benefits — health care benefits at a certain level, cap the deduction. There are others who proposed a surcharge on high-income individuals. There are other cuts that may be obtained that ultimately we could find scorable.

Here’s my general point, because I know that we’re starting to wrap up. This is not an easy problem, and it’s especially not an easy problem when the economy is going through a difficult phase. You know, we’ve taken a body blow to the economy, and families were oftentimes hurting even before then.

But the one thing I’m absolutely confident about is that, whenever this country has met a significant challenge to our long-term well-being, that we ultimately rise up and meet it. And this is one of those moments where the stars are aligned.

We’ve got insurers who are interested, doctors who are interested, nurses, patients. AARP is here, and they’ve seen some of the potential benefits. We’re actually going to be filling the donut hole. Drug companies have said that they’d be willing to reduce the cost for seniors for prescription drugs as part of health care reform.

But we have to have the courage and the willingness to cooperate and compromise in order to make this happen. And if we do, it’s not going to be a completely smooth ride. There are going to be times over the next several months where we think health care is dead, it’s not going to happen.

But if we keep our eye on the prize, and if we recognize that America’s always stood up to these big challenges, and we can’t afford not to act, then I’m absolutely convinced that we can get it done this time.

GIBSON: Mr. President, thanks. We’re going to take a break. Be right back.

GIBSON: So that concludes our primetime special of “Prescription for America,” but your local news is coming up next, and we hope you’ll stay with us. The president is going to stay with us. Our audience stays with us. And we will have more questions for him about health care reform during the “Nightline” half-hour.

That’s right! President Barack Obama took his by now well-known leap into campaign mode and avoided the question entirely. So what does that do for your comfort level on a massive government plan to ‘reform healthcare’? Although there were moments where Mr Obama appeared to be genuine and forthcoming on his plans for healthcare reform any honest discussion on the issue was quickly dispatched in favor of a tightly scripted, liberal media and White House tag team public relations promo. In the President’s own words we can get this done if everyone gets behind it. The trouble is no one knows what it is we’re supposed to get behind as a specific proposal with all the required information does not exist. But that’s okay as the POLS in DC who support this simply want you to sign on and let them fill in the blanks. How reassuring. NOT!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

transcript source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/story?id=7920012&page=1