More Unkept Promises...

Did anyone see the latest ideas from Congress on limits to healthcare? Yep. This makes good stuff available to those UNDER 25, but not over.

The measure -- offered by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. -- would impose new fees on some healthcare industry segments to help offset the estimated $880 billion in initial costs over 10 years, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

The plan would provide a lower-cost insurance plan for catastrophic coverage only to people up to age 25, people familiar with the outline said. It also would expand less comprehensive Medicaid coverage to millions of low-income people who now are ineligible.

With Medicaid losing money, how is this going to be funded? The question still waits a full answer.

A related article at the NYTimes adds a bit more detail about Baucus’ proposal:

To help finance the legislation, Mr. Baucus is expected to propose a new tax on insurance companies selling policies with premiums far exceeding the national average, roughly $13,000 a year for family coverage.

Government healthcare is no longer a government program, apparently. It is a commercial industry killing plan. Risk management implies that higher risk has higher costs…but not according to the government’s coming “guidelines.”

Meanwhile, there is a petition circulating to drum up support for House Bill HR676 to make establishing health care a civil right, giving it equal status with race, sex, and creed. The petition specifically states the Bill

Whereas HR676 provides for Medicare for All, a universal, single payer, not-for-profit health care system which means the end of premiums, copays and deductibles; and

Whereas we are already paying for a universal standard of care but are not getting it because one of every three dollars in the health care system goes to the activities of the for-profit insurance system…

In short, this Bill and the petition openly state the goal is to replace or eliminate the insurance industry. That should do wonders for the deficit effects of the healthcare plan, already planned to be partially funded by money from the insurance industry. (…not to mention Democrats have openly said that is not what they are doing or have planned…)
But, those are not as concerning as the latest changes from President Obama himself. There was a short fact check on some points from his latest speech to Congress. Gone are guarantees about personal choice. Gone is the refusal to require everyone to be insured. Gone as well is his promise to “not increase the deficit by one dime.” Why? Government accounting that lets them say what they want it to say. The article states:

House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill was actually deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn't have to count $245 billion of it — the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don't face big annual pay cuts.

Let’s see…Broken promises…Rising deficits…A not recovering economy…Sounds like Bush all over again…doesn’t it? Or at least that’s what the media and the Left used to accuse him of. Think they might accuse their Golden Boy Obama of the same thing?

Still, all of this legislation aimed at providing healthcare to all fails to address the real problem: rising healthcare costs. None of the legislation as far as I know does anything to reign in costs. It just throws more money into the healthcare system. As education has proven, more money does not solve the problem. The United States spends more per student on education than other countries, but we have a lower student success rate. More money is not a solution to cost control issues. Basic economics says that if more money chases the same amount of goods, the price goes up. So, why do we believe more money is the solution for healthcare when the problem is costs? As the debate and clamor for this legislation goes on, let’s remember that the real problem still remains unaddressed.

The Benefit of Government Healthcare...and related lies...

Isn’t it interesting that since the Youtube video where Democrats announced they were out to eliminate the private insurance industry, the Democrats and the media are going to great lengths to make Americans believe otherwise? In their latest move, Democrats are faulting CBO calculations that government healthcare would eliminate private coverage for 23 million Americans. Always quick to cite Congressional Budget Office figures against Republican opponents, Dems are slighting the office for it’s work on this. Among other things, the CBO has determined the Kennedy heathcare legislation—which is not as broad as the one Obama is pushing--will also increase the federal deficit.

Enacting the Kennedy plan, nonetheless, “would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficits of about $1 trillion," says the CBO. "That estimate primarily reflects the subsidies that would be provided to purchase coverage through the new insurance exchanges, which would amount to nearly $1.3 trillion in that period.”

The CBO also noted this would break a key promise of the Obama platform that those with existing coverage would get to keep it. The NY Times had this comment in their article:

Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, a senior Republican on both committees drafting health legislation, said he found the office’s numbers stunning. He calculated that the Kennedy bill would cost taxpayers $62,500 per uninsured person over the 10 years.

