Yes, No, No, No, No, Yes

In our current environment of different rules for different people, I began to wonder exactly how the administration selects who will pay taxes and who won't, or who would get benefits and who wouldn't.  The process appears to bear a striking resemblance to the clip below.



In either case, the selection process appears to be based on size and determines who will get screwed and who won't.

Grandma Got Run Over By the Congress

Grandma Got Run Over By the Congress
(to the tune of Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer)

Grandma got run over by the congress
Just days before this Christmas eve
Now she requires approval from a panel
To get the care her doctors say she needs

Grandma needs a hip replacement
She has cancer in her bone
But the panel says it isn't cost effective
The truth is that the woman's just to old

She needs supplies for Diabetes
Her blood sugar she must check
But the panel has denied her
They say it's all because she's way too fat

Grandma got run over by the congress

Just days before this Christmas eve
Now she requires approval from a panel
To get the care her doctors say she needs

And we can't forget old Grandpa
As his prostate starts to swell
He needs some tests and maybe medication
But the panel told the man to go to hell

All that panel will give grandma
Is a body bag in black
But they approved an augmentation
To give Michelle a slightly bigger rack

Grandma got run over by the Congress
Just days before this Christmas Eve
Now she requires approval from a panel
To get the care her doctors say she needs

Now her goose is cooked and roasted
Her grave we've just begun to dig
She died while waiting for approval
From a government's that's gotten way too big

What will be the fate of Grandpa
None of the Congressmen can tell
The only thing of which they're certain
Is the need to exempt all of themselves

Grandma got run over by the Congress
Just days before this Christmas Eve
For wrongfull death my family is now suing
Both Pelosi and that Harry Reid

Perfect Example Of Socialism

We keep hearing that health care is a crisis.  It's a crisis, everybody agrees it's a crisis.  Never mind that 60% of Americans are against the plan, everybody agrees.  We won't actually start covering new people for 5 years but it's a crisis.  And why is it a crisis?  It's because people have to file bankruptcy due to medical bills.  Some studies say that 60% of bankruptcies filed are due to medical expenses.  It is horrible that anybody ends up in that situation and my heart goes out to them, but if 1.5 million people file bankruptcy and 60% of those are due to medical bills, that means that 900 thousand people a year go bankrupt from medical expenses out of an adult population of 217.8 million.  This means that the percent of people who file bankruptcy due to medical expenses is less than one half of 1%.

In order to fix the problem for 0.4% of our population, Congress is willing to pass a health care bill that has the possibility of bankrupting the nation.  Therefore, instead of 0.4% of the population being bankrupt, we'll ALL be bankrupt.

This is the real problem with socialism.  It seeks "economic equality" or "economic justice".  The government and socialist policies cannot make us all equally wealthy, all they can do is make us equally poor.  The health care bill is the perfect example of what socialism really does.  It does not raise us all to the same high level, but reduces us all to the lowest common denominator.  Is that what we really want to be? 

He's A Chicago Guy

He's A Chicago Guy

(To the tune of The Night Chicago Died)

