Aha – What Healthcare is Really About

Yesterday, I made a mental note to write out these words (I guess if I “tweeted”, that would have been my outlet):

“The healthcare bill is no longer about care for Americans or about lowering costs. It has come down to one thing – if it passes, it will be to protect the egos of three arrogant people.”

I pondered the veracity of that, and decided that it is pretty close to complete truth. With all that I read about the bill (which as of this minute STILL has not been published for our review), it seems that the goal has been lost. Still, a part of me thought that the statement above might be a little harsh.

And then Dennis Kucinich, Democrat Congressman from Ohio, changed his mind today and announced his support for the bill. And said these words,

“You do have to be very careful that the potential of President Obama's presidency not be destroyed by this debate. Even though I have many differences with him on policy, there's something much bigger at stake here for America.”

So…..I guess my original statement was true. It’s no longer about healthcare for America– it’s about something much more self-centered. Is that what government was designed for?

Still unsure? Nancy Pelosi revealed the same thinking when she said, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Why We Have Three Branches of Government

The whole healthcare debate rages on, and we may see the conclusion this week. Debate can be a good thing. It often allows the free exchange of ideas, especially if those ideas are placed accurately into the market of free thinking. Then others can join in and endeavor to understand the issues, make points, and perhaps vote their wishes through an elected, representative government.

So, what exactly is in the 2,700 page healthcare bill? The truth is – no single person knows. President Obama doesn’t know entirely what all those words add up to, nor do Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. It was written in a hurry by many, many people, and I don’t see that a great effort has been made to reconcile those pages against each other, or even to boil down what is in there for the purposes of public consumption. The politicians pushing the bill just want a vote on it, and soon. Their vote cannot be made in a wise or knowledgeable way – our senators and representatives cannot know all of the implications or mandates in those 2,400 pages unless they read and study it. None of them has confessed to doing so – so their vote would have to be cast in ignorance. Is that good government?

The issue that bothers me most in this debate is the push being made by the executive branch (the office of the President) to ram this legislation through, with a blatant disregard for balance. While the majority of the American people are now polled as being against the healthcare legislation, the President continues to push for its passage.

He has the right to push for what he believes in - really. But he is also pressing Congress for a “nuclear option” – to pass the bill through the reconciliation process (I won’t cover that process here – suffice it to say the process exists as a little “trickery” to pass legislation with a 50+% vote, accompanied by a promise to change the bill at a later date.) Those future changes promised by the reconciliation process are not guaranteed, hence, the Stupak coalition and the possibility that a distaste for abortion may actually be the death-knell for this bill.

Even more disturbing is a process being discussed called the “Slaughter solution”. Under this scheme, Democratic leaders will pass the bill by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House - without an actual vote by members of the House. Yes, it’s for real – the Democratic House Rules committee chairwoman is advising on this possibility. Oh, by the way, her name is Louise Slaughter. Ironic, isn’t it?

And this brings me to my point. Our founding fathers designed our current system of government to have three branches – executive, legislative, and judicial. Checks and balances were created between the three to prevent any one branch from “taking over”. It’s a wise system – created by men who saw how a monarch could seize power and govern at his whim. As journalist Bill Whittle recently said,

The modern Tea Party movement is made up of people peacefully protesting tax rates that, taken in total, approach half of all of their income; protesting the takeover by unelected czars of entire sectors of the economy; protesting the drunken orgy of spending not only the present wealth of the nation but the wealth of our children and our children’s children; protesting waste on a scale where a billion dollars – one thousand million dollars – is essentially undetectable, a rounding error… all of that, which its critics decry as mouth breathing paranoia… while the founders, enshrined in the mural surrounding these documents and which these same critics claim to revere – these founders, the greatest minds ever assembled in one place in the history of the world – took their country to war against the greatest military force on the planet because of a one-cent tax on tea.

