Healthcare Vs Higher Education

Obama speaks repeatedly on the cost of insurance premiums rising at a rate twice that of general inflation.  It's all due to the mean and evil practices of the insurance companies and we must call a halt to their nafarious and predatory ways.  But what about higher education?  That too has a rate of inflation twice that of the rest of the economy.  Is Obama calling out universities and villifying them for their predatory practices?  Of course not.  He's dealing with this by offering to foot the bill for people who can't pay back their student loans.

What I want to know is why college tuition is rising at such a rate.  Health care premiums rise because the cost of health care itself rises; but what about education?  What costs are rising so fast that the universities have to increase their tuition at such a rate.  They should already own all of their building.  They make the students buy their own books.  On campus students are charged extra for housing and the kids have to buy their own food.  So what on earth is causing the universities to have to increase their tuitions at such a rate?  Can it be, could it possibly be, the salaries the colleges pay their professors? 

If we want to talk about predatory practices, colleges are a good example. 

• You are forced to take classes you don't want and don't need in order to satisfy the individual college's requirement -- and you have to pay the college for this priviledge.  That sounds remarkable like racketeering to me. 
• If you transfer from another school, the classes you didn't want to take don't transfer to the new school and you must take more useless classes to replace the last batch. 
• You have to buy ridiculously expensive text books which you find when you try to sell back at the end of the year are actually worthless because of a new addition. 
• You have to fight with 4,000 other students to get the class you do want only to find when you get there that the teacher doesn't speak English.  Or at least you think he doesn't.  It's hard to tell if what he is speaking is a foreign language or just so heavily accented that it's indeciferable. 
• You have to pay for the priviledge of this up front and there is no refund for a class given by a professor you can't understand. 
• When all is said and done you have paid $160K - $280K for an education that will qualify you for a $30,000 per year salary.

Forget banks, forget credit cards, forget insurance companies, let's go after the institutions of higher eduction for robbing us blind and using our money to indoctrine the children.

Scott Brown's Lead Outside Margin of Error

Polls are now showing Scott Brown with a 51% to 46% lead over Martha Coakley with a margin of error of only 2.5%.

This is really good news.  This is the first time I've seen Brown's lead outside the margin of error.  Turnout is really going to be the deciding factor in this situation and I pray that the independents turn out for this vote.

This new lead really indicates the political reverse midas touch that Obama has in campaigns.  Every time he opens his mouth he shows a disregard and disrespect for the average American citizen.  Those average people who are the cornerstone and the strength of this great nation.

Go Brown!

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?

Budget Cuts, Yippee!

In order to save money (yeah right) we are slashing the federal budget on some pesky programs. Are we getting rid of ear marks? Nope. Are we getting rid of pork projects? Nope. Are we eliminating redundant bureaucracies? Nope. What we are slashing is our national security budget. We don't actually need to protect the country anymore anyway. After all, the rest of the world loves Obama now so nobody would dare attack. Again, yeah right.

President Obama has announced that he is cutting the budget on death benefits for surviving spouses of police officers killed in the line of duty. Well that's a good benefit to cut. Those union workers need their benefits but we shouldn't waste tax payer money on the cops. Oh, and we're cutting the budget for the missile defense system. Just because North Korea is testing missiles that could reach Alaska, well that's no reason to waste money on a defense. After all, if Korea takes out Alaska then Obama gets the benefit of eliminating Sarah Palin. But that's not all folks. Nope, there's more. They've also cut the budget for the building of the border wall. The funds were already approved for that and just haven't been spent because nobody will get around to building the darn thing, so now he's taken the money away. We're just going to give citizenship to everybody who crosses so why bother to try to keep them out. And finally, my personal favorite, the cuts for bomb and nuclear sensing equipment in our ports. After all the hoopla over not having the tools to test the ports, we're now getting rid of what we set up. This all sounds smart doesn't it.

So we're spending our tax dollars buying companies and bailing out unions but taking money from national security. I'm afraid that he really does believe that we're safe now that he's president. I honestly think he believes that he's so popular overseas that nobody will attack us now.

The main function of the federal government is to keep the country secure and protect our sovereignty, but he's spending trillions to set up his pet projects and slashing the budget for the 2 things that should be his priority. And then he keeps coming out and asking for more money for more social programs, like the education grants today. He doesn't seem to understand that there's only so much money to pay for things. Does he think the funding for the government is limitless? Yes, I believe he does. He'll just go to the people he's supposed to be helping in order to get more.

Oh, and did I mention that he wants to tax company supplied health care for people who have it to pay for those who don't. That's a great idea isn't it?

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.

