More on Health Care

So I think more information has come out about the new Obama Care, and I wanted to share some opinions about what I like and dislike. Here's part of a news article:

House Democrats on Tuesday rolled out a far-reaching $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans, with medical providers, employers and the wealthiest picking up most of the tab.
The federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.
Health care overhaul is President Barack Obama's top domestic priority, and his goal is to slow rising costs and provide coverage to nearly 50 million uninsured Americans. Democratic leaders said they would push the measure through committee and toward a vote in the full House by month's end, while the pace of activity quickened on the other side of the Capitol.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wanted floor debate to begin a week from Monday. Other officials said that timetable was likely to slip. Even so, it underscored a renewed sense of urgency.
The House legislation unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats would slow the growth of Medicare and Medicaid payments to medical providers. From big hospitals to solo physician practices, providers also would be held to account for quality care, not just ordering up tests and procedures. Insurance companies would be prohibited from denying coverage to the sick. The industry also would face stiff competition from a new government plan designed along the lines of Medicare.
The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations.
The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.
House leaders want to move quicklyWith Obama pressing Congress to act on health care this summer, House leaders want to move their bill quickly through three committees and to a floor vote before the August congressional recess. But a group of moderate and conservative Democrats has withheld support, and no Republican votes are expected. The House bill seemed unlikely to win broad backing in the Senate.
The House bill seemed unlikely to win broad backing in the Senate, where the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was expected to finish its version of the legislation Wednesday in what was looking to be a party-line vote. Another panel, the Senate Finance Committee, was striving to unveil a bill by the end of the week. But the outlook in the Senate remained uncertain.
Standing before a banner that read "Quality Affordable Care for the Middle Class," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the moment "historic and transformative." The bill would provide "stability and peace of mind" by braking costs and guaranteeing coverage, she said.
"We are going to accomplish what many people felt wouldn't happen in our lifetime," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., one of the main sponsors. Obama issued a statement hailing the measure.
Speaking in Warren, Mich., where he was promoting new spending for community colleges, Obama anticipated a congressional confrontation over health care.
"There's going to be a major debate over the next three weeks," he said, deviating from his prepared text. "And don't be fooled by folks trying to scare you saying we can't change the health care system.We have no choice but to change the health care system because right now it's broken for too many Americans."
Separately, Obama spoke by telephone with Sen. Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican viewed as critical to the fate of bipartisan negotiations in the Senate.
Democrats said the income tax increase would apply only to the top 1.2 percent of households, those who earn about one-quarter of all income. The wealthiest 4 percent of small business owners would be among them. The tax would start at 1 percent for couples making $350,000 and individuals earning $280,000, ramp up to 1.5 percent above $500,000 of income, and jump to 5.4 percent for those earning above $1 million.
The tax would raise an estimated $544 billion over 10 years.

Things I like: Health care does need to be changed, and it's been largely ignored for a very long time. I have heard a lot of horror stories about people who could not afford coverage and then had some medical condition or accident hit them and they had no choice but to file for bankruptcy. So I applaud the democrats for taking on the issue. I also like how the new system will be a lot like that of France's with a couple of differences. In France everybody pays 10% and everyone is insured by the federal government to a basic level with option to purchase additional private health insurance. In this system only the rich pays for it. My feeling would be to tax some behaviors that lead to health problems much like the tobacco tax, say a junk food tax. I believe that would raise far more money than just taxing the rich and also place the burden more on the shoulders of the people that would benefit from the new system. I also like how people with preexisting conditions will now be able to get coverage.

Things I don't like: I don't feel very good about enforcing a penalty tax of $1,000 a year on people who elect not to get coverage. I don't like placing almost the entire burden of the poor's health care just on the wealthy. I don't like how fast they want to shove this through the system. I don't know about spending even more money during a recession. And I'm sure a lot of you have a lot more objections than that. And I'd like to hear about them. And if you can think of any positives at all I'd like to hear those too.