Think about that! Forget the penny tax! It was never about the tax. It was about the idea of being ruled by people who cared not a whit about your lives but who only saw you as a source of revenue for their own grand ideas.

The why of America – when it’s all said and done – is simply this: we will be governed with our consent, but we will not be ruled.

Does that remind you of anything? For the full text of Whittle’s excellent article, read here.

I am trusting that the founders’ vision will result in a good outcome. If the executive branch twists the arm of the legislative branch to push through harmful, financially unsound, and unpopular legislation, there is always the possibility that the judicial branch will step in to intervene. And ultimately, there is always the possibility of the people of this nation rising up with a little “revolution” on their minds, right?

If I Had Been Invited To The Healthcare Summit…..

I’m a little disappointed that I wasn’t invited to today’s healthcare summit in Washington. Because it would have been interesting to get the perspective of some typical Americans, instead of a lot of Congressmen, Senators and federal executives – none of whom will have to participate in the very healthcare legislation they are discussing (because they have their own health benefits system - which is far better than anything they propose to leave with us).

Anyway, had I been given the privilege to attend and ask a few questions, this is what I might have said:

1) If 30 million more people will have health care coverage than the number who have it today, AND the system will be administered by the federal government, why should I believe the claim that it will get less expensive?

2) If our healthcare system is so broken, why did the Premier of Canada’s Newfoundland recently leave his country and fly to Florida to have heart surgery?

3) What do you say to the majority of Americans who don’t want government interference in healthcare? Do you believe you are smarter than they are? Is this representative government…or something else?

4) Should I dump my pharmaceutical stocks now? What if I work for a health insurance company – should I start looking for a new line of work?

5) How does the current trillion dollar proposal fit with the campaign promise to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year?

6) Is there any reason to believe that today’s session was nothing more than posturing in an effort to place blame on others when things turn sour later?

Interestingly, President Obama had a run-in with Senator Lamar Alexander about whether or not premiums would rise under the plan. The President said this was a great example of where people didn’t have their facts straight – and it turns out that he was the one who was incorrect (and he has apparently admitted it). See the video below.

No News Here – Presidential Candidates Lie To Get Elected

You have probably heard the latest flap over the healthcare debate. The media has been pressing President Obama (through his press secretary Robert Gibbs) to keep his campaign promise and allow the Congressional healthcare debate to be televised on C-SPAN. Obama promised this eight times during his campaign to become President (see all eight on video here). He could not have been clearer about avoiding closed-door sessions where “deals” could be made that were not in the interest of the American people.

And yet, once elected, he has absolutely no intention of keeping his promise.

Like the promise that middle-class taxes will not be raised or the one about posting all legislation publicly on the Internet for 48 hours before voting on it, it was a pledge clearly made with only one real objective – to get Obama elected. I actually think Obama is not much worse than any politician who would run for President. In my experience, they all lie to gain their objective – power and self-glory. Lest you think I’m simply an Obama-basher, I’m relatively certain that we would have seen similar actions from McCain. I’ve already gone on record as being frustrated with George W. Bush, who did little to turn our nation from the curse of abortion, even though he had a high popularity rating AND control of both Houses for a time. Rare indeed is the honest politician who would run for this office…and stick to his or her promises once elected.

Commitments and integrity don’t matter. Personal legacy and victory trump everything.

There have been two White House press briefings on this subject this week. Warning – these will probably make you mad. Maybe we need more anger toward our politicians to make a real difference. Here is the transcript from the Tuesday briefing:

QUESTION: C-SPAN television is requesting leaders in Congress to open up the debate to their cameras, and I know this is something that the President talked about on the campaign trail. Is this something that he supports, will be pushing for?

GIBBS: I have not seen that letter. I know the President is going to begin some discussions later today on health care in order to try to iron out the differences that remain between the House and the Senate bill and try to get something hopefully to his desk quite quickly….