As we’re watching the decline

Of the worth of the dollar bill

A fix he’s yet to find

And I’ll bet he never will

On and on and on he drones

Hearing no voice but his own

Unemployment he ignorers

While on the Congress floor

We’re hearing Harry cry

With the agenda we all must comply

Give the President just what he wants

Or Rahm Emanuel will bludgeon us

Glory be

We’re hearing Nancy cry

Sacrifice your seat to please this guy

Forget about what the people want

We’ve got to get our agenda done

Yes indeed

Now the Hill is under the thumb

Of a plain Chicago thug

And capitalisms grave

They’ve already dug

As with health care, cap and trade

They try to spend our wealth away

And if you dare to disagree

You’re declared the enemy

We’re hearing Harry cry

With the agenda we all must comply

Give the President just what he wants

Or Rham Emmanuel will bludgeon us

Glory be

We’re hearing Nancy cry

Sacrifice your seat to please this guy

Forget about what the people want

We’ve got to get our agenda done

Yes indeed

When the American people called

To halt our country’s fall

They’re concerns were waved away

Just increasing their dismay

He’s a Chicago guy

Barack O-ba-ma-ma-ma-ma-ma

He’s a Chicago guy

Economic justice spread the wealth

You have a right to a home and health

Glory Be

He’s a Chicago guy

Barack O-ba-ma-ma-ma-ma-ma

He’s a Chicago guy

He’s gonna do what he’s gonna do

So better prepare ‘cuz we’re getting screwed

Yes Indeed

I really wish I had the technical capability and knowledge to record this and make a video to post on youtube.  Too bad I'm eletronically challenged.

Plethora of Paradoxical Policies

My head has been spinning with all of the potential legislation coming out of Washington so I'm trying to get everything straight.  Here's my understanding of what's going on.

Health care - medical costs and premium costs are so high that people can't afford insurance and Medicare will be bankrupt.  The legislation does nothing to address the medical costs impacting Medicare while simultaneously cutting funding and expanding membership.  This will actually increase the cost of premiums and accelerate the date at which Medicare will bankrupt the country. 
Paradox

Climate Change - We must cut carbon emissions so heavy fines will be levied on those companies that emit CO2.  The legislation will raise the cost of energy so we use less.  People will be unable to afford their energy bill so will not be able to heat or cool their homes.  They'll end up receiving medical care for hypothermia or heat stroke which will drive up the cost of health care.  They could use a fireplace to heat their home but logging permits have been cut back so there will be no wood to use as heat.  The same legislation in Europe has been ineffectual at best and increased CO2 emmissions at worst.
Paradox

The private sector companies are losing money and can't pay their bills.  As a result they are laying people off, closing their doors and freezing wages.  The federal government is losing money and diving deeper into debt but has created new positions within the white house, voted to create additional departments and given raises to all of their employees.  While the private sector shrinks while the government expands.  Paradox.

The House passes legislation which will enable the Federal Government to break up companies they view as harmful to the economy while Congress pursues legislation that is harmful to the ecnomy.  Will they break themselves up?  Paradox.

The people are very concerned about the unemployment situation and request actions which will stimulate job creation.  The government spent $787 billion on pet projects which created no jobs.  Then they held a summitt with unions and community organizers whose suggestion was to pass another bill just like the first one that didn't work.  Employers beg for assistance which will open access to credit or allow them to keep more of their money.  Meanwhile congress is still pushing the health care and climate change legislations which will add costs to employers without generating any cash flow for them.  Paradox.

I know I've missed a lot of things and please let me know if I have any of this wrong.  Even listing it this way I'm not sure what the justification for any of this is.

The Party of Hell No!

Maybe it's just me, but I would love to see some passionate opposition to what the Demoratic leadership is attempting to do to our country.  The people are passionate so why aren't the Republican leaders?

Instead of trying to overcome the label of "party of no" slapped on the Republicans, why don't they embrace it and add some passion to it?  Wouldn't it be fun to have some leaders coming out and saying with passion and conviction, "We're not the party of no, we're the party of Hell no, not on my watch!"

Hell no to a deficit so crippling we're in danger of losing our credit rating.
Hell no to wasteful spending that serves nobody but the politicians
Hell no to crippling legislation for a problem that may not even exist
Hell no to unprecedented growth of the federal government
Hell no to a transfer of power from the Legislative to Executive branch in direct violation of our Constitutional principles.
Hell no to civil rights for terrorists
Hell no to a new entitlement program which will cripple the American economy
Hell no to putting climate change and health care above job creation

If asked about why Republicans don't have new ideas, they should simply respond, "Are you kidding, we've got our hands full just trying to keep the Constitution from going through the shredder."

Wouldn't it be lovely?

He's Remaking America All Right

Obama has used the phrase "remaking America" in several of his speeches and it always gave me pause.  We as a nation do not need to be remade.  Restored perhaps, but not remade.  I couldn't help but wonder what he meant by this.  Now I know.