The Battle over Health Care Reform

I'll admit that I'm not well-versed on all the issues in this debate, but I know some of you are, so I wanted to get your comments and insights. Here is insight #1 I picked up from a co-worker who is an Iraqi War Vet:

We were discussing the topic of health care over lunch one day. Another co-worker asked him why he hopes Pres. Obama's health care reforms don't pass. He simply replied, "go spend a day at the VA Hospital and I guarantee you wouldn't hope the reforms pass either." He then outlined a long laundry list of the problems he's experienced firsthand that result when the government bureaucracy comes between doctors and their patients. It was a real (scary) eye-opener for me.

Insight #2: On ABC's "Prescription For America" program, completely unbiased as the name indicates, a neurologist really put Obama on the spot. He suggested that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public while they themselves are secure in the knowledge that if they or their loved ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it's not provided by insurance. The neurologist then asked Obama if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick, noting that various independent studies show that Obama's proposed "public option" would actually limit tests and treatments. Visibly flustered by the question, Obama refused to make the promise and quickly changed the subject. Ouch - I'm sure this didn't help the marketing campaign for Obamacare, especially coming off the heels of Obama's personal physician for 22 years, Dr. David Scheiner, coming out and saying, "I'm not sure he really understands what we face in primary care."

For my part, I'm naturally skeptical of a government takeover of anything (as you'll remember from reading my posts about GM), especially if it comes with a CBO-announced price tag of another 1.6 trillion over the next decade. I'm puzzled why so many believe that more money, higher taxes, and more government involvement in our lives will magically solve all of our problems. Throw more money and more government regulation at the problem, and it will go away. I'm not convinced that this is an effective approach. The patience of the public is growing thin. How many billions/trillions has the government spent trying to turn the economy around? Yet the unemployment rate continues to spike. While I realize there are problems with the health care status quo, things could be much worse . . .

Herding Cats

Last Thursday night I attended a meeting at Mt. Logan Middle School. About 150 people attended. It was sponsored by the "Independent Caucus" and included several speeches and presentations, generally designed to tap into dissatisfaction with the way things are going in the country.

While I was sitting in between two friends, I penned the following observation:

"Getting large numbers of people who believe in independence to unite in a common cause is like herding cats."

That occurred to me because each speaker, in turn, was admonishing people in the audience to get out and protect the Constitution and their rights against intrusion and interference. But when asked what specifically a person can or should do, they seemed stumped. To their credit, they did not say "Follow me blindly and help me throw off the yoke of despotism." But this dilemma is an organic obstacle to well-organized resistance to socialism. Those who oppose governmental control of their lives are by the same nature disinclined to commit their loyalty to any political organization.

Government Motors and the Law of Unintended Consequences

If anyone still reads this blog, you probably know GM is bankrupt, and after [another] 30 billion dollars down the drain, Obama has made sure that the federal government will be the majority shareholder when all is said and done. So what will the future hold? Here's a sneak peak. . .

Now that the government has its sought-after mechanism to coerce us into smaller, more fuel efficient hybrid cars, despite their weak demand and high prices, expect to be called 'unpatriotic' if you have the nerve to get behind the wheel of a gas-guzzling truck or SUV. Forgive the pun, but is there a better vehicle to kick-start the government's "enlightened" green energy policies than to nationalize the country's largest auto company? How will the government protect "our" investment (aka bailouts)? Here comes the parade of inevitables . . .

Declining sales of Chevy's and Hemi's will prompt tax breaks for their buyers and higher taxes for those who buy other brands. Then tariffs on imports will go up, and foreign factories in the U.S. will be subject to Value Added Taxes to subsidize unsold government cars, leading to a trade war. And because the federal government has no clue how to operate anything for a profit, the taxpayers will continue to subsidize the losses of Government Motors: tens of billions more coming in bailouts. And because the money supply is finite, the only way for GM to succeed in the long run will be if the government substantially reduces competition from foreign brands and jacks up gas taxes. Higher gas prices will then push Ford into bankruptcy (its profitable truck and SUV sales are keeping it afloat). Michael Moore is already on the war path, pushing for an additional $2 per gallon gas tax, and I'm not even kidding - check his website.

