Poll after poll shows that people, by and large, have made up their minds about current health care reform legislation. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 36 percent said they believed Obama's health-care plan was a good idea while 48 percent called it a bad one, leaving just 15 percent without an opinion. The trend for a year has been that opposition runs in the upper 40%, support runs in the low 40% . If congress voted proportionally the same, no such legislation would pass.
So why is there concern?
Many congressmen will not vote according to their constituent's wishes.
So why won't they?
They have political motives of self interest and/or they believe they know better what's good for Americans.
Isn't that a bit harsh?
Compare the benefits rendered to a one-time congressman, legislated by congress for themselves, to the benefits of a common citizen. Compare the application of health systems, retirement benefits, security and government entitlements.
The American public is divided over this bill -- what's in it, what it will do, whether it's the right thing -- but not at all unclear on how they feel about it.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
To Congress
To congressmen, with love!
These votes you make on health care reform today are going to be stories to tell your children and great-grandchildren. This could be one of the big moments in your political life; don't make it your last!
These votes you make on health care reform today are going to be stories to tell your children and great-grandchildren. This could be one of the big moments in your political life; don't make it your last!
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Global Warming - Duh?
| Systemic Information Failure Events Trigger New Call for EPA to Reconsider its Global Warming Decision   In two separate filings Tuesday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute challenged massive energy regulations forthcoming from the Environmental Protection Agency. The actions come in the wake of damaging disclosures this week by Phil Jones, head of the disgraced British Climate Research Unit, who reversed himself on several basic issues in a BBC interview. CEI, along with nonprofit ally FreedomWorks and the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), filed a lawsuit in federal appeals court challenging EPA plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The lawsuit asks the court to review the EPA’s regulation. In addition, CEI joined with SEPP and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change in updating its petition demanding that EPA reconsider its decision. Feburary 2010 |
William Wordsworth (1770-1850) |
It began as: Original English : "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that thy are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government....." It was ordered to: Original Newspeak : Times 3.12.83 reporting bb dayorder doubleplusungood refs unperson rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling [Translation of above order:] English Translation : The reporting of Big Brother's "Order of the Day" in the Times of December 3rd 1983 is extremely unsatisfactory and makes reference to nonexistent persons. Rewrite it in full and submit your draft to higher authority before filing. And ended as: crimethink - To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of...[sic. the government]. Doubting any of the principles of [sic. the government] All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. Eric Arthur Blair (1903–1950) A.K.A. pen name George Orwell |
Monday, March 15, 2010
These are segments of a Washington OP-ED about Health Reform plus separate personal commentary at the end.
Obama's illusions of cost-control
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, March 15, 2010 Click here to read the original
Almost everything you think you know about health care is probably wrong or, at least, half wrong.
"What we need from the next president is somebody who will not just tell you what they think you want to hear but will tell you what you need to hear."
-- Barack Obama, Feb. 27, 2008
One job of presidents is to educate Americans about crucial national problems. On health care, Barack Obama has failed. Almost everything you think you know about health care is probably wrong or, at least, half wrong. Great simplicities and distortions have been peddled in the name of achieving "universal health coverage." The miseducation has worsened as the debate approaches its climax.
How often, for example, have you heard the emergency-room argument? The uninsured, it's said, use emergency rooms for primary care. That's expensive and ineffective. Once they're insured, they'll have regular doctors. Care will improve; costs will decline. Everyone wins. Great argument. Unfortunately, it's untrue.
A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency-room visits, reflecting their share of the population. After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency-room use remained higher than the national average, an Urban Institute study found. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Of those, a majority of adult respondents to a survey said it was "more convenient" to go to the emergency room or they couldn't "get [a doctor's] appointment as soon as needed." If universal coverage makes appointments harder to get, emergency-room use may increase.
You probably think that insuring the uninsured will dramatically improve the nation's health. The uninsured don't get care or don't get it soon enough. With insurance, they won't be shortchanged; they'll be healthier. Simple.
...expanding health insurance would result,at best, in modest health gains.
Think again. I've written before that expanding health insurance would result, at best, in modest health gains. Studies of insurance's effects on health are hard to perform. Some find benefits; others don't. Medicare's introduction in 1966 produced no reduction in mortality; some studies of extensions of Medicaid for children didn't find gains. In the Atlantic recently, economics writer Megan McArdle examined the literature and emerged skeptical. Claims that the uninsured suffer tens of thousands of premature deaths are "open to question." Conceivably, the "lack of health insurance has no more impact on your health than lack of flood insurance," she writes.
How could this be? No one knows, but possible explanations include:
(a) many uninsured are fairly healthy -- about two-fifths are age 18 to 34;
(b) some are too sick to be helped or have problems rooted in personal behaviors -- smoking,diet, drinking or drug abuse; and (c) the uninsured already receive 50 to 70 percent of the care of the insured from hospitals, clinics and doctors, estimates the Congressional Budget Office.
Though it seems compelling, covering the uninsured is not the health-care system's major problem. The big problem is uncontrolled spending, which prices people out of the market and burdens government budgets. Obama claims his proposal checks spending. Just the opposite. When people get insurance, they use more health services. Spending rises. By the government's latest forecast, health spending goes from 17 percent of the economy in 2009 to 19 percent in 2019. Health "reform" would probably increase that.
Unless we change the fee-for-service system, costs will remain hard to control because providers are paid more for doing more. Obama might have attempted that by proposing health-care vouchers (limited amounts to be spent on insurance), which would force a restructuring of delivery systems to compete on quality and cost. Doctors, hospitals and drug companies would have to reorganize care. Obama refrained from that fight and instead cast insurance companies as the villains.