Even at Sen. Hatch’s numbers, that is a huge expense—and Congress knew about that number.

I only have one question. Government is taking over business. Government is saying how and who can be insured. And, it has been said by one Senator that the elderly will have to do without some levels of healthcare. At what point do stop believing the media and our government when it says socialism, or even communism, is not taking over America?

Policy, Medicine and Islam

After the report on medical information safety by the BBC, the NYT reports that many doctors question whether the cost of implementing digital records may not be worth it.

Two articles, to be published on Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, point to the formidable obstacles to achieving the policy goal of not only installing electronic health records, but also using them to improve care and curb costs.

Studies found use of data to be far lower than originally thought. One journal article went so far as to say implementing this would be a serious policy mistake. In typical liberal line-toeing, The NYT, though, goes on to cite the importance of implementing the proposed Obama/left wing policy without citing any real sources that refute the Journal’s findings.

On the subject of dealing with tough policy issues, Germany is wrestling with dealing with Islam in the schools. Religious instruction is a constitutional reality in all but two states. The honor killing of a Turkish woman in 2005 scared Berlin into using an ethics based teaching instead of religion.

What everyone shares is an obsession with Muslims, who account for over half the students in parts of the city. The ethics course is partly meant to snuff out incipient violent radicalism. But it leaves many children learning the Koran from teachers who have little stake in German society. Better, says Pro-Reli, to bring it into school, where German-speaking teachers can impart Islam under the state’s watchful eye.

Bringing it into the school to allow state control of religion can be dangerous. America, for instance, was founded on the idea that government should not control the church as well as the church not being the government. At the same time, giving Islam an inroad in one area is just as dangerous. Islam is not tolerant, contrary to those who say otherwise. Just follow the history of how Islam has gained control of once Christian Lebanon.

Consider, for another example, the proposed rules in Tajikistan.

The new law imposes censorship on religious literature and restricts performing rituals to state-approved venues. It makes it harder for new religious communities to get registration.

The new law revolves around a state sponsored version of Islam, for a primarily Sunni population. Part of the new law is government control to block a resurgence of the Taliban.

All of this leaves the U.S. with the question of how it will deal with the most rapidly expanding religion in the world. Will we continue to tolerate it without question, as C.A.I.R. desires and lobbies for? Or will we give it equal footing with other religions and remove the anti-religious laws and restrictions that are steadily increasing in the nation? Or will we do something entirely different? The choice is ours, and we must act. And, we act by what we say to our legislators, and how we deal with those around us. Are you speaking out?

The Middle East And Middle America

How can anyone believe that the Arab world really wants a peaceful settlement in the Middle East? The Turish Prime Minister walked out (stormed was the word used by the BBC) of meetings in Davos over the Gaza situation. Then, in a meeting in Instanbul, Sunni sheiks and scholars called for a new jihad.

Mohammed Nazzal, a senior Hamas leader based in Damascus, challenged Arab governments to "open their borders and allow the fighters to come."

Delegates from all over the Middle East, and from Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan and Indonesia applauded as he stabbed the air with a raised finger and declared: "There will be no agreement with Israel... only weapons will bring respect."

Mr Nazzal told his audience: "Don't worry about casualties."

The Arabs do not want, and have never really wanted, peace with Israel. Consider, for example, missing explosives, under Hamas guard, waiting UN disposal that are now missing. Does it really surprise anyone that Israel is blaming Hamas for sneaking the weapons off. And, in normal anti-Israel media fashion, no one seems to be commenting on Hamas’ silence over the situation. And, then, there was John Kerry’s comment about the peace process. Speaking about relations with Syria Rueters reports:

On the possibility of improved relations with Israel following recent elections there, he said: "Betting on the Israeli government is a waste of time."

(…nope…no bias in this administration…)

Meanwhile, at home, the Obama Administration is figuring out how to limit executive compensation. A Reuters news report said something stunning:

Many analysts say the government's activities in pumping massive amounts of capital into banks and setting rules for executive pay for those receiving funds represents the greatest intrusion of government into the private sector in decades.