So can the Obama administration assume that GM consumers will remain loyal after the government takeover? Don't hold your breath. When your favorite restaurant comes under new ownership, and that ownership is notorious for serving bad food elsewhere, do you keep eating there? Maybe if you want food poisoning. I predict that many consumers have bought their last GM product. Why?

Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises put it this way: "The real bosses in the capitalist system are the consumers. By their buying and abstention of buying, they decide who should own the capital and run the plants. They determine what should be produced and in what quantity and quality. They are no easy bosses. They are full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. They do not care a whit for past merit. As soon as something is offered to them that they like better or that is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors. With them nothing counts more than their own satisfaction."

Which cars will better "satisfy" consumers - those produced by a government-owned and operated company, or those cars produced by a privately-owned company? As long as there are better alternatives to what the government puts out (bet on it!), GM will never be profitable. Therefore, Obama will have to monopolize most of the U.S. auto fleet to truly succeed with GM. Half-way measures won't do. Just ask USPS about their competitive disadvantages in operating against FedEx, UPS, etc. Either get out now, or go all in! I think you already know which option I prefer :)

Obama taking on the Base

Despite the cartoon (sorry, I just couldn't resist) this post actually compliments Obama. This past week, he made a couple of tough decisions which have inflamed the ACLU, other human rights organizations, and much of the liberal base. He has reversed on his promise to release several controversial photos of detainees because, according to Obama, "the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger." It was reported that this was actually the belief of his top military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan who were concerned less about politics and more concerned about saving American lives. They urged the President to reconsider his position, which he did.

The second decision was to restart the Bush-era military tribunals - which Obama halted by executive order during his first week in office. Regarding this policy reversal, Obama said, "These reforms will begin to restore the commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law. This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values." Contrast this statement with something he said on the compaign trail when he described Guantanamo tribunals as "a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict any one of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges."

Amnesty International's Larry Cox is ticked. "President Obama is reinstating the same deeply-flawed military commissions that in June 2008 he called an 'enormous failure.' In one swift move, Obama both backtracks on a major campaign promise to change the way the United States fights terrorism and undermines the nation's core respect for the rule of law by sacrificing due process for political expediency."

So I'm curious, what is really going on here? Was it really 'politically expedient' for Obama to make these decisions? It doesn't seem like it. It seems, based on the leftist critics, that he's departing from campaign promises of transparency, accountability, and a different direction than Bush. I personally applaud President Obama for these two moves. He showed real courage knowing that he would upset the liberal base. This was also a step towards more Presidential maturity. I think he has come to realize that it is one thing to talk big on the campaign trail. But if staying true to some of these campaign promises means endangering American lives in the real world, I'm glad he decided that it was more important to protect those lives than to appease the party base. To me, these developments are encouraging. What do you guys think?

Was Pelosi Dishonest?

I'm sure many of you will be surprised, I'm actually not quite sure on this one. Here's her original statement with the conservative spin:



So are they being unfair? Was it reasonable for her to wait until they come and tell her after they've actually done it before she will give an OK? Was that ex post facto-type entrapment, where she's egging them on by not expressing initial disapproval so they can illegalize it later and then arrest everyone? I'm not quite sure what to make of this to be honest.