Later in that same briefing, a reporter raised the C-Span issue again:

QUESTION: Okay, just lastly, why can't you answer the C-SPAN question --

GIBBS: I did.

QUESTION: You didn't, because you said --

GIBBS: I said I hadn't seen the letter, which I haven't --

QUESTION: do you need to see a letter? I mean, this is something the President said during the campaign and he talked about he wants everything open on C-SPAN --

GIBBS: Dan asked me about the letter and I haven't read the letter.

QUESTION: Well, I'll just ask you about having it on C-SPAN --

GIBBS: I answered Dan's question and I answered this before we left for the break, Keith. The President's number-one priority is getting the differences worked out, getting a bill to the House and the Senate…

QUESTION: There are a lot of reasons not to do it on C-SPAN -- people could showboat. Does he regret making that statement during the campaign?

GIBBS: No.

Now to Wednesday's briefing – with another question from a different reporter:

QUESTION: During the campaign the President on numerous occasions said words to the effect of -- quoting one -- "all of this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." Do you agree that the President is breaking an explicit campaign promise?

GIBBS: Chip, we covered this yesterday and I would refer you to yesterday's transcript.

QUESTION: But today is today and --

GIBBS: And the answer that I would give today is similar to the one --

QUESTION: But there was an intervening meeting in which it's been reported that the President pressed the leaders in Congress to take the fast-track approach, to skip the conference committee. Did he do that?

GIBBS: The President wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: In spite of the fact that he promised to do this on C-SPAN?

GIBBS: I would refer you to what we talked about in this room yesterday.

QUESTION: But the President in this meeting yesterday --

GIBBS: And I addressed that --

QUESTION: -- pressed for something that's in direct violation of a promise he made during the campaign.

GIBBS: And I addressed that yesterday.

Another reporter took up the questioning:

QUESTION: Well, does the President think it would be more helpful if this process were more transparent, that the American people could see --

GIBBS: Mike, how many stories do you think NBC has done on this?

QUESTION: Speaking for myself --

GIBBS: Just a guess.

QUESTION: That's not the issue. The issue is whether he broke an explicit campaign promise.

GIBBS: So the answer is --

QUESTION: I deal with the information that --

GIBBS: So the answer is hundreds, is that correct?

QUESTION: Right, but that's got nothing to do with it. I deal with the information, however much or little of it, there is. I'm saying would people benefit by having more information?

GIBBS: Have you lacked information in those hundred stories? Do you think you've reported stuff that was inaccurate based on the lack of information?

QUESTION: Democrats ran against the very sort of process that is being employed in this health care --

GIBBS: We had this discussion yesterday. I answered this yesterday. Is there anything --

QUESTION: But the President met with members of Congress in the meantime --

GIBBS: And he'll do so today.

QUESTION: -- and pressed them to --

GIBBS: Do you have another question?

Which, I guess, is a fancy (and lengthy) way to say, “Get lost. We do what we want.” By the way, all three of my children are taking Logic this year in their homeschool studies, and would recognize Gibbs' avoidance technique as the Red Herring fallacy - where a person introduces something irrelevant into an argument and tries to focus only on that.

Here’s the video of this exchange. Gibbs looks very uncomfortable. I hope this story doesn’t die.

“King” of Healthcare?

Some form of healthcare will likely pass in the Senate this Thursday.

Every single poll I have been able to research (Rasmussen, Pew, CNN, YouGov, NBC/WSJ, AP, Harris, USAToday/Gallup, ABC/Post, FOX) shows that more Americans DON'T want government-dictated healthcare than the number who want it - some by as much as 15%.

So, what happened to representative government?

Instead of executing the wishes of those who elected them to office, our senators and congressmen appear to be giving in to someone else. Is it their own pocketbooks? The healthcare companies? President Obama? Or all three?

When people get together to pass a law that the people don't want, but which a government leader does – that is called a monarchy. I guess we now live in a country where we should call our leader "King Obama". Oh, by the way, that's what the Pilgrims fled from when they came over on the Mayflower.