Our government was set up so that the majority of the power over domestic policy lies with the legislative branch.  What our founding fathers absolutely did not want was a single person in charge of everything.  A voted monarche as the case may be.  They created the balance of power to ensure that the bulk of that power was in the hands of many, and with a check and balance system.  So what is Obama remaking us into? 

With the appointment of Czar upon Czar Obama created positions of power not answerable to Congress and not voted on by the people.  This was an unprecedented growth in power of the executive branch but not anything to get our knickers in a twist over, right?  Well my knickers are officially twisted.  With the EPA now giving themselves the authority to regulate green house gases if Congress does not, imposing onerous requirements on businesses all to fix....nothing and in spite of the will of the people, we saw another huge power grab by the executive branch of the government.  Hot on the heels of that announcement we have Obama working behind the scenes to institute his plans for universal healthcare without a vote on the actual plan by Congress.  He and his cronies plan to go in through the back door by moving the responsibility for the Social Security Act from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch.

This administrations answer to get what he wants in spite of the will of the people is to move control over the issue from the legislative to the executive branch thereby defiling our founding principle to have the power in the hands of many and NOT the hands of one.

Consider that the Executive Branch was such up with so little power in the first drafting of a Constitution - The Articles of Confederation - that the branch didn't even exist.  Now that branch is snatching power from other branches with a disgusting disregard and disrespect for our entire form of government.

The ""Yes We Can" Slogan has now been revealed to translate into "Yes I can and if you don't like it I'll find a way around you."

Months ago, as a joke, I wrote a blog about Obama appointing himself King.  It doesn't seem like such a joke now.

Competion With Insurance Industry

The public option will create competition has been said over and over again, and Kathleen Sebelius has now stated that there needs to be competition with the insurance industry. But shouldn't the competition be within the industry? And doesn't it already exist?

Blue Cross has to Compete with Aetna, Cigna, Humana, UHC, etc in order to get market share so we do have competition within the industry, but the government wants competition from outside the industry. Say what?

Aren't they saying that competition within any industry is not enough to tempter the greed of those big bad corporations so a government option is needed "to keep them honest". This is exactly what Obama has said, that a government option is needed to keep the insurance companies honest. So he is in effect stating that insurance companies are dishonest.

How about we apply that same logic to government monopolies on ..... let's say......taxes. How about we create some competition within taxation and the application thereof. Shouldn't we have somebody other than the IRS collecting the money, just to keep them honest you know. Or how about competition with Congress for spending it? Just some good old fashioned competition to keep them honest. The American people could then decide which policies to purchase, those of Congress or those of their competition.

If we need options from outside of a specified industry to keep them honest -- because all companies within an industry meet at a summit to figure out how they can gang up against the consumer and rob them blind don't you know -- then shouldn't that apply to government monopolies as well?

Misinformation Volume III

The third piece of so called misinformation is that the public option will put private insurance out of business. Obama says this isn't true, so I guess that's the end of the argument, unless of course we want to do the unthinkable and apply some logic and deductive reasoning to the situation. How very unamerican of me.

Competition is a good thing, it is the cornerstone of capitalism and controls costs by giving the people an option and the companies an incentive to keep costs low. Competition within the insurance industry is good as well and the industry is seeking to eliminate waste and reduce costs because there is not a current monopoly. There are several different companies all competing for the same market share and good coverage at a reasonable prices is what they are all striving for. So I'm not averse to fair competition; as a capitalist I know we need it to keep things working the way they should. But we need fair competition.

The big problem with the public option competing with the private sector is that the public option will be non-profit while the private sector needs to make a profit, therefore the private sector will not be able to compete with the public option on price, but never fear, there are other ways to compete, right?

The private sector could offer different types of plans, setting themselves apart from the public option and giving people a choice -- Or they could if HR 3200 didn't specify that they will have to offer what is deemed "acceptable" by the same people writing the public option.

The private sector could continue to work with companies who decide to be self-insured and change their line of business to administering these plans -- Or they could if HR 3200 did not give government the right to decide whether or not a company can self-insure.

