Why Obama Bombed on Health Care
The public wasn't dumb enough to believe
the public option would save money.
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR... WSJArticle
Someday this country will have a health-care debate that's not abject in its idiocy.
It will involve a term used by Congressional Budge Office chief Doug Elmendorf, who has become a notoriety for harping on the word "incentives." The same word was used the other day by Warren Buffett, about what's missing from the health-care plan on Capitol Hill.
We actually prefer the formulation of Duke University's Clark Havighurst, who speaks of restoring the "price tags" to health care.
Now that's a concept that the public could actually make sense of.
President Barack Obama made a "public option" his centerpiece not because it's the answer to what's broken in the U.S. system, but because it's a halfway house to a single-payer setup that liberal Democrats have always wanted. Team Obama also knew the public is concerned about rising costs, so they jammed together a hooey-filled argument that the public option was somehow the solution to rising costs.
The public is not as dumb as it's made out to be, and Mr. Obama's public option died a bipartisan death yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee. What's left is a package of "reforms" that are mere trite extensions of what we've been doing for decades. That is, piling up mandates on private insurers and then lying that this somehow isn't driving up the cost of health insurance; piling up subsidies for health consumption and then lying that this somehow isn't responsible for runaway health-care spending.
Yes, the politics are difficult when it comes to restoring price tags. Voters would have to understand how a tax code that allowed them to choose for themselves how much of their incomes to devote to health care would serve their interests.
They would have to be persuaded of the benefits of a marketplace where insurers are free to design policies to appeal to different budgets and needs.
They might have to decide for themselves whether they have better uses for their income and savings than extending life at all cost.
In that sense, the jabbering on Capitol Hill is irrelevant to the central problem, wherein consumers see larger and larger chunks of their income mysteriously and involuntarily sucked into health care for questionable benefit.
A few brave legislators, including Democrat Ron Wyden, are willing to say as much. But as Max Baucus put it in an unguarded comment to the Washington Post: "Basically the president is not helping."
Mr. Obama may be "not helping" because he doesn't understand or believe in the role of absent price tags in creating our current woes. He may genuinely favor a system in which government decides who will receive what care.
However, he's certainly also "not helping" because his base in organized labor doesn't want real reform.
Union members not only like the tax-free, open-ended health -care benefits they're used to getting. More important and often overlooked, organized labor itself is increasingly made up of health-care workers who benefit from an incentive system that artificially force-feeds great gobs of GDP into the industry's maw.
Their long retreat elsewhere in the economy may continue unabated, but unions are steadily growing their clout in government and health care, two sectors that increasingly overlap and would become even more overlapped under the bills in Congress. Consider a scheme being test-driven in Missouri, where Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon, AFSCME and SEIU last year backed a ballot proposition to create a "Missouri Quality Homecare Council."
As the A.P. matter-of-factly reported: "The ballot summary shown to voters said nothing about making it easier for in-home care providers to unionize." But that was precisely the function. Now some 13,000 home health workers hired by patients but paid for by Medicaid are on the verge of being recognized as a union.
But won't collective bargaining inevitably mean higher Medicaid costs for Missouri taxpayer? Gov. Nixon, whose campaign reportedly received $650,000 from SEIU and AFCSME, obviously has other priorities.
In Canada, where health care is largely government controlled, 61% of health-care workers are unionized. In the U.S., it's only 11%. Democrats are bent on changing that and the bills floating around Capitol Hill are rife with provisions to replicate the Missouri scheme nationally.
Mr. Obama's health-care thinking always lacked the bite of real "reform." He never claimed he was a wonk. He claimed he was a political mobilizer. He meant it.
He might have honestly sold the Democratic dream of a single-payer system, forthrightly explaining how resources would be allocated. He might have spoken of putting the price tags back on health care so consumers could decide instead. He did neither—and has botched an opportunity for real progress.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
What is the "government option" for healthcare and health insurance reform?
Ask any employer that provides their workers with health insurance what they will do if the government offers every American a "government option" for their health care.
FD: I pulled this out of the Internet as a typical GOP, non-progressive position statement against the "government opinion" position....
Whether the employees want it or not, if the feds offer every American the option of buying a health insurance policy from the federal government, employers will be immediately begin sending out notices that health care is no longer a company-provided benefit and directing their workers to the 1-800 number for the new federal plan. The boss may even include a slight pay hike with the notice as a nod to the enormous savings he or she will be achieving by off-loading the cost of employee health care, but that bump --if it comes at all-- will be a short term analgesic that will mask the onset of long-term pain. The "government option" will quickly become the single payer nightmare that is Canadian health care, and Americans will look back at the summer of 2009 and wonder when this became the American way of medicine.