A lady asked Dr. Franklin, “Well Doctor, what have we got - a republic or a monarchy?” — "A republic," replied the Doctor, "if you can keep it."

Anonymous, from Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787

Ten Thoughts on the House Health Care Bill

Ten random thoughts on the healthcare initiative...

1) The same government that can’t get for-profit labs to create H1N1 vaccine in a timely manner wants to take over the whole healthcare shebang. And half of the people want to let them have it…

2) Nancy Pelosi promised on September 24, 2009 that she would let the bill be published for 72 hours before calling for a vote. “Absolutely. Without question”, were her very words. But she decided in the end not to do that. Why? There can be only one reason – she believed that three days of discussion time could only result in the bill’s defeat. So she broke her promise and drove through a bill that should have been debated – and defeated.

3) I cannot for the life of me figure out WHO is going to get the $1.2 trillion that they want to set aside for the program. But I’m willing to bet it is the people and organizations which come out in favor of the bill in the coming weeks. Once someone actually reads it.

4) Can anyone really explain what a “public option” is? Does anyone really know how healthcare will change if such a bill were to pass? I’m willing to bet that 95% of the American people (and 80% of the people in Congress) don’t know what we’re talking about. I’ll admit that I don’t.

5) Name for me one country which has adopted a public health plan which has been deemed a success. Canadians still cross the border to get a lot of their surgeries performed in the States.

6) The most telling words of all that I read when news articles were announcing the removal of funds for free-for-all abortion under the plan were “For now”. Abortion foes were given an incentive to vote for the current plan when this language - the Stupak amendment - was introduced (abortions will still be covered for rape, incest, and “the health of the mother”). But I’m guessing that pro-abortion Congressmen were told to “Just wait – we’ll get that wording back in there in the final version.” If you have no inkling about what the rest of this legislation means, please pressure your Congressmen and Senators to vote against it for this one reason – public funds are being used to fund abortions. This is the single most important topic in this whole debate.

7) $1.2 trillion over ten years. An average of $120 billion per year of new taxes. There are 105 million people a year who pay taxes. That’s an average of $1,143 per year, per tax-paying person in each household. For ten years. Hey, where did we think the money was going to come from? French taxpayers? The sale of Chris Dodd’s Irish cottage?

8) If you have reached your credit limit on five credit cards – is the solution to get another card? Or is it to control your costs? For healthcare, the primary problem that I see is runaway costs in the industry. It is NOT that some people don’t have health coverage (because there are ways around not having formal coverage). Fix the cost issue first, make healthcare more affordable for everyone, and more people will be able to get on board.

9) The best single method I have heard to get healthcare costs down is to enact tort law reform. Minimize and limit the amount of damages for which people can sue – malpractice insurance costs will plummet for the doctors – this savings will be passed on to the customer. I am led to believe that this cost is not insignificant. The only people to be hurt by this reform will be the lawyers. That’s a good reason to implement tort reform right there! (Sorry – to all my lawyer friends out there…)

10) It’s not too late to put pressure on your Congressmen and Senators. Find out their positions and write them at this link. March on their offices. Go to a Tea Party. And remember – “Abortion is not ‘healthcare’”.

Euthanasia for Clunkers

You won’t believe what an auto dealer has to do to get a government rebate for a “clunker” these days.

The government-sponsored “Cash for Clunkers” has received a lot of attention recently – most notably in its sudden lack of funding and the worry of auto dealers, who fear that they may not be properly reimbursed for the huge discounts that they are offering. So, how does the program work?