Heated Interview

This post doesn't really have a purpose, I just wanted to show you guys this heated interview because it's just intense and I think it's kind of funny:

Carrie Prejean and Liberal Double Standards

I'd like to make a few comments about the recent Miss America controversy. For those who aren't up to speed on it, here's a quick vidcap:



By now you all know I'm conservative, so my feelings on this aren't exactly a mystery. However, in this case my discomfort runs deeper--I think--than mere conservatism. As I mentioned in my comment on the previous post, I think there are common standards of decency that apply across the board, whether you're liberal or conservative. One of the most important ones, I think, is consistency, which I think has been violated by many of the left with a glaring double standard. Here's another video which I think illustrates my point:



So here's my question: can you imagine Martin Luther King trying to make sure that his civil rights movement applied ONLY TO BLACK LIBERALS? To be fair I can understand the uneasy feelings feminists have about the whole pageant scene because it degrades women, but as you saw on that clip that's not what they really have a problem with. If it were the other way around, for example, and a conservative judge wasn't happy with a liberal contestant's answer, this feminist would be outraged. In short, I think it's clear that only women who sympathize with the entire liberal agenda are "worthy" of the benefits of feminism, at least to this particular feminist. So again, isn't that the equivalent of M.L.K. achieving conditional civil rights only for black people who have certain beliefs? Would that even make any sense? And if not, then why would it be any different for feminism? Isn't it just another civil rights issue? I thought part of the reason M.L.K.'s movement caught on was because it harmonized with the Declaration of Independence that you don't have to earn rights because "all men are created equal" and that they are all "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"? If I'm not mistaken, M.L.K. actually quoted the Declaration in his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Maybe I'm just not supposed to understand it because I'm a conservative, but I still can't see how such a stance can do anything but hurt her cause...am I wrong?

But here's the funny thing about all this: if anything Carrie Prejean has only benefitted from all of this. I think she's actually better off now than if she had actually won the pageant, because nobody would even be talking about her. But thanks to all this controversy, she's on the news all the time now. Anyway, I just think it's ironic that Perez Hilton actually jump-started her career in the process of trying to destroy it. I guess it's like they say, there's no such thing as "bad publicity," though I guess that also applies (unfortunately) to Perez Hilton. For the record, though, I think Prejean came out on top.

Finding an "Empathetic" Replacement for Souter

President Obama will soon release the name. The pundits are predicting that it will likely be a female from a different ethnic background. I’m fine with that, as long as she is otherwise qualified. So what are important qualifications that Obama looks for in a perspective Supreme Court judge? Here’s a quote from 2007 with some commentary from me in brackets:

“We need somebody who’s got the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American [um, like Thurgood Marshall or Clarence Thomas?] or gay or disabled or old [aren’t all the current judges except maybe Roberts and Alito “old?”]. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” And now one from this week: “I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

To me, “empathy” sounds more like code for an activist judge. An empathetic, activist judge is one who really has no qualms about bending the law or making new law to arrive at his or her preferred outcome. In my opinion, this offends fundamental separation of powers principles upon which our country was established. It is the legislature’s job to make laws, the executive’s to enforce them, and the judicial’s to interpret the Constitution, the laws that Congress passes, and apply them neutrally and fairly to the facts of each case. If the people feel that the laws unfairly favor certain groups over the other, they are certainly free to lobby those in Congress who are their direct representatives, not those sitting on the bench, to get them changed. That is why we have the democratic process in the first place.

So here are some questions that (hopefully) illustrate some problems that an “empathetic” judicial philosophy may present. Should the determination of a case turn on whether the plaintiff or defendant is rich or poor, citizen or alien, teenage mom or disabled grandma? Would you want to go before a judge who has “empathy” for Party X if they are on the opposite side? Would you get a fair shake? Doesn’t the Constitution guarantee to all persons equal protection of the laws? Wouldn’t the protection just be more equal for some parties than others with an “empathetic” court, and therefore by definition, be inherently unequal? Wouldn’t this damage the social confidence in the impartiality of the legal system?

Lady Justice is blind for a reason. In resolving a dispute, a truly neutral judge should not see or recognize the personal features of the parties that bear no relationship to the actual merits of the case. The rule of law and due process require nothing less. Forsaking this conception of judicial blindness to “empathize” with the vulnerabilities of the preferred tips the scales of justice in their favor before the case even begins. It is for the lawmakers and the attorneys to be “empathetic,” not judges. I recognize that every judge will naturally be biased towards certain parties. I’m just saying that these biases should not determine how they rule in cases. The law applied to the facts should be determinative.