Empathy VS The Rule Of Law

Several times President Obama has stated that he'll look for a Supreme Court Justice who will bring empathy to the bench. I've written on this before, but what makes this one different is an inconsistency that jumped up and smacked me in the face today. My cheek still stings from that slap. On one hand we have the administration speaking about how we have to adhere to the rule of law and no considerations can be given to circumstances when looking at what the previous administration did. They've released the names and addresses of our CIA interrogators, released classified documents, and are even now considering dealing with the Spanish Judge who wants to try our previous president for war crimes. This is all under the guise of "adhering to the rule of law." And then with the next breath they're saying that we need a Supreme Court Justice with empathy. That a person's situation and experiences need to be considered in any decision. This has me scratching my head a bit.

So which is it? Do we adhere to the rule of law, or do we have empathy? No consideration is being made to the previous administration for the situation they were in or the circumstances they faced. No empathy. So is the current administration saying that everybody deserves empathy except for the previous administration?

What bothers me here is the double standard. Pick a stance and hold it. Stay with it. Rule of law or empathy. But either way, we are sure seeing that according to Obama all men are not created equal.

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion. - Thomas Jefferson

Life Ain't Fair - Deal With It

Obama is on the campaign trail again talking about eliminating inequality and establishing fairness. Doesn't that sound wonderful? But you know what, life ain't fair. And trying to make things fair is just bringing unfairness to a different group of people.

It was the government trying to eliminate inequality in the banking industry that got us into this financial mess in the first place. They thought it was unfair that only people who actually pay their bills should be able to get a loan. Oh the horror. Oh the travesty of justice. So the government forced the banks, through legislation, to loan money to people they shouldn't have. And then shock ensued when the people who shouldn't have gotten the loans defaulted and the banks had no more money to loan out. Now people who day pay their bills are having to fund those who don't. Is that fair? And the government is blaming the banks for making the bad loans that they were legislated to make. Is that fair?

If we want fairness in the country then why don't we start by treating Congress and Presidential appointees to the same treatment the rest of us get. Subject to the same taxes, held to at least the same if not a higher standard of ethics, and with the same retirement benefits as the rest of us.

Why aren't we encouraging people to take responsibility for their own success? Nobody can improve your lot in life except for you, and if you're waiting for the government to do it, you'll find their methods just aren't fair.

Candy Ass and Chief

It's become plainly and painfully obvious that our new president does not have the backbone to stand up to the extreme left wing of the Democratic party. This was one of my main concerns when he ran for president but I hoped (vainly it seems) that he would rule as a moderate since he ran as one. But he's not doing that. And he's caving in to any pressure from his own party. As inexperienced as President Obama was, there's one critical part of being President that he was wholly unprepared for. It has nothing to do with domestic policy or foreign policy, but basic management policy. Any management course will tell you that you have to be prepared to be disliked. President Obama based so many of his policies on his confidence in his likability that he doesn't know how to deal with criticism from his own party. Being criticized by the other party he can attribute to partisanship, but from within his own? Oh my gosh! How could this happen? Say it ain't so Joe. He's so afraid of not being liked that he's doing things he should not be doing and releasing information that he should not be releasing. He's putting his own personal popularity ahead of national security. And he thinks we're pretty much too stupid to figure out what he's doing.

This is a man who is totally unprepared to be questioned, second guessed, vilified, criticized, disliked, disapproved of, despised and downright detested. Did he honestly believe that the love fest that the media engaged in during the campaign would continue indefinitely? I guess he could count on NBC for the continuation but eventually reporters and the media would have to start doing their job. So now, people have stopped singing Kum-Ba-Ya in a circle around him, and have stopped hearing angels sing when he speaks, and they're actually paying to attention to what he's saying and doing. And his personal popularity is steadily decreasing. Not dramatically, and not quickly, but steadily. He still has a very high popularity rate, so he's still hanging in there, but eventually he's going to realize that personal likability is not a reliable policy cornerstone. But never fear, I'm sure he'll appoint a Czar of Presidential PR to take care of that.

I hope that Pres Obama will find the strength and the leadership to stand up to the extreme side of his own party and lead from the middle where most Americans reside. I hope that he does not continue to let the ACLU and Moveon.org dictate the release of classified information. I hope he can stand by promises he made to look forward and not look back. I hope he can become the leader of his party and not just their rising star. I hope, I hope, I hope.

In the next 4 years we have 3 possible outcomes. First, Obama will take control and refuse to let the far left dictate national policies. He'll put his foot down and really become the leader. This is becoming more and more unlikely. Second, he'll continue to cave in to pressure and the country will end up being led by a minority of extremists. If this is the case we can only pray that the moderates in Congress will object and actually put the best interest of the country in front of party loyalty. If they don't, then the third possibility will occur. And that is that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed will rule our country until the next Congressional election. If they take us too far to the left, then the Democrats will potentially lose their control of Congress. So the next 2 years will tell the tale.

But lucky you. You have me to give you my opinion on what's going on. A different perspective to help you make up your own mind. Which is exactly what we all should do. Gather information on what's going on and then make up our own minds. And act on those decisions. Speak up and speak out. Our democratic process only works for the people if the people stay involved.