First, you must check if your car is on the clunker “list”. The government provides a website where the user inputs their car data and a determination is made based primarily on the fuel rating (miles-per-gallon) of the car. I entered in the information for my shiny, almost-new 2005 mini-van and found that it missed the mark by only 1 MPG! It’s five years old and it’s only 1 MPG from being a clunker! And can you believe that a 2004 Mazda RX-8 is on the list for the trade-in! If you find that your car is eligible for the program, you will be able to receive a $3500-$4500 rebate on the purchase of a new car (used cars are not eligible). And what is the purpose of the overall program? The government is trying to 1) stimulate the economy by encouraging the purchase of a new car, and 2) “help the environment” by getting a high-emission car off the road. By my thinking, the benefit of this program is dubious on both counts.

First, the rebate will encourage many people to purchase a new car – and some of these people will not be able to afford it in the near-term. Just as the government-sponsored, low-interest housing loans tantalized people with bigger houses beyond their means, many will be attracted to the idea of having a new car in their garage, regardless of the payment book that follows. So for the lure of a few-thousand dollar discount, they will get themselves into a $500-$600 monthly payment that they can’t afford. And a year from now, they may default on the loan. Let’s face it – the discount only amounts to about ten percent of a new car purchase, so it will turn a $600 monthly payment into a $540 monthly payment. And the government is still encouraging banks to loan money to higher-risk clients. Like the housing cycle, the race to have more than we can afford begins again - only we call it the CARS program this time around.

Second, the amount of emissions that will be reduced by the program is miniscule. The program was seeded with $1 billion of funding. At an average rebate of $4,000, that amounts to the trade-in of about 250,000 cars. At last estimate, there were 250 million registered automobiles in the United States (according to the 2006 Department of Transportation studies). So this program will effectively trade out 0.1% of the “higher-emission” vehicles on the road for “lower-emission” vehicles. The billion dollars means that every taxpayer in the U.S. contributed an average of $10 to the program. Was it worth it? (Note: After this was written, Congress was on its way to approving another $2 billion for the program - so say good-bye to another $20 per taxpayer in your household.) It angers me that my hard-earned salary becomes tax dollars, which then get “re-distributed” to someone else so that they can buy a new car.

But the most insane thing about the program is the exercise that must be performed to “kill” one of these clunkers. In order to get their money from the government, and in an effort to assure that a high-emissions vehicle never sees the road again, a dealer must ruin the engine of the trade-in vehicle. The dealer must pour sodium silicate into the engine oil, start the car, and wait a few minutes until the oil turns to glass, seizing the engine, and ruining it for all time (video here). The technical description goes like this:

“Sodium silicate. Pour 2 quarts in a car's engine. Hold it at 2000 rpm. And in about 5 minutes, it's lethal injection to a motor vehicle.”

Put simply, the car gets euthanized. In exchange for taking a so-called “environmentally dangerous car” off of the road, this has the side-effect of harming the engine salvage and auto repair businesses. And it may also keep a nice, cheap, used vehicle out of the hands of someone who cannot afford to purchase a new car. Will the day come when the government makes it impossible to purchase a used vehicle for my sixteen-year-old? Will I be forced to pay an exorbitant price for a new vehicle only? In ten more years, will these same new cars suddenly be considered to be environment-threatening clunkers, and the process start over again?

Lastly, I can’t help but note the possible analogy between the “Cash for Clunkers” program and healthcare for our elderly under any new government program. President Obama has hinted that he favors the cessation of funding of extraordinary measures to save an elderly person. The proposed healthcare bill itself contains such a clause, right now (read pp. 425-429 here – thanks to Jim Perkins for finding this). This smacks of euthanasia for our senior citizens. Will we see a “Cash for Clunkers” program for our gray-haired folk in the near future? Or am I being “un-American” by mentioning that?
******************
From the government website, citing reasons why Americans should participate in the program – “Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning gasoline and diesel contributes to global climate change. You can do your part to reduce climate change by reducing your carbon footprint.” It’s clear that the government has bought into the lie that gasoline-powered vehicles contribute significantly to climate change. And did you notice that they called it “climate change” instead of “global warming”?

Healthcare at the Department of Motor Vehicles?