Former S.C. Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes understood this. A friend once told him to “do justice sir, do justice.” Holmes replied, “That is not my job. My job is to apply the law. I see that the game is played according to the rules whether I like them or not.” Current Chief Justice Roberts compared his role to that of a baseball umpire, calling balls and strikes based on the rules of the game. If you give me the choice between a judge with this philosophy versus an “empathetic” judge who favors some people above others, I’d take the former any day. But that is just me. Obama has a different opinion, which is fine, and I recognize that whoever he nominates will easily be confirmed by the Senate. To the victor go the spoils. Am I reading too deep into this? What are your thoughts? Sorry for the lengthy post.

Is the GOP on its way out?

I want to relate two stories, and hopefully tie them together. This post is not an attack on republicans by the way.

A week ago I was listening to Utah Public Radio and heard a story about Governor Huntsman. Here is the story:

"Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., sometimes mentioned as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, got an early taste of party politics, Michigan style, this week when an invitation to appear at a Kent County Republican event in Grand Rapids was abruptly retracted.
Huntsman, serving his second term in the most Republican state in the country, apparently got crosswise with Kent County political leaders because of his endorsement earlier this year of civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.On Tuesday, Gary Glenn, chairman of the Campaign for Michigan Families and a prominent supporter of the state’s marriage amendment in 2004, issued a statement of his own on the disinvitation to Huntsman that said “Kent County’s principled stand sends a strong message nationwide that grassroots conservatives will not embrace liberals who want to abandon the GOP platform’s commitment to traditional family values.”
Other Michigan Republicans, who spoke on a condition of anonymity, said the brouhaha over the Huntsman invitation and snub perpetuates an image of the party as dominated by social conservatives unwilling to entertain opposing views."

And here's story #2.

Arlen Specter on Sunday defended his stunning defection to the Democratic Party and urged Republican leaders to stand up to right-wing activists seeking to purge moderates from their party. In a pair of televised interviews, the 29-year Senate veteran and now Democrat from Pennsylvania said his decision to switch parties was a principled one, that Democrats did not promise him anything other than allowing him to keep his seniority and that the GOP should broaden its tent. “There’s more than being reelected here,” Specter, who concluded he could not win a GOP primary next year, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “There’s the factor of principle. The Republican Party has gone far to the right since I joined it under Reagan’s big tent.”

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume Arlen Specter's decision to leave the dark side was purely motivated by the fact he could not get reelected as a republican after voting for the stimulus package.

Let me tie these two together with a question...is the republican party getting too conservative to be competitive in national politics? In the latest Quinnipiac (KWIN'-ah-pee-ack) University poll By a 55 to 38% margin, respondents say they don't want same-sex couples to marry in their states. But they do favor -- by a slightly larger margin -- allowing civil unions. So is the fact that the party platform of no civil unions - not just for gays and lesbians but any two adults like brother and sister benefiting financially from a civil union - being left behind by the rest of America?

Recently a few republicans have gotten together with the likes of Eric Cantor, Mitt Romney, and Jeb Bush on what they call The National Council for a New America. Here's what FoxNews had to say about the Grand Old Party Party.

"Republicans, who have suffered two consecutive electoral beatings in Congress and a Senate defection this week, launched on Saturday the first of a series of forums and town hall meetings to engage the American public in policy discussion. The GOP leaders have their work cut out out for them. A recent Pew poll found that 22 percent of voters now identify themselves as Republicans compared with 35 percent who say they are Democrats. That is a severe drop-off from the same poll five years ago, which showed Republicans at 30 percent, only down three to Democrats."

Where did the GOP go wrong? What will be the new direction for the party? I'm curious to see what you guys have to say, considering you're all the conservatives. From what I can gather from speaking to conservatives and listening to the likes of Hannity and Rush on the radio, they are happy with the job Bush did with national security, but think he blew it in terms of fiscal conservatism and growing the size of government. Will the GOP ever make a comeback, or are they out like the Wiggs?