So by page 24 of HR 3200 the real competitive options have already been eliminated by dictating what insurance will have to cover, and by taking the option of self-insuring from other companies. After those two options for competition are eliminated, what is left? Not much.

The bill is not written with the statement that private insurance will be eliminated, but the 5 year grace period for employer based benefits before they must comply with government "standards" and the limitations it places on competition will lead things in that direction.

Ignoring the fact that there is a possibility that the public option will drive private insurance companies out of business is irresponsible and short sighted. President Obama uses the Post Office as the shining example of competition between the private sector and a public option, but let's not forget that the post office is bankrupt and continuously raising prices; is this what we want for our health care? So maybe there is hope. If the public option in health care works as well as the post office then there won't be a problem, but on the other hand, the post office doesn't dictate to UPS and FedEx what services they have to provide or how much they can make. Nor does the post office give themselves the prevent private companies from using other carriers.

Where it not for the language in HR 3200 which limited the options for competition I would not be worried, but that language is there; and as long as it is I will see an uneven playing field designed to make one side the winner and one the loser.

Misinformation Volume II

The idea that a new government program for health care will explode the deficit or cause an increase in taxes is "misinformation" according to the white house. President Obama (I really hate having to type that) has stated firmly and repeatedly that the program will be deficit neutral so why do we insist on applying our own brands of logic to the claims?

Obama says deficit neutral but the Congressional Budget Office says $1 trillion in set up and then an explosion of costs.

Obama says that Medicare is bankrupting us so the best solution is to expand it to everybody. (I still haven't figured out how that is logical.)

Obama says that he can pay for it with savings from cost controls. Ummmm, OK. What are those cost controls going to be exactly? Will it have anything to do with stopping doctors from whacking off your limbs willy nilly in an attempt to charge you more?

Obama says that by having everybody covered the costs will go down because people won't be going to the ER as much, but aren't the highest volume of people using the ER those already on Medicaid? I'm missing the logic again.

Obama says that he won't vote for any bill that grows the federal deficit - this claim is a little hard to swallow considering that he's already quadrupled it in 6 months. Yep, Mr President, we can see you're a real fiscal conservative.

As a cost savings initiative Obama plans to lower the re-imbursement rate to health care providers for the services they give Medicare patients. The re-imbursement rates are already pretty low so if they go much lower it's going to start costing the doctors to do the test. Forget making money, they'll be bleeding it.

Hmmmm, an interesting way to implement rationing isn't it. If the government tells a doctor they will be re-imbursed $1,000 less than their costs for a particular procedure how long do you think those procedures will continue to be performed? If it's a break even I think many doctors would still do it, but if it throws them into a negative balance I can't see them continuing. Wouldn't it be interesting to require a bailout of our medical professionals due to the new Medicare re-imbursement rates. Especially since Obama already think the doctors get $30,000 - $50,000 for taking your foot when they actually only get #350 -$750. He's only 10 times higher than the actual so we should definitely be able to trust his numbers.

There are only 2 ways to make the public option (path to single payer) deficit neutral and that is to either raise taxes or to charge premiums for the public option which will cover the medical cost payout. Considering that the people don't want or can't afford the premiums of the private sector, I doubt the public option would look much better.

How about you first do a little research, real analysis into what is driving the cost of health care up. Hire an independent team of process improvement analysts to determine exactly where the issues lie (because I frankly doubt that doctors really are cutting off people's feet just to get more money) and fixing those first and see how it goes.

One last little tidbit that I just have to share -- As much as Obama talks about the importance of routine care and how we need to expand Medicare type coverage to all, he might want to keep in mind that routine care is not covered under Medicare.

Misinformation Vol I

The largest piece of misinformation that Obama is perpetually poo pooing is that he supports a single payer system. So where did the pesky American people who, will believe anything, get that silly little idea. It couldn't have anything to do what he has actually said could it?

As far back as 2003 (wasn't he still in the state legislature at that point) Obama said that he was a proponent of a single payer system, but I guess he could change his mind about that; it's just not right to hold him to what he said 6 whole years ago.