Two weeks ago, my eleven-year-old son nearly died. Truly. One evening, he suddenly had an extreme allergic reaction and was well on his way into anaphylactic shock when we rushed him to the nearby hospital. As my wife drove him to the emergency room, his windpipe was closing, his entire body was covered in hives, and panic was beginning to show in his eyes. If this had happened one or two hundred years ago, I think we would have lost him. The very thought makes my heart ache.

Fortunately, we have a hospital only five miles away. And when he arrived at the emergency room desk, they took one look at him and immediately escorted him to a room where he received treatment. Three minutes didn’t elapse between his entry into the lobby and action to make him better. He left the hospital a couple of hours later almost back to normal. When he arrived at the hospital, there was no fuss over insurance or how much money we had with us – they just did the right thing and treated him correctly and instantly, no questions asked.

So I ask – what is so wrong with our healthcare system that we feel the need to involve the federal government into its operation?

Only three weeks ago, my family entered another lobby where we had a need to get help from the workers there, but we had an entirely different experience. Upon entering, we were told to take a little paper number from a dispenser and wait for the next available employee – even though we were the only people in the place. We sat in a chair – staring at the three workers behind counters in the room – and waited patiently until one of them advanced the number on the board and called us over. Things immediately began to go wrong, as this person informed us of some differing rules about our need – different than what we had read on their website, and different than the instructions I had been given by one of their employees at an earlier visit. The upshot was that our cost was going to be an extra (and unanticipated) $350.

As we moved to the second employee for processing, our frustration was visible. She had to know what the problem was, because she was sitting only ten feet away from the first worker. But she went about her scripted business, a little slowly, until she got to the part where the $350 issue lay. And she informed us that our original understanding was correct – in complete contrast to what the first person had said. I asked some pointed questions – the two employees shared a look – but no explanation of their disagreement was made. After signing some more paperwork, we were told to go back and wait for the third and final employee to call us forward.

So we went back to our chairs, clutching our little paper number, and watched the third employee rustle some papers behind the counter, walk around a bit, and then go sit behind a computer screen for a while. By this time, there were two or three of us in the lobby, looking at our little paper slips, and waiting for this gentleman to call us forward. When he finally did, I leaned over to all three of my children and said, “Take a lesson from this. It’s what happens when the government is put in charge of something.” Because - you may have already guessed – we were at the State Department of Motor Vehicles.

I tell these two stories for a very specific reason. When the government gets involved in something, it invariably introduces waste and inefficiency. The employees behind the counter at the DMV have very little incentive to please us or make our experience pleasant. There are no competing offices in the state to get your driver’s license – they are a monopoly. In contrast, the hospital is a for-profit enterprise. I have choices about where to take my son when he has a reaction, as there are two other hospitals within ten miles of my house, as well as numerous urgent care clinics. For some reason, when the profit motive is taken away, people tend to get lazy.

Our society seems to forget this fact sometimes. Congress is now involving itself in the regulation of executive bonuses at financial institutions and publicly traded companies, because some of these awards seem “unfair”. The government-sponsored “cash for clunkers” program ran out of money after only one week, because the feds grossly underestimated the popularity of a plan that uses taxpayer money to get people into new cars that many likely cannot afford (it’s like the housing bubble all over again – I wonder how many of these auto loans will go into default a year from now). And the car dealers in this same program are worried that they will not get the promised reimbursement from the government because the federal websites keep crashing. And you should see some of the ridiculous things that auto dealers must do to “kill” the clunkers that they receive (and essentially torpedo the used car and salvage markets at the same time).

Bottom line, I don’t want the day to arrive when I am clutching a little paper number in my hand while sitting in the lobby of a government-sponsored health care clinic, awaiting a decision and a doctor to treat my son, while he slowly chokes to death in my arms. Do you think that can’t happen? Just try asking for something quick or out-of-the-ordinary at your local government-operated Department of Motor Vehicles.