This is the great head-fake of the health "reform" debate taking place behind closed doors in D.C. Veterans of the 1993 Hillarycare debate know that "single payer" scares most Americans and with good reason. The vast majority of Americans are used to picking their doctors and getting great care in relatively rapid fashion. We don't like the idea of waiting months or even years for "elective" surgeries, and we abhor the idea of having only a handful of doctors available from which to chose our provider.
If the "government option" emerges from the high-stakes negotiations under way right now, it will be the "reform" that swallows the entire system. It is no secret that large companies want to dump the responsibility for providing health insurance to their employees. The costs are high and going higher because American workers want the best health care available. Unions demand it in negotiations, and businesses competing for top drawer talent must offer health plans that appeal to the cream of the workforce, plans which are then available to all levels of the employee network.
But if the mirage of a government-backed plan suddenly appears (complete with a vast new bureaucracy to enforce the rules and calculate the discounts for those at or near the poverty line) embattled employers will see the opportunity to escape en masse from their expensive obligations to their workforce. The big insurance companies may survive a while, but competing against the government dooms most of them to an obviously uncompetitive position vis-a-vis any federal plan.
The rhetoric of "competition" that single payer fans are using to spruce up the "government option" is deeply deceptive. Many if not most private sector plans will face extinction as they are pushed into a ruinous race to the bottom of the benefits pool by employers studying the bottom line advantage of shifting health care costs to the government. Think about "competing" with Amtrak for passenger rail service and you get the picture of the future of the health care system.
Doctors will quickly have to decide whether to refuse the government plan's rate and rules. Some will, but those with the sunk costs of education and equipment purchased under the old rules will have to try the option of going off the government grid, forcing an immediate fracturing of American medicine into two systems, one for the wealthy and one for everyone else. Right now most of the waiting rooms of America's health care professionals are as diverse as the workforce that is covered by employer-provided health care. Within months of the adoption of a government option, expect many of your doctors to greet your next request for an appointment with the news that he or she isn't accepting the government option.
Beyond that immediate series of dislocations, look for a sharp decrease in the number of talented young people heading towards medical school. Of course many thousands of young doctors will pursue their dreams of being healers regardless of the economics of the out-years of their practices, but only fools will deny that thousands of other would-be doctors will simply refuse to go to work for the government, which is what the government option means for health care providers.
It keeps being repeated again and again : The country is on the verge of an enormous, culture-changing shift when it comes to the most basic of its expectations with regards to medicine, and yet this potential radical shift is almost wholly unreported on in the MSM in the sort of detail that would allow for an informed debate. Thus is the old media working hand-in-hand with the Congressional left to completely rewrite the rules of healthcare.
Democrats in the House are surely going to face retribution for their breach of faith with their constituents once they experience the reality of single-payer, but that payback is 18 months away. The "government option," by contrast, is on the fast track for passage by early autumn.
The GOP has to take up the cause of patient choice and genuine reform, and it has to do so soon.
But you have to ask the question again:
Why do employers WANT TO GET OUT OF THE HEALTHCARE BUSINESS?
An estimated 47 million Americans have no health insurance, and those who are covered face spiraling costs. Employers can not afford to provide healthcare for employees as the cost rise.
At Tampa's Moffitt Cancer Center, McCain praised the doctors and researchers, saying they're a reminder of all that's good in American health care. The challenge, he noted, is making that kind of life-saving care available to all Americans, no matter where they work or how much money they have.
"We want a system of health care in which everyone can afford and acquire the treatment and preventative care they need, and the peace of mind that comes with knowing they are covered," the Arizona senator said.
"Rising health care costs hurt employers and the self-employed alike. And in the end, they threaten serious and lasting harm to the entire American economy," McCain said.
McCain differs sharply from Democratic rival Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on how to fix the problem. He criticized them for pushing a combination of tax subsidies and regulation in an effort to provide universal health care coverage.
"We will replace the inefficiency, irrationality and uncontrolled costs of the current system with the inefficiency, irrationality and uncontrolled costs of a government monopoly," McCain said.
FD: I pulled this out of the Internet as a typical GOP, non-progressive position statement against the "government opinion" position....