Is there really any question on this issue? The government is nationalizing banks, and perhaps other industries. It is deciding what employees (executive or otherwise) can and cannot be paid. And, nothing of this scope has been done in America since the 1930s. The Stimulus Plan does not “represent” the biggest move of government into the private sector. It IS the biggest such move in America. And, it certainly is not what America’s founding fathers had in mind when they strove to create limited government and maximum personal freedom.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

(...you might also want to go read The Mind of the Obama Follower does not understand that Tax and Wage Increases on Business Hurts The Middle Class...well worth it...)

02/15 Obama, Healthcare, and the Lack of Debate

There were three news reports from Friday that I found VERY interesting. They all revolve around the Stimulus package that many expect to rejuvenate the economy. All are from CNSNews. You can claim bias all you want to…but the reports should be disturbing to everyone…

First, a Democrat says no one will have time to even read the Stimulus Bill before it has to be voted on.

The first PDF was 424 pages long and the second PDF was 575 pages long, making the total bill 999 pages long. The House is expected to vote on this 999-page bill Friday, and the Senate either later Friday or Saturday. [Editor's note: The first PDF, as posted on the House Appropriations Committee website as of 8:20 AM Friday morning, had grown by 72 pages to 496 pages, increasing the length of the total document to 1,071 pages.]

If you had any illusions that there would be reasonable debate, discussion or even understanding of the whole thing, you were sadly mistaken.

Second, we now have a new government agency that will have possession and control of all medical records. This was slipped into the bill without debate. And, although Bloomberg News reported on this agency that will have a budget bigger than the US military, no one raised a fuss or demanded explanation. It’s amazing that the American people would scream and shout over the excesses of the Bush administration, without oversight, but say nothing of such an expensive agency.

And, that brings us to the third report. It seems that The Guardian is reporting the British centralized records system isn’t working like it should.

An NHS hospital boss criticised the new computerised medical records system today, saying it had cost his trust an extra £10m and meant fewer patients could be seen.

Andrew Way, chief executive of Hampstead's Royal Free hospital, in north-west London, said his staff were "incredibly disappointed" with the IT upgrade on trial at the hospital since last summer.

The National Programme for IT (NPfIT) aims to create a centralised medical records system for 50 million patients in England at a cost of more than £12bn.

The article goes on to cite some very strong privacy concerns, since pharmacists would be able to see the entire record—not just doctors.

So, for everyone who thinks this is the best thing since sliced bread…maybe you should reconsider. Are the expected benefits of an agency that will have the authority, in the future if not now, to control healthcare access and spending really going to be worth it? Maybe taking subsidies away from drug manufacturers and no longer propping them up by restricting alternative medical means would accomplish more to reduce costs. Which, of course, begs the question since government subsidizes so much of healthcare technology and drug research…why are costs rising so sharply?

(…either way…government has near total control of medicine…I hope everyone is happy with it…)

02/05 Morning Report

Did you know it isn’t enough to talk about overcoming racism? Now days, at schools, you also have to support the anti-family agenda of the left.

You may know Ken Hutcherson's name from his pro football days or, more recently, his pro-family activism in defense of traditional marriage. But Hutcherson's daughter was introducing her father at her high school to talk about how he overcame racism thanks to the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"And then she says, 'But the most important thing is, this is my Dad.' I stood up to walk up to the microphone and there were some boos. They started booing."

Hutcherson, senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Washington, ignored the hecklers and gave his presentation, which never mentioned homosexuality. But the homosexual activists who booed Hutcherson were not finished. After his speech, they challenged him directly in front of the entire assembly.

"The sponsor of the Gay Straight Alliance stood up and yelled out, 'I know that I am not on the program, but why is this man here when he doesn’t believe in equal rights for everybody?'" says Hutcherson.

The woman accusing Hutcherson was Kit McCormick, his daughter's favorite teacher. "And I felt like I couldn't sit and not say anything," says the teacher. "I felt like this was a moment that I had to stand up and say something."

McCormick told KING-TV that Hutcherson was misrepresenting himself. "He is not about equality for everyone," she asserts. "He's about equality for some people."

