Is it me or Obamacare?

There have been a few things happening worth talking about, but no new activity for a while. So here is a question regarding Obamacare: What are the chances that the taxes, etc. that will be collected over the next four years to help pay for Obamacare will be saved up and available to actually help pay for the costs of Obamacare once the four years are up? I believe that whatever gets collected will be spent, and not on Obamacare. Since the Government has no discipline to dedicate and segregate money collected for a specific purpose (see Social Security), we can add those misappropriated dollars (for at least four years) to the cost of the Obamacare bill. What say you?

Health Tort Reform - Conservative?

This is my attempt to catch up to the 29 comments that were on the last post. Rich asked for comments from Devin and me on tort reform. There was some good discussion.

Tort reform is one area where party politics takes, perhaps, a different path than political philosophy.

Republicans like the idea of tort reform. Democrats don't. The plaintiff bar is squarely on the side of Democrats as evidenced by the money they contribute to that party. The defense industry is in the Republican camp. Plaintiff's lawyers and malpractice insurers need each other in order to keep dragging in the huge fees and monster premiums that each side keeps as a reward and shares with the political party that favors them in the never-ending game.

But what about conservatives and liberals? What about libertarianism in the tort-reform debate? For instance, one of the more popular methods of tort reform (and one that has been in place in Utah for several years) is a cap on awards, coupled with a sharing of the spoils with the State. Over a certain level, punitive damages go half to the State, then all to the State after another ceiling is reached. Doesn't sound very conservative to me. Should a doctor be held individually to account, monetarily, for the damage that doctor does to a patient when the standard of care is breached (sounds conservative / libertarian to me), or should a fixed dollar amount be handed out to anyone who can show themselves injured by any healthcare provider in the system?

It is amazing how quickly philosophical consistency is tossed to the side when a short-term opportunity to score points or defend the ball presents itself in the party ballgame. I would be interested to hear how y'all perceive tort reform on a philosophical spectrum, and whether you think philosophical consistency should, in this case, be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. (Can you tell how I feel by the way I asked the question?)

The Beauties of Health Savings Accounts

In the context of the ongoing debate about how to fix America's health care system, Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana, wrote an excellent, timely piece today in the Wall Street Journal that was eye-opening for me. He first highlights the benefits of health savings accounts not with partisan talking points, but with independently cited facts, figures, and good ole' common sense. Here's the link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704231304575091600470293066.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

After citing many compelling statistics, he concludes:

"The Indiana experience confirms what common sense already tells us: A system built on "cost-plus" reimbursement (i.e., the more a physician does, the more he or she gets paid) coupled with "free" to the purchaser consumption, is a machine perfectly designed to overconsume and overspend. It will never be controlled by top-down balloon-squeezing by insurance companies or the government. There will be no meaningful cost control until we are all cost controllers in our own right."

For my part, I don't think HSA's are the end-all solution for our broken health care system (tort reform and portability across state lines are necessary as well), but they would certainly go a long way towards controlling and decreasing spiraling costs, as Mitch Daniels has illustrated with Indiana's experience. I recommend that everyone read the article and comment.

When the Shoe is on the other Foot: Reconciliation

There's a lot of talk out there that congressional democrats in the Senate want to use the process known as "reconciliation" to ram the White House's new health care bill through because they lack the 60 votes necessary to end the debate and filibuster. Reconciliation, created in 1974, was originally meant to be a legislative measure aimed at passing proposed presidential budgets through congress without a threat of a filibuster, and it only requires 51 votes instead of 60 to avoid a filibuster and end debate.

Anyway, I came across this video on Breitbart.tv that shows how democratic senators reacted when a republican majority threatened to use reconciliation in 2005, or "the nuclear option," to end a democratic filibuster. It's interesting to see the 180 degree about-face when the shoe is on the democratic foot only 5 years later. I thought Joe Biden's quote from the video was interesting: "I pray God when the democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."



Bottom line: I don't like reconciliation. I don't like it whether it be republicans or democrats who threaten to use it. The filibuster is one of the greatest checks to unbridled tyranny of the majority that this country has, no matter what party controls. What do you guys think?

Thoughts On TARP, or the 'Bailouts'

I am trying to form my opinion on the bailouts that cost the tax payers, so far, over a trillion dollars. When Geithner, Poulson (I'm a huge fan of his), Bush, Bernanke, and all the other people decided to let Lehman fail, the world almost came to an end. If memory serves, AIG would have been the next to go since they now had to pay out on all of the Lehman bonds they insured. Before Lehman declared bankruptcy we helped out, or nationalized, Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie. Apparently the government didn't think Lehman was interconnected enough, or the moral hazard was too high. Either way, after Lehman they changed their mind and paid out billions to companies that did, and some that did not, want the money.

I think the problems were with us and the banks. Some people say it's the banks fault for letting us get loans on homes double what they're worth, so they should have to repay the mortgage. I know this will be a sensitive subject to some, but how could either side see it coming? For the same reason that everyone and their dog wanted to buy a house, because it was gonna make everyone tons of money when they flipped it, the banks didn't anticipate homes losing as much money as they did. Likewise, it is our fault for thinking we could pay a mortgage with payments which increase over time, because we thought we'd be making more money or it would work itself out. People with sub-600 credit scores were getting loans, and though it was still that individual's decision to make the purchase, the banks and loan officers were getting too greedy. Plenty of blame can be thrown either way, but I don't think anyone can argue that it was just our fault, or just the bank's fault. Is it only fair that we now help the banks?