Whether the employees want it or not, if the feds offer every American the option of buying a health insurance policy from the federal government, employers will be immediately begin sending out notices that health care is no longer a company-provided benefit and directing their workers to the 1-800 number for the new federal plan. The boss may even include a slight pay hike with the notice as a nod to the enormous savings he or she will be achieving by off-loading the cost of employee health care, but that bump --if it comes at all-- will be a short term analgesic that will mask the onset of long-term pain. The "government option" will quickly become the single payer nightmare that is Canadian health care, and Americans will look back at the summer of 2009 and wonder when this became the American way of medicine.
This is the great head-fake of the health "reform" debate taking place behind closed doors in D.C. Veterans of the 1993 Hillarycare debate know that "single payer" scares most Americans and with good reason. The vast majority of Americans are used to picking their doctors and getting great care in relatively rapid fashion. We don't like the idea of waiting months or even years for "elective" surgeries, and we abhor the idea of having only a handful of doctors available from which to chose our provider.
If the "government option" emerges from the high-stakes negotiations under way right now, it will be the "reform" that swallows the entire system. It is no secret that large companies want to dump the responsibility for providing health insurance to their employees. The costs are high and going higher because American workers want the best health care available. Unions demand it in negotiations, and businesses competing for top drawer talent must offer health plans that appeal to the cream of the workforce, plans which are then available to all levels of the employee network.
But if the mirage of a government-backed plan suddenly appears (complete with a vast new bureaucracy to enforce the rules and calculate the discounts for those at or near the poverty line) embattled employers will see the opportunity to escape en masse from their expensive obligations to their workforce. The big insurance companies may survive a while, but competing against the government dooms most of them to an obviously uncompetitive position vis-a-vis any federal plan.
The rhetoric of "competition" that single payer fans are using to spruce up the "government option" is deeply deceptive. Many if not most private sector plans will face extinction as they are pushed into a ruinous race to the bottom of the benefits pool by employers studying the bottom line advantage of shifting health care costs to the government. Think about "competing" with Amtrak for passenger rail service and you get the picture of the future of the health care system.
Doctors will quickly have to decide whether to refuse the government plan's rate and rules. Some will, but those with the sunk costs of education and equipment purchased under the old rules will have to try the option of going off the government grid, forcing an immediate fracturing of American medicine into two systems, one for the wealthy and one for everyone else. Right now most of the waiting rooms of America's health care professionals are as diverse as the workforce that is covered by employer-provided health care. Within months of the adoption of a government option, expect many of your doctors to greet your next request for an appointment with the news that he or she isn't accepting the government option.
Beyond that immediate series of dislocations, look for a sharp decrease in the number of talented young people heading towards medical school. Of course many thousands of young doctors will pursue their dreams of being healers regardless of the economics of the out-years of their practices, but only fools will deny that thousands of other would-be doctors will simply refuse to go to work for the government, which is what the government option means for health care providers.
It keeps being repeated again and again : The country is on the verge of an enormous, culture-changing shift when it comes to the most basic of its expectations with regards to medicine, and yet this potential radical shift is almost wholly unreported on in the MSM in the sort of detail that would allow for an informed debate. Thus is the old media working hand-in-hand with the Congressional left to completely rewrite the rules of healthcare.
Democrats in the House are surely going to face retribution for their breach of faith with their constituents once they experience the reality of single-payer, but that payback is 18 months away. The "government option," by contrast, is on the fast track for passage by early autumn.
The GOP has to take up the cause of patient choice and genuine reform, and it has to do so soon.
But you have to ask the question again:
Why do employers WANT TO GET OUT OF THE HEALTHCARE BUSINESS?
An estimated 47 million Americans have no health insurance, and those who are covered face spiraling costs. Employers can not afford to provide healthcare for employees as the cost rise.
At Tampa's Moffitt Cancer Center, McCain praised the doctors and researchers, saying they're a reminder of all that's good in American health care. The challenge, he noted, is making that kind of life-saving care available to all Americans, no matter where they work or how much money they have.
"We want a system of health care in which everyone can afford and acquire the treatment and preventative care they need, and the peace of mind that comes with knowing they are covered," the Arizona senator said.
"Rising health care costs hurt employers and the self-employed alike. And in the end, they threaten serious and lasting harm to the entire American economy," McCain said.