Hutcherson says the teachers' behavior was inappropriate and [the behavior] would never have been tolerated if they had been pro-family activists criticizing a pro-homosexual speaker.

It’s obvious that Hutcherson is right. Those on the left are just as exclusive towards their conservative opponents as they claim conservatives are towards them. It’s immaterial the crux of the disagreement is whether homosexuality is natural or not. It only matters that those on the left want their way, and they will intimidate and shout down anyone who opposes them…all in the name of “equality”, of course.

(…I guess that makes the left just as wrong as the right, unless your on the left…or teaching our children…not that this is anything new…)


Islam is having it’s own public image problems lately. Wikkipedia’s entry on Islam is causing quite a stir. Why? It shows images of the Prophet Muhammed. Supposedly there is a prohibition about showing people’s pictures in Islam. But…

Paul M. Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, said, “Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent.” He added, “Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad.”

The ban actually dates only to the 20th Century. There was an on-line petition with some 80,000 signatures sent to Wikipedia, and a lot of emails. One interesting point about the uproar…

The petition has more than 80,000 “signatures,” though many who submitted them to ThePetitionSite.com, remained anonymous.

“We have been noticing a lot more similar sounding, similar looking e-mails beginning mid-January,” said Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco.”

(…hhhmmm…sounds like Islamists have learned how to use SPAM to intimidate…)


Not to be outdone by possibly fictitious rules, requirements and actions, the French bank Société Générale is facing some more problems. It seems bank policies may have let the rogue trader get as deep into trouble as he did. There are apparently several holes in the argument that Mr Kerviel is the supervillain he is portrayed as. Us authorities are investigating the bank as well. Specifically, they are looking at bank board member transactions in the days before the scandal broke. Meanwhile, Agence France press reports that while French trader Jerome is saving any substantial statements for the judges, he is refusing to be a scapegoat for the bank.

(…another rousing success for the French…)

11/6 Morning Report

Rugrats and Power Rangers may really be bad TV for children. A recent study showed possible links between violent content and attention lapses. It links these problems to children as much under 3 who watch this type of content. And, the problems can show up as much as 5 years later.

(…and ADD is a biological disease?...right?...what do you want to bet no link is substantiated…)


In related news, Oregon voters will decide on a state funded child healthcare expansion.

"If Oregon votes in the affirmative for this, it will be a shot in the arm," said U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Portland. "It will be harder for some people to ignore what the public sentiment is. Maybe they can ignore the polls, but this would be a signal victory."

As a liberal state, Oregon’s vote could add pressure for a national program, despite recent Presidential vetoes. The proposal would be funded by an increased cigarette tax, which has prompted a $12 million campaign against the tax by Phillip Morris. I am left wondering, on the other hand, what happens when everyone quits smoking? How do you fund these things then? Where will the money come from? Isn’t it interesting that you never hear about those things?

(…I can see an eventual budget shortfall…can you?...)


Meanwhile, more ministries are coming under government scrutiny. A Senate panel is demanding records be delivered within one month. At issue is whether ministry leaders use their tax-exempt status to live lavish lifestyles. I would counter with the question: who said they should live in poverty? Executives of major corporations as big as some ministries get larger salaries. Why shouldn’t these men and women? My second question is why is the Senate doing this? Admittedly there are tax implications. But…seriously…the Senate? The IRS has their own courts for issues such as these.

(…I think the government may be making a move to get more money from the church…which is really kind of dumb…if you give to a church for the tax deduction, I wonder if you are even giving it to God in the first place…)


And, finally, the National ID plan has hit a bunch of snags. Resitsance is ciming from several quarters, now.

One reason is the price tag, estimated at $14.6 billion. Congress has so far appropriated only $40 million and twice this summer voted against additional funding.

This is on top of conservative resistance because of invasion of privacy concerns. And (…are you sitting down?...) event the ACLU has come out against the program, claiming is too watered down to accomplish anything.

(…yeah, I know…they would still go for it…but take the support where you can find it…eh?...)