More recently Obama has said that we have an "illegitimate" concern that the public option is a trojan horse for a single payer system. He's right about that. They don't have their goals hidden in anything but their own rhetoric, but I don't see the concern over moving to a single payer as illegitimate.

In May of 2007 at a health forum for the SEIU Obama said "My commitment is to ensure that we have universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president.....But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately" (so we are going to eliminate it eventually?) "There is going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.." So eliminating employer coverage eventually is the goal? But that was still a whole 2 years ago. How could we possibly hold him to something he said that long ago. Silly, silly us.

On the campaign trail Obama told us that he was going to lower costs by taking on the insurance companies and make them lower their premiums while offering to the uninsured the option to join a government plan or policy. How exactly can they force the insurance companies to lower their premiums? Would this be the government dictating prices in the private industry? And what if the insurance companies can't cover their costs with the premiums set at the government approved amount? Wouldn't the companies then go out of business leaving only the government option -- the single payer? Sounds like that to me. But again, this was back in Octoboer of 2008, ten whole months ago. Anything can change in ten months.

Next we have Barney Frank stating that the public option is the best path to the single payer system, and numerous other congressmen touting that the public option will put the private companies out of work and achieve their ultimate goal of a single payer system. A goal which Obama himself validated with his previous statements.

So what are we supposed to believe? Is it really misinformation to question what is said now against what was said in the past, or is that just being a smart consumer? Since we'll be the ones paying for this health care plan, in essence the buyer of the product they're pitching, shouldn't we question the integrity of the marketing plan?

According to Obama now, as compared to Obama ten months ago, and according to Robert Gibbs, we should ignore all of the previous statements and believe what Obama says now. A politician would never lie to the American people in order to get what he wants.....would he?

Misinformation

At his town hall yesterday President Obama stated that there is a lot of misinformation floating around about health care reform and this is why support for the plan is dropping. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated this today and blamed the press for the misinformation; but what is the misinformation?

I'm going to do a series of blogs on these issues to delve into them in more detail, but here is an overview of what they are calling misinformation and I call deductive reasoning.

We will go to a single payor system - the leadership keeps telling us that there will not be a single payor system but there will be a public option. However, many of the leaders, Obama included, have previously said that the public option will be the lead to a single payor system. In March 2007 Obama stated that he would not be able to do away with employer paid health benefits immediately but believed we could accomplish a single payor system within ten years. -- Is believing the plan is to get us to a single payor system really misinformation?

The reform will explode the deficit or increase taxes - Obama says it will be deficit neutral but the Congressional Budget Office said it will cost $1 trillion just for start-up. So who is putting out the misinformation? Is it Obama or the CBO?

The Public Option will eliminate private insurance - The leadership says this will be a plan to compete with private insurance and they can work together, however private insurance will have to make a profit while the public option can operate at a loss subsidized by tax-payor dollars. If Medicare was working like private insurance now and not operatiing at a loss then it would cost the government nothing. By expanding a Medicare type benefit to all it is an acknowledgement that it will be subsidized where private insurance will not.

There will be rationing of care - Obama says there will be no rationing and yet his advisors have written papers on who should take priority in the case of a shortage. Also, a government board will be created to determine benefits and what to do when adding 40 million patients to already overloaded physicians.

Abortions will be covered under the government plan - Leadership says this will not happen while other leaders are insisting it will.

Robert Gibbs said this is all a case of he said / she said and this is how the misinformation is getting out there, but considering there is no final bill to work from isn't all we have to go on what people are saying?

What I think I object to most is applying deductive reasoning to the situation and coming to a conclusion and then being told that I'm wrong - that I'm spreading misinformation - and given no facts to back it up.

The Tone of Debate

I have been away from the blog for a while writing a novel, but the draft is done, the document sent out for a critique and a literary agent obtained. So now my mind and my time are free to return to the blogosphere which I enjoy so much, and what do I find when I turn my mind back to current events, that people who oppose the Congressional plan for universal health care are unamerican.