2 questions:

1. Should we have bailed out these companies? There is no question in my mind that the bailouts helped us today. I think our financial markets would have been absolutely destroyed today if it hadn't happened. My biggest reason for asking: did we just delay the inevitable and make our day of reckoning worse?

2. GM has a horrible corporate structure, and few companies can be profitable with pensions like the ones they offer. Especially in these markets. Unions need to be done with...forever. Do you think GM or Chrysler deserved the bailout?

Like I said, I'm just trying to educate myself with everyone else's point of view and knowledge. Throw all the facts and links at me that you can.

Has Biden Totally Lost It?

I was just wondering if anybody heard about Joe Biden's recent interview where he took credit for the success in Iraq as "one of this administration's greatest achievements"?

Now I've been one of this current administration's harshest critics from the outset (even during the campaign), so it goes without saying that I think he's just totally full of it (even more than usual--if that's even possible, lol), but I'm curious to hear everyone else's reaction to it. Is there even any credibility left to lose at this point, or is that why Biden thought he could get away with such an audaciously idiotic statement (given his ardent OPPOSITION to the surge and everything Bush did in Iraq literally the entire freaking time!!)...since people don't even take them seriously anymore, anyway?

I guess there's two questions here: 1) is there any credibility left to lose for Obama, and 2) if so, then to what extent does that outright, two-faced (I mean they blame all the bad stuff on Bush, yet somehow they get to take credit for his greatest success...really?) lie hinder it. I mean it is Joe Biden, after all...

President's Day

Tomorrow we celebrate Presidents' Day. We have lots to be grateful for by way of this country's chief executives. As I mentioned before, I am appreciating Bill Clinton more and more, so when he went to the hospital last week with a heart problem, it was a concern, especially given the many good things he has done in his post-presidency (some in tandem with George H.W. Bush).

The genius of America, though is not that we have been graced by wonderful statesmen as chief executives. Rather, it is that we have been graced with a system that empowers true leaders, restrains would-be tyrants, and reveals incompetents.

Sarah Palin's Hand

I did not watch the tea party conference or Sarah Palin's keynote speech. However, I have seen lots of news shows, slanting both right and left, that cannot stop talking about the notes that Palin had on her hand at the conference. The quantity and quality of both the right and left news coverage about this seemingly minor issue is baffling. Can't these guys think of something more news-worthy than this? The media obsession with this lady, on both sides, is getting out of control.

I do not wish to defend Palin here, or make excuses for her. However, I do wish to call out the many lefties in the news and on TV who have skewered her for this small, hand-written outline. I think it is disingenuous and hypocritical for attacking Sarah Palin about the handwritten reminders on her hand when Pres. Obama can't even address a bunch of sixth graders without using his beloved teleprompter. Although Obama's heavy reliance on the teleprompter is understandable. When he doesn't have it and when he's just talking off the cuff, he's either talking about putting infants on breathalyzers, making fun of handicapped people, or digging holes for himself by telling the Cambridge Police Dept. how stupid they are.

Look, President Bush was certainly not blessed with the ability to even speak coherently at times (my personal favorite was the botched "fool me once" line - classic). President Obama is a very talented orator. Sarah Palin is not, nor is she as up to par substantively as she needs to be. She knows this, and recognizes it as a weakness. But my question is this: is it worse to jot down a few reminders on your palm to help you remember what you'd like to say, or to have every single word laid out for you on the teleprompter. Many lefties in the news referred to Palin's palm notes as "cheating." If palm notes are "cheating," then what is the teleprompter?

From where do you come?

This is not a political post, so I hope nobody finds it inappropriate. Nic just found out that Creighton lives in his neck of the woods, and it caused me to wonder about everyones' background. I'm curious what life experience and education everyone is bringing to the table, and the states in which you live.

As for me:

I am attending Arizona State University (Phoenix, AZ), have a Bachelor's in Business Management, and will receive my second Bachelor's in Biological Sciences next year while I wait to hear back from medical schools. My work experience consists of sales and management of sales teams.

No children, but a wife of just over two years. She is in the last year of her Physician's Assistant program at Midwestern University.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I have to admit my bias before I even begin this post. I believe homosexuals are severely mistreated in our country today, and I don't find them to be evil. The homosexuals I know are good, honest, loving people. I also do not believe homosexuality is a choice, or a consequence of upbringing. I believe it is either genetic, or due to some kind of chemical imbalance during development in the womb.

From what I understand, the don't ask don't tell policy allows homosexuals to serve in the military only if they do not disclose they are homosexual. One such homosexual who wanted to serve his country said earlier today, "why am I refused the opportunity to serve and defend my country because of who I am?" I agree. I understand that some homosexuals may be mistreated if they join the military, but I believe the military could implement new rules as to the treatment of fellow gay soldiers. I do not think sexual orientation should stop someone from being allowed to serve in our country's military. What do you guys think?