He's telling people what they want to hear, not what they need to know. Whatever their sins, insurers are mainly intermediaries; they pass along the costs of the delivery system. In 2009, the largest 14 insurers had profits of roughly $9 billion; that approached 0.4 percent of total health spending of $2.472 trillion. This hardly explains high health costs. What people need to know is that Obama's plan evades health care's major problems and would worsen the budget outlook. It's a big new spending program when government hasn't paid for the spending programs it already has.
"If not now, when? If not us, who?" Obama asks. The answer is: It's not now, and it's not "us." Pass or not, Obama's proposal is the illusion of "reform," not the real thing.
What people need to know is that Obama's plan evades health care's major problems and would worsen the budget outlook.
[Ed.Note:]
There at least three other very good reasons to avoid further government in health care issues.
The government performace track record:
Financial Help Failures!
Healthcare or Insurance?
failing government programs
We don't know what this bill does!
Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)[H.R.3590.IH]
[PDF]
2 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
[H.R.3590.EH]
[PDF]
3 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)
[H.R.3590.PCS][
PDF]
4 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Amendment in Senate)
[H.R.3590.AS]
[PDF]
5 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Print)
[H.R.3590.PP][
PDF]
6 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate)
[H.R.3590.EAS][
PDF]
Obama's illusions of cost-control
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, March 15, 2010 Click here to read the original
Almost everything you think you know about health care is probably wrong or, at least, half wrong.
"What we need from the next president is somebody who will not just tell you what they think you want to hear but will tell you what you need to hear."
-- Barack Obama, Feb. 27, 2008
One job of presidents is to educate Americans about crucial national problems. On health care, Barack Obama has failed. Almost everything you think you know about health care is probably wrong or, at least, half wrong. Great simplicities and distortions have been peddled in the name of achieving "universal health coverage." The miseducation has worsened as the debate approaches its climax.
How often, for example, have you heard the emergency-room argument? The uninsured, it's said, use emergency rooms for primary care. That's expensive and ineffective. Once they're insured, they'll have regular doctors. Care will improve; costs will decline. Everyone wins. Great argument. Unfortunately, it's untrue.
A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency-room visits, reflecting their share of the population. After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency-room use remained higher than the national average, an Urban Institute study found. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Of those, a majority of adult respondents to a survey said it was "more convenient" to go to the emergency room or they couldn't "get [a doctor's] appointment as soon as needed." If universal coverage makes appointments harder to get, emergency-room use may increase.
You probably think that insuring the uninsured will dramatically improve the nation's health. The uninsured don't get care or don't get it soon enough. With insurance, they won't be shortchanged; they'll be healthier. Simple.
...expanding health insurance would result,at best, in modest health gains.
Think again. I've written before that expanding health insurance would result, at best, in modest health gains. Studies of insurance's effects on health are hard to perform. Some find benefits; others don't. Medicare's introduction in 1966 produced no reduction in mortality; some studies of extensions of Medicaid for children didn't find gains. In the Atlantic recently, economics writer Megan McArdle examined the literature and emerged skeptical. Claims that the uninsured suffer tens of thousands of premature deaths are "open to question." Conceivably, the "lack of health insurance has no more impact on your health than lack of flood insurance," she writes.
How could this be? No one knows, but possible explanations include:
(a) many uninsured are fairly healthy -- about two-fifths are age 18 to 34;
(b) some are too sick to be helped or have problems rooted in personal behaviors -- smoking,diet, drinking or drug abuse; and (c) the uninsured already receive 50 to 70 percent of the care of the insured from hospitals, clinics and doctors, estimates the Congressional Budget Office.
Though it seems compelling, covering the uninsured is not the health-care system's major problem. The big problem is uncontrolled spending, which prices people out of the market and burdens government budgets. Obama claims his proposal checks spending. Just the opposite. When people get insurance, they use more health services. Spending rises. By the government's latest forecast, health spending goes from 17 percent of the economy in 2009 to 19 percent in 2019. Health "reform" would probably increase that.
Unless we change the fee-for-service system, costs will remain hard to control because providers are paid more for doing more. Obama might have attempted that by proposing health-care vouchers (limited amounts to be spent on insurance), which would force a restructuring of delivery systems to compete on quality and cost. Doctors, hospitals and drug companies would have to reorganize care. Obama refrained from that fight and instead cast insurance companies as the villains.
He's telling people what they want to hear, not what they need to know. Whatever their sins, insurers are mainly intermediaries; they pass along the costs of the delivery system. In 2009, the largest 14 insurers had profits of roughly $9 billion; that approached 0.4 percent of total health spending of $2.472 trillion. This hardly explains high health costs. What people need to know is that Obama's plan evades health care's major problems and would worsen the budget outlook. It's a big new spending program when government hasn't paid for the spending programs it already has.
"If not now, when? If not us, who?" Obama asks. The answer is: It's not now, and it's not "us." Pass or not, Obama's proposal is the illusion of "reform," not the real thing.
What people need to know is that Obama's plan evades health care's major problems and would worsen the budget outlook.
[Ed.Note:]
There at least three other very good reasons to avoid further government in health care issues.
The government performace track record:
Financial Help Failures!
Healthcare or Insurance?
failing government programs
We don't know what this bill does!
There are 6 versions of Bill Number H.R.3590 for the 111th Congress
1 . Service Members HomeOwnership Tax Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)[H.R.3590.IH]
[PDF]
2 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
[H.R.3590.EH]
[PDF]
3 . Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)
[H.R.3590.PCS][
PDF]
4 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Amendment in Senate)
[H.R.3590.AS]
[PDF]
5 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Print)
[H.R.3590.PP][
PDF]
6 . Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate)
[H.R.3590.EAS][
PDF]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