The town halls on the subect of health care have become a bit heated; people seeking to be heard screaming down or talking over the hosts and speakers, but is this really unamerican as Nancy Pelosi suggests?

The right to peacably assemble and request a redress of our differences is a protected right under the first amemndment so how can that be unamerican? As long as the protests remain peaceful, they are as American as applie pie and baseball. I believe that people should be polite and respectful during these discussions, but that only works if the other side will listen. When you have been polite, when you have been speaking respectfully and when you have been totally ignored, the need to raise your voice may become your last option so it appears the opposition has two choices before them.

1)speak softly and respectfully and be completely ignored.
2)shout loud and long and be labeled a nut, a nazi or unamerican.

Not much of a choice there is it?

There's something else that really bothers about this whole situation and that is why it is wrong for people of like minded opposition to band together. Why is it a great thing for one side to be organized but wrong for the opposing side to do the same? Why is one side praised for their organization but the other side reviled for theirs? Why does the organization of one side validate their information while the orgnaization of the opposing side discredit theirs?

Discrediting anyone who does not agree appears to be a major theme within the current leadership of both the white house and congress. Both the executive and legislative branches of our government appear to forget that they represent ALL American citizens and that the voices of all of us count.

What purpose is possibly served by claiming that anybody who disagrees is unreasonable and unamerican? What does that do to smooth the ruffled feathers of the descenters? And what is actually being done to address the concerns of the dissenters? Oh, right, what's being done is to disregard their concerns and call them names. Good plan.

White House Solves Medicare and Social Security With One Initiative

The White House hired a team of actuaries to identify where our risks lie with both Medicare and Social Security. The result of the analysis gave a single initiative that can fix both programs and save enough money to justify spending more on other programs.

The head of the actuarial team, Biehn Counter, revealed that the solution was obvious. "You're spending millions on expensive treatments to extend life. This puts a drain on Medicare but also puts a drain on Social Security. The more years you give them the more benefits you have to pay." Therefore, the solution suggested by Mr Counter and embraced by the White House is to deny expensive treatments for the elderly. "There's just no cost benefit to the treatments", Mr Counter explained.

White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, said that people are simply living too long. "People are living well into their 80's and 90's now which means that they are collecting social security for 20 - 30 years. If we could trim that down to 15 we would save enough to pay for health care for everybody."

So the new plan has been revealed. In order to give health care to those who don't have it we're going to deny it to those that currently do. The White House objected to this description saying, "This is an emergency situation and aggressive action needs to be taken." I asked why, knowing it would reach this point, when reforms were proposed in years past they argued that Republicans were "fear mongering". The response was simply that when reforms were previously suggested the current President was still in the State Legislature.

Slow Down and Step Back

Today Kathleen Sebelius, the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, told Congress that Health care reform must be done now, that it can't wait another year. Oh dear, yet another emergency situation in our government. But why can't it wait another year?

What about the situation is so unbelievably horrendous that we cannot take health care reform slowly and do it right? What is so much of an emergency that we have to hurry up to spend yet another several billion that we don't have? Where are we going to get the money? China isn't all that excited about lending us more money.

Why is Health care reform such an emergency? I don't understand. What is so different now that it was 15 years ago? What makes this yet another crisis in the Obama Administration?

Health care reform is going to be a major, major, major change to the country and it is not something that should be rushed. I'm not jazzed about having the government in control of the health care system anyway, and the idea of them rushing into it as the result of another imagined "crisis" scares the bejeezus out of me. I'd far rather see this taken too slowly but result in a great product than have it rushed out and the shiny new health care reform program suck. And let's face reality here, with the government in charge of it there is a 98% probability that the health care reform will suck to a level heretofore unknown to mankind.

This is just one more situation where the White House is stating that something is an emergency and must be done now. The trend we are seeing for this administration is to implement first and work out the kinks later. How much of our money have they wasted because they wanted to get it out there first and set guidelines for the expenditures later?

When it comes to health care reform, slow down, take some time, and if you're going to do it, at least do it right.