McCain differs sharply from Democratic rival Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on how to fix the problem. He criticized them for pushing a combination of tax subsidies and regulation in an effort to provide universal health care coverage.
"We will replace the inefficiency, irrationality and uncontrolled costs of the current system with the inefficiency, irrationality and uncontrolled costs of a government monopoly," McCain said.
the art of creating a paper butterfly to feed the paper mantis
Origami master Sipho Mabona and the art creating a paper butterfly Mail Online: "At first glance it looks like a praying mantis. However closer exmination reveals it to be a work of origami and only the leaf and stem are real"
Monday, September 28, 2009
After almost a year, ammo shortage starting to ease in Dallas-Fort Worth | Fort Worth | Star-Te...
Left to right are: .22, .25, .32, .380, 9mm, .357 SIG, .38, .357, .40, .45, & .223 caliber rounds.
Copied from:
http://www.ballistics-experts.com/Law%20Enforcement/Ammunition/Caliber%20Selection.htm
After almost a year, ammo shortage starting to ease in Dallas-Fort Worth Fort Worth Star-Te...: "David Foster of Bedford has had a hard time all year finding ammunition for his guns.
After finding mostly empty shelves at gun stores, he finally went to a gun show a few months ago to stock up.
'I couldn’t find it anywhere except the gun show, and even there I had a hard time,' said Foster, 31. 'And it cost a lot.'
But workers in the weapons industry point to signs that a nearly yearlong nationwide ammunition shortage may be winding down. More ammo is making it to store shelves now, and the price is slowly coming down.
'We’re seeing the light at the end of the tunnel,' said DeWayne Irwin, owner of Cheaper Than Dirt, a Fort Worth store and online retailer. 'I’ve been doing this business since 1988, and I’ve never seen something like this happen with ammunition. But it’s not going to be like this forever.'"
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Fried butter a hit at State Fair of Texas... future cardiac patients at the Fair this week.
Go for the churn: Fried butter a hit at State Fair of Texa News for Dallas, Texas Dallas Morning News Breaking News for Dallas-Fort Worth Dallas Morning News: "Indeed, butter makes everything better.
Robin Lacy (left) and Nicole Whittington were among the first to sample Abel Gonzales Jr.'s Deep Fried Butter on Friday, the opening day of the 2009 State Fair of Texas. That was the consensus Friday at the State Fair of Texas, as scores of fairgoers eagerly devoured Deep Fried Butter, the new food generating globs of buzz across the country.
Shortly before 10 a.m., as the fair began its 24-day run, LuAnn Bergman of Dallas was the first customer to Butter up. She bit into a crispy, golden ball of garlic-flavored butter goodness."
Robin Lacy (left) and Nicole Whittington were among the first to sample Abel Gonzales Jr.'s Deep Fried Butter on Friday, the opening day of the 2009 State Fair of Texas. That was the consensus Friday at the State Fair of Texas, as scores of fairgoers eagerly devoured Deep Fried Butter, the new food generating globs of buzz across the country.
Shortly before 10 a.m., as the fair began its 24-day run, LuAnn Bergman of Dallas was the first customer to Butter up. She bit into a crispy, golden ball of garlic-flavored butter goodness."
Thursday, September 24, 2009
40 year old Black Pacu in Queens, New York.... I always thought they look a lot like piranha.
Big fish eat little fish," says the wisdom of the city. Meet Buttkiss, the black pacu who has eaten more than 175,000 fish during his residence in Queens. “We feed him twenty-five goldfish every other day,” says Steve Gruebel, the owner of Cameo Pet Shop in Richmond Hill. You do the math. He’s been in the shop continuously since 1970, becoming a Richmond Hill landmark in that time.
Why hasn’t he been sold already? “We actually sold him in 1968 to a Holocaust survivor named Kurt Emerick. The fish was about two inches long at that time. But he got so big he was knocking things over in Kurt’s fishtank. Kurt didn’t like that. He was a perfectionist. So he brought him back here in a bucket. Later Kurt got hit by a bus on Metropolitan Avenue and died. But the fish is still here. I had just gotten back from Nam and I decided to keep him.”
The fish has some personality too. Named after the famed linebacker Dick Butkus (though Steve corrected my spelling to "Buttkiss"), he will come to Steve's hand because he knows that's where the food comes from. “You can see the marks on the top of his head. He’ll bang on the top of the tank when he’s hungry.” Pacus are in the piranha family. The New York Aquarium did not get back to us when we asked whether or not the fish could possibly be that old, but residents of Richmond Hill swear the fish has been there the whole time, in the same 75-gallon tank. When I walked around the block to go to the (excellent) Alfie’s Pizzeria, Louie, Alfie’s son, said, “That fish! That fuckin’ fish! Is that fuckin’ fish unbelievable or what? When we’re all dead and gone that fish will still be there.”
Sunday, September 20, 2009
I got this in the mailbox and realized that lots of my family and friends use this technology...
This gives us something to think about with all our new electronic technology.
GPS
A couple of weeks ago a friend told me that someone she knew had
their car broken into while they were at a football game. Their car was
parked on the green which was adjacent to the football stadium and
specially allotted to football fans. Things stolen from the car included
a garage door remote control, some money and a GPS which had been
prominently mounted on the dashboard.
When the victims got home, they found that their house had been
ransacked and just about everything worth anything had been stolen.
The thieves had used the GPS to guide them to the house. They then
used the garage remote control to open the garage door and gain
entry to the house. The thieves knew the owners were at the football
game, they knew what time the game was scheduled to finish and so
they knew how much time they had to clean out the house.. It would
appear that they had brought a truck to empty the house of its contents.
Something to consider if you have a GPS - don't put your home
address in it. Put a nearby address (like a store or gas station) so you
can still find your way home if you need to, but no one else would know
where you live if your GPS were stolen.
MOBILE PHONES
I never thought of this.......
This lady has now changed her habit of how she lists her names on
her mobile phone after her handbag was stolen. Her handbag, which
contained her cell phone, credit card, wallet... Etc...was stolen.
20 minutes later when she called her hubby, from a pay phone telling
him what had happened, hubby says 'I received your text asking
about our Pin number and I've replied a little while ago.'
When they rushed down to the bank, the bank staff told them all the
money was already withdrawn. The thief had actually used the stolen
cell phone to text 'hubby' in the contact list and got hold of the pin
number. Within 20 minutes he had withdrawn all the money from their
bank account.
Moral of the lesson
Do not disclose the relationship between you and the people in
your contact list.
Avoid using names like Home, Honey, Hubby, Sweetheart, Dad,
Mom, etc....
And very importantly, when sensitive info is being asked through texts,
CONFIRM by calling back.
Also, when you're being text by friends or family to meet them
somewhere, be sure to call back to confirm that the message came
from them.
If you don't reach them, be very careful about going places
to meet 'family and friends' who text you.
GPS
A couple of weeks ago a friend told me that someone she knew had
their car broken into while they were at a football game. Their car was
parked on the green which was adjacent to the football stadium and
specially allotted to football fans. Things stolen from the car included
a garage door remote control, some money and a GPS which had been
prominently mounted on the dashboard.
When the victims got home, they found that their house had been
ransacked and just about everything worth anything had been stolen.
The thieves had used the GPS to guide them to the house. They then
used the garage remote control to open the garage door and gain
entry to the house. The thieves knew the owners were at the football
game, they knew what time the game was scheduled to finish and so
they knew how much time they had to clean out the house.. It would
appear that they had brought a truck to empty the house of its contents.
Something to consider if you have a GPS - don't put your home
address in it. Put a nearby address (like a store or gas station) so you
can still find your way home if you need to, but no one else would know
where you live if your GPS were stolen.
MOBILE PHONES
I never thought of this.......
This lady has now changed her habit of how she lists her names on
her mobile phone after her handbag was stolen. Her handbag, which
contained her cell phone, credit card, wallet... Etc...was stolen.
20 minutes later when she called her hubby, from a pay phone telling
him what had happened, hubby says 'I received your text asking
about our Pin number and I've replied a little while ago.'
When they rushed down to the bank, the bank staff told them all the
money was already withdrawn. The thief had actually used the stolen
cell phone to text 'hubby' in the contact list and got hold of the pin
number. Within 20 minutes he had withdrawn all the money from their
bank account.
Moral of the lesson
Do not disclose the relationship between you and the people in
your contact list.
Avoid using names like Home, Honey, Hubby, Sweetheart, Dad,
Mom, etc....
And very importantly, when sensitive info is being asked through texts,
CONFIRM by calling back.
Also, when you're being text by friends or family to meet them
somewhere, be sure to call back to confirm that the message came
from them.
If you don't reach them, be very careful about going places
to meet 'family and friends